178 cause of germanicus’ death doubtful.
inclined to believe, that Iiis death was a natural one; for the
statements brought forward against Piso refer to sorcery rather
than to poison ; of the former there seem to have been proofs,
and superstition was then very prevalent1, and a person who
could resort to sorcery, would not be likely to attempt poison.
Lichtenberg says somewhere, “ When people cease to believe
in God, they believe in ghosts.” It is not indeed incredible
that Piso may have attempted to murder Germanicus; but his
conduct towards him under a prince like Tiberius is to me
unaccountable and a perfect mystery. He was insolent indeed
towards Germanicus, and must have believed that such be-
haviour Wouldplease Tiberius; but how could he mistake the
character of Tiberius so much as not to see that Tiberius would
sacrifice him, if the matter should ever come to be discussed?
Even if the emperor had in his heart approved of the crime,
yet he would have been obliged publicly to punish the criminal.
In the time of Tacitus, these occurrences were already too
remote, the most different reports were current about them,
and the historian does not express himself decisively upon the
point.2 The crime of poisoning Germanicus might have been
overlooked by Tiberius, but Piso’s insulting and publicly
reviling that prince was of itself a violation of the majestas, as
Germanicus was the adopted son of Tiberius. But the most
surprising thing was yet to come. When 'Germanicus was
sent as Piso’s successor, Piso, instead of at once giving up to
him his province of Syria, refused to quit it, opposed the com-
mands of Tiberius, and collected troops with the intention of
marching to Rome. This is to me the most mysterious pheno-
* See Tacitus, Annal. ii. 69, foil. ; DionCassiusjIvii. 18; Sueton. Calig. I, foil.
2 In the course of the eighteenth century wo meet with two similar cases of
suspected poison in the royal family of France. If we read the descriptions of
the corpses, the crime seems very probable ; but other circumstances are against
it, and the truth has never been ascertained to this day. The one case is that
of the Duke of Orleans, who is generally thought to have been incapable of such
a crime, because, with all his vices, he possessed a certain frankness and straight-
forwardness ; but I cannot say this of the detestable pel sons by whom he was
SUiTounded. The second case is that of the Duke de Choiseul, who was charged
with having poisoned the Dauphin, the son of Louis XV. The prince was a
very pious and devout person: Choiseul, on the other hand, was a fιivolous
freethinker, and knew that he was hated by the Dauphin. It is therefore said
that he wanted to get rid of the prince, that he might not prevent the abolition
ofthe order of the Jesuits, and that after the demise of Louis XV. Choiseul
might be sure of his post.—N.
the crimen Majestatis.
179
menon in all Roman history, and is one of the instances in
which secret intrigues, and the obscurity which hangs over the
occurrences of a reigning family, defy all attempts at clearing
them up. Piso and his wife Munatia Plancina, a daughter of
the orator Munatius Plancus, were condemned, but they
carried their secret with them to the grave. There were sus-
picions that Livia herself had given Piso secret instructions to
poison Germanicus, as she had little to fear from the anger of
Tiberius, and was wicked enough not to spare even her own
grandson; but this was probably no more than a conjecture.
The death of Piso was soon followed by the prosecutions
for the crimen majestatis, that is, quite indefinable accusations
against which no one could protect himself. Charges of this
kind had occurred very seldom during the time of the republic ;
but even then had the most different meanings, and were
properly speaking applicable to every thing. The prosecution
was mostly directed against persons who, by their personal
fault, had brought misfortunes upon the state. In the reign
of Augustus, any offence against the person of the impcrator
had by some law with which we are not further acquainted,
been made a crimen majestatis, as though it had been committed
against the republic itself. This crimen in its undefined
character was a fearful thing; for hundreds of offences might
be made to come within the reach of the law concerning it.
All these deplorable cases were tried by the senate, which
formed a sort of condemning machine set in motion by the
tyrant, just like the national convention under Robespierre.
Many things were treated as a crimen majestatis, which had
in reality nothing to do with it. Persons who dishonoured
members of the emperor’s family, for example, or those who
committed adultery with the imperial princesses, were guilty
of the crimen majestatis. In the early part of Tiberius’ reign,
these prosecutions occurred very rarely; but there gradually
arose a numerous class of denouncers {delator es), who made it
their business to bring to trial any one whom the emperor
disliked. Tiberius himself acted the part of a neutral person
in these proceedings; but the senate got by degrees into the
fearful habit of condemning every one that was brought to
trial, and of looking to nothing but the pleasure of the
emperor. Such things, as I said before, did not often happen
during the first nine years of the reign of Tiberius, and the
n2