Suetonius supports his argument that the Emperor Tiberius possessed a savage nature with numerous examples drawn from throughout his life from boyhood to death (Tib. 57–62).Footnote ¹ He proceeds through these examples in broad chronological order, starting with a teacher’s unflattering characterization of the young Tiberius (57.1) before next describing his execution in a.d. 15 of a commoner who had joked about Tiberius’ failure to pay to the people the money left to them by Augustus in his will (57.2).Footnote ² He then describes Tiberius’ infliction of the death penalty in cases where the accused was convicted of insulting the memory of Augustus, even in the most trivial way (58).Footnote ³ Next, he quotes a series of anonymous verses that had been circulated against Tiberius, presumably in Rome, where these had chiefly criticized him for his cruelty (59). He follows this with a description of three incidents involving the punishment of men who had come into close personal contact with Tiberius after his retirement to the island of Capri in a.d. 27 (60). Finally, he launches into a protracted description of Tiberius’ various cruelties with a strong focus on his punishment of anyone associated with his former praetorian prefect Sejanus executed in a.d. 31 (61–2).

The purpose of this article is to re-examine the significance of one of the more puzzling of these many examples used to prove the savagery of Tiberius, namely his strange punishment of a local fisherman who had intruded upon him shortly after his arrival upon Capri. Suetonius, who is the only source for this incident, describes it as follows (Tib. 60):

This is the first of three incidents describing the punishment of three non-senatorial men who had come into close personal contact with Tiberius on Capri apparently, where the second describes Tiberius’ execution of a member of the praetorian guard who had stolen a peacock from his garden and the third his sentencing of a centurion from the guard to be beaten almost to death because he had allowed Tiberius’ litter to become blocked by some thorn bushes. A key difference between the first incident and the other two incidents is that the latter involve the punishment of members of the praetorian guard, while the first involves the punishment of a fisherman, presumably by a member of the praetorian guard who happened to be in attendance upon Tiberius when the fisherman intruded upon him. However, the fisherman was not the only person at fault in the first incident, and Tiberius was probably as angry with the member of the praetorian guard who had failed to maintain a proper watch on the area through which the fisherman had reached him as he was with the centurion who had failed to plot a proper path for his litter. This raises the possibility that Suetonius, or his source, has changed the focus of an account that had originally focussed on the punishment of the praetorian soldier whose failure had allowed the fisherman to approach Tiberius rather than on the punishment of the fisherman himself. It is possible, therefore, that the descriptions of all three incidents derive from the same ultimate source that, for whatever purpose, had emphasized Tiberius’ mistreatment of his praetorian guard. Against this, one notes that Champlin has drawn attention to parallels in subject matter and structure between the story of Tiberius’ punishment of the fisherman and various folktales from across the world to argue that this account can be dismissed as a folktale.Footnote ⁵ Yet these alleged parallels in subject matter and structure are so vague, little more than that a poor man is severely disappointed after giving a rich and powerful man a gift in expectation of receiving a far greater gift in return, a set of circumstances that was probably not uncommon in most pre-modern societies, that one needs to be wary of dismissing the historicity of Suetonius’ story on such weak grounds.

As one reads Suetonius’ account of the punishment of the fisherman, several questions spring to mind. One obvious question concerns the nature and strength of Tiberius’ emotional response to the sudden intrusion by this fisherman. Suetonius claims that Tiberius was ‘terrified’ (territus), but his description of why he was terrified, because a man had crawled up to him through an area that had been thought unpassable, does not make sense unless this man had also posed an immediate physical danger to him.Footnote ⁶ The mere fact that someone had approached him through what was supposed to be an impassable area, a steep cliff face presumably, may have been worrying or irritating, but it was hardly terrifying. As for the fisherman, there is no suggestion that he was armed in any way or harboured the slightest hostility towards the emperor. There was nothing suspicious about his motives either, since he was clearly hoping for a rich reward for bringing the emperor a large specimen of a highly prized fish.Footnote ⁷ Furthermore, even when his face was being scrubbed with this fish, he made a joke of the situation rather than indulge in any abuse of Tiberius. Hence the fisherman was not obviously terrifying either. At most, he was a distraction or a cause of embarrassment, depending upon what exactly Tiberius had been doing when he had attempted to approach him, but not a threat.Footnote ⁸

It may be useful at this point to consider when else Suetonius describes Tiberius as ‘terrified’ (territus) and whether there were any common factors at play between these incidents. Suetonius describes Tiberius as terrified (territus) on two other occasions. In a section describing how fearful Tiberius could sometimes be, Suetonius claims that he was terrified by the power of the Praenestine lots (Tib. 63.1 maiestate Praenestinarum sortium territus) which mysteriously disappeared from their casket when he tried to transfer them to Rome.Footnote ⁹ On another occasion, during an approach to Rome in a.d. 36, Tiberius was allegedly terrified by a portent (72.1 ostento territus), namely the fact that some ants had apparently killed a pet snake that he used to feed by hand, and had decided, therefore, not to enter the city after all.Footnote ¹⁰ These parallels suggest that, if Suetonius is correct and Tiberius really had been terrified by the sudden intrusion of the fisherman into his privacy, he probably thought that there was a supernatural or ominous dimension to this incident.

A second question concerns the strange way in which Tiberius had the fisherman punished. This was a unique, ingenious form of punishment. Certainly, Tiberius could be imaginative at times in the invention of new forms of punishment, since Suetonius (Tib. 62.2) reports that he sometimes tricked men into drinking large amounts of wine but then tied their penises to prevent them from urinating.Footnote ¹¹ The obvious punishment in this case would have been to have the fisherman thrown from the cliff, as Tiberius apparently did in some other cases (62.2). Yet he may not have wanted to inflict the death penalty in this case, although he was not normally noted for his mercy. Still, if he had wanted to be merciful, he could have sentenced the fisherman to a severe beating instead, as he did in the case of the centurion who mistakenly guided his litter into some thorn bushes. The decision to focus the punishment of the fisherman upon his face alone is puzzling enough, but the decision to inflict this punishment by means of the surmullet first, then the lobster, is even more so. If the intention had been simply to inflict the maximum damage upon the face, then a few heavy punches in the face ought to have done the job far more effectively, or a few blows to the face from the flat of a sword or butt of a spear. Rubbing the man’s face with a fish or lobster inflicted relatively superficial injuries only. Yes, it would have been very painful, perhaps even scarring, but it did not necessarily inflict more serious damage in the manner of a badly broken nose, missing teeth, or even a blinded eye. So, why did this fisherman get off so lightly?

Ash has recently suggested a new solution to the problem posed by the strange method of punishment inflicted upon the fisherman. She draws attention to the fact that, when the verb perfrico is combined with the nouns facies or os, literally meaning ‘to rub one’s face’, it could also mean ‘to show impudence’.Footnote ¹² Accordingly, as she puts it, ‘the unusual initial punishment may be intended to demonstrate that the fisherman has “shown impudence” by surprising the emperor, as the figurative expression perfrico faciem (“I show impudence”) is given a literal twist’. While this may be true, it does not necessarily explain all that is going on here. In particular, it does not explain why Tiberius had the man’s face rubbed with a fish. That was not the most obvious choice of method if the intention was solely to rub the face. If one may assume that a member of the emperor’s guard was ordered to carry out this punishment, he could have rubbed the man’s face with anything else at hand instead, some item of the man’s clothing, a handful of local vegetation, or some stones or soil, and that would still have achieved the key effect, the rubbing, or even some physical damage to the face, if that were also deemed necessary. It is also difficult to believe that, if Tiberius’ actions had really concealed the sort of witty wordplay that Ash argues, he would not have emphasized this fact more in his words at the time, so that these were duly recorded as another example of his cruel wit.Footnote ¹³ As his joke about turning a certain Pompeius into a Pompeian, made in the Senate, suggests (Tib. 57.2), Tiberius liked to verbalize his jokes to an appropriate audience. In this case, however, there is no evidence that he was escorted by anyone except, one assumes, members of his guard.

I would like to rethink the significance of this event, starting by re-examining the potential symbolism of the object that was central to it, the surmullet (also known as the red mullet to distinguish it from the grey mullet belonging to an entirely different family of fish). The Romans used the term mullus to designate what are now recognized as two distinct species of fish, the plain surmullet (mullus barbatus) and the striped surmullet (mullus surmuletus).Footnote ¹⁴ The striped surmullet displays longitudinal red and brown stripes against a silver background, while the plain surmullet displays only irregular red patches against a silver background. Of most relevance here, as will become clearer next, is the fact that the Romans believed that the colours of the surmullet became even more variegated as it died. Writing in c. a.d. 62, Seneca quotes an imaginary interlocutor admitting this, before he then proceeds to attack his love of luxury (QNat. 3.18):

Writing shortly later, Pliny the Elder repeats the same belief (HN 9.66). This belief that the colours of the surmullet became even more variegated just before its death is relevant here because of the nature of one of the health problems suffered by Tiberius during his initial period on Capri at least. Suetonius records that Tiberius was of fair complexion but could sometimes suffer from bad outbreaks of tumores ‘swellings’, probably best translated as pimples in this case (Tib. 68.2):

Although Suetonius does not clarify when Tiberius suffered most with this facial problem, the evidence of Tacitus suggests that it, or a similar problem, was particularly bad at about the time when he first arrived on Capri. For he reports that some of his sources even believed that Tiberius had retired to Capri because of shame at his ugly appearance, including an ulcerated face (Ann. 4.57.2):

The evidence suggests, therefore, that Tiberius may have suffered from some sort of severe facial problem at precisely the time when the fisherman had intruded upon him on Capri.

Whatever the exact cause of Tiberius’ facial problem, it would probably have left him with red patches of inflamed or irritated skin against the pale background of his naturally fair skin.Footnote ¹⁹ In other words, his facial appearance would have resembled the general appearance of the plain surmullet, including its face, with its red patches against a silver background. Of course, the dead surmullet retained the same markings that it had exhibited until its death throes. So, a fisherman surprised Tiberius to present him with a fish whose blotchy appearance immediately reminded him of his own facial disfigurement. That alone might have been enough to humiliate and anger an increasingly suspicious emperor prone to suspect insult where none was in fact intended. It might well explain also why he ordered the fisherman’s face to be rubbed, to make it look as swollen and disfigured as his own. However, if there is any truth to the claim that Tiberius was ‘terrified’ (territus) rather than, say, merely angered or embarrassed, then some other factor was probably at play here also besides a perceived insult to the imperial dignity, something adding a supernatural or ominous dimension to this incident, as noted above.

It is well known that Tiberius strongly believed that divine signs did indeed indicate what might happen if no action were taken. He was particularly devoted to astrology, and was regarded as something of an expert in this field, although he was also heavily influenced by the opinions of his personal astrologer Thrasyllus.Footnote ²⁰ He also believed that he was capable of reading dreams, and so once executed a man whom he believed to have used magic to insert himself into his dreams (Cass. Dio 57.15.7). Like most Romans, he seems also to have been ready to detect an omen in any sudden or unexpected event, as when, as noted previously, he interpreted the apparent killing of his pet snake by ants as a sign to beware of the power of the multitude and cancelled his intended entry to Rome for this reason.Footnote ²¹ It is possible, therefore, that he interpreted the unexpected intrusion upon him of a fisherman with the gift of a surmullet as an omen.Footnote ²² But was it a good omen or a bad omen? The fact that the colours of a surmullet were believed to become even more variegated as it died and that his skin problem was getting worse at the time, so that his face probably looked red and blotchy also, provided an obvious point of comparison between himself and the surmullet and may have encouraged Tiberius to see in the dead surmullet an omen of his own death and to think that the worsening of his skin condition would precede his death in the same way that the colours of a surmullet became more variegated and vivid before its death also. That would explain why his prime reaction seems to have been one of terror rather than of anger. It would also explain why he ordered the fisherman’s face to be scrubbed. That may have been an attempt to transfer the force of the omen from himself to the fisherman by rendering the fisherman’s face as red and blotchy as his own face and the appearance of a surmullet also. Furthermore, the use of the surmullet itself to scrub the face of the fisherman may have been intended to reify the desired transfer of the force of the omen from Tiberius to the fisherman. This behaviour would have been consistent with the general Roman belief that omens could be manipulated in this way.Footnote ²³ As to why Tiberius then ordered the man’s face to be scrubbed with the lobster also, that may have had nothing to do with the omen but may reveal rather Tiberius’ cruelty, unless he felt that rubbing the man’s face with the surmullet was not actually achieving the desired reddening effect. Tiberius may simply have been angered by the man’s joking response to having his face rubbed by a surmullet and have decided to inflict a more severe punishment upon him once he felt that the use of the surmullet had achieved as much as could be done to divert the force of the omen away from himself and onto the man. Finally, the reason that Tiberius did not immediately kill the fisherman may be that he was afraid that this would leave him as the main potential victim of the apparent omen. Therefore, he decided to spare the fisherman to allow the apparent omen to be fulfilled upon him instead.

In conclusion, Tiberius reacted as badly as he did to the unexpected intrusion upon him of a fisherman with the gift of a surmullet because he regarded this event as a bad omen, as a potential sign that his death was near at hand. The main reason why Suetonius, or his source rather, did not record that this event was an omen is that Tiberius did not reveal at the time that this was how he saw this event. This was entirely consistent with his sense of privacy as, for example, when he thwarted the effort of the doctor Charicles to take his pulse shortly before he died (Tib. 72.3). Indeed, it was consistent with the dissimulation that he had displayed throughout his reign.Footnote ²⁴ Next, one needs to realize that many ominous events were only recognized as such in hindsight when the outcomes they may potentially have predicted had in fact occurred. In this case, however, the outcome feared by Tiberius, his death, did not occur until about ten years after the apparent omen, late enough that there was no obvious reason to connect the two events subsequently. The result was that even someone as interested in such phenomena as Suetonius did not recognize the gift of the surmullet to Tiberius as an omen. Nevertheless, the apparently bizarre nature of Tiberius’ reaction to the well-intentioned gift of a local fisherman meant that this event was recorded for posterity, even if it were not properly understood by those who had witnessed it and were presumably eventually responsible for the transmission of this tale. As far as Tiberius was concerned, his chance meeting with this fisherman had probably seemed comparable to Augustus’ chance meeting with an ass-driver shortly before the battle of Actium.Footnote ²⁵ The difference was that the fisherman’s gift had portended death, while the names of the ass-driver (Eutychus) and his ass (Nicon) had portended victory. The result was that Tiberius had been forced to take decisive action, successfully so as he presumably thought afterwards, to divert the omen to another, but that Augustus had needed to take no such action in his case.