Actually, it is about Antistius! You have the historical entities and the sequence of events exactly right, but the phrasing you are thinking of stems from a subtle point in the Latin legal testimony. [1, 2]

In Annals 14.48, the praetor Antistius Sosianus was accused of high treason (maiestas) for writing and reciting defamatory verses about Emperor Nero. The recitation took place at a large dinner party hosted by Marcus Ostorius Scapula. [1, 2, 3]

The Accusation and the Testimony

When the trial took place, the notorious informer Cossutianus Capito pushed for a execution. Ostorius Scapula was called to the stand as the primary witness because the crime happened under his roof. [1, 2, 3]

• What Ostorius did: He refused to validate or support the prosecutor's claims.
• The Latin Text: Tacitus writes: “Ostorius nihil se audisse testatus est...”
• The English Translation: "Although Ostorius stated in evidence that he had heard nothing, the witnesses on the other side were credited..." [1, 2, 3, 4]

By swearing that he "heard nothing," Ostorius refused to support the accusation against Antistius. He was attempting to protect his guest and avoid becoming a tool for Nero's regime. [1, 2, 3]

The Deadly Aftermath

While Ostorius successfully avoided backing the charge in AD 62, it ultimately cost him his life. Three years later (AD 66), Antistius Sosianus—who had merely been exiled rather than executed—decided to become an informer himself to win back Nero's favor. [1, 2, 3]

Antistius turned on his former protector and falsely accused Ostorius Scapula of plotting a revolution. Nero eagerly believed the charge, and Ostorius was forced to commit suicide on his remote estate. [1, 2, 3]

If you are looking at a specific assignment or translation passage, let me know:

• The exact Latin phrase or chapter number you are reviewing.
• Whether you are focusing on the AD 62 trial or the AD 66 betrayal.

I can break down the exact Latin grammar for you!