The identity of my senator is important in understanding his stance on the attitudes concerning Tiberius held by the general public, and to this end I have decided to present him under the name of (insert name here ). This choice reflects his obviously patrician status, with his personal name being accompanied by the name of his voting “tribe” and the familial cognomen (Bradley 1990, ). My senator is intended to be part of a noble patrician family, hence the choice of “(name)”. In Roman literature, this family appear prominently, further enhancing this idea. Similarly, the choice of name for my senator’s bride is also important, signifying a comparable relationship in terms of bloodline. The Claudian gens extends back throughout Roman history, and the portrayal of Claudia as Tiberius’ cousin further emphasises this inherent nobility (Grant, M 1996, 88). Passing reference is made to Caligula as Gaius; this is due to the fact that among the senatorial class and patricians, the formal praenomen would have been used instead of a colloquial moniker such as Caligula. The quote used at the beginning of my empathetic response gives the words of Cicero, whose prominence in the Augustan era of Rome is without question. To this end, Cicero was known during his life as Pater Patriae (Father of the Country), a title that Augustus later inherited (Bradley 1990, ) . The inclusion of this quote emphasises the importance of liberty in the Roman world, and the value that was placed on it by the most prominent among Rome’s citizens. This quote is given in Latin, and then translated to, in the context of the work, Greek, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the original quote’s meaning is shown properly in …show more content…
My senator’s military role is a legitimate example of the cursus honorum that functioned in Roman society in that before a patrician man could hold a magisterial office, id est, becoming a member of the senatorial class, he had to serve in a military capacity for the state (Lendering 2002). During this period of service, my senator would have had to have served under a more senior commander, and Tiberius would have served in this capacity. Upon return from the mandatory military service, a member of the senatorial class would serve in various magisterial roles, as a quaestor around the age of 30, as an aedile at 37, a praetor at 40, and then as a consul at the age of at least 43 (Lendering 2002). The consular position itself, while seen as the pinnacle of a Roman senator’s career, was coloured by whether it was during the first or latter half of the year, and this is presented in this way to emphasise the prestige associated with the position. The final part of my response includes reference and quotations to the mannerisms of Tiberius in his ways of speaking and deliberation. These provide anecdotal evidence of my senator’s experience, in direct reference to the well recorded truth from many historical accounts, in particular those of Tacitus in his The Annals of Imperial Rome, c.100AD. Thus, the story of Tiberius initially refusing the principate of Augustus is used as a first-hand account, alongside the presentation of what appears to be contemporary gossip, but is in actuality steeped in a historical, factual