In Tacitus' Annals, Book VI, Chapter 4, the Roman historian describes a specific Senate debate under the reign of Emperor Tiberius. Sanquinius Maximus, an ex-consul (consularibus), intervenes during a fierce political dispute between other senators to prevent them from escalating their grievances to the emperor. [1, 2, 3]

The Latin Text

The original Latin passage from The Latin Library reads:

"Vrgente Agrippa Sanquinius Maximus e consularibus oravit senatum ne curas imperatoris conquisitis insuper acerbitatibus augerent: sufficere ipsum statuendis remediis. sic Regulo salus et Trioni dilatio exitii quaesita." [1]

The English Translation

The standard English translation of this passage, as archived on Wikisource, reads:

"When Agrippa still persisted, Sanquinius Maximus, one of the ex-consuls, implored the Senate not to increase the emperor's anxieties by seeking further occasions of bitterness, as he was himself competent to provide remedies. This secured the safety of Regulus and the postponement of Trio's ruin." [1]

Context of the Passage

• The Conflict: Two rival senators, Fulcinius Trio and Publius Regulus, were aggressively attacking one another in the Senate following the fall of the infamous praetorian prefect Sejanus. Another senator, Haterius Agrippa, kept pushing the issue, trying to force the Senate to take action against them. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• The Intervention: Sanquinius Maximus stepped in to shut down the argument. He argued that Emperor Tiberius already had enough on his mind and did not need additional political squabbles brought to his attention. [1, 3, 4]
• The Result: His motion was successful. By shutting down the debate, Sanquinius effectively saved Regulus from prosecution and temporarily delayed the eventual downfall of Trio. [, 2, 3]

If you want, I can provide:

• The wider context of what happened to Fulcinius Trio and Regulus after this event.
• A grammatical breakdown of specific Latin phrases within this passage.
• More details on the political career of Sanquinius Maximus.

L'AI può commettere errori, quindi verifica le risposte 

and what about his association with a proposal for leniency after the Fall of Sejanus?

There is occasionally some confusion regarding the name Sanquinius in the aftermath of the Fall of Sejanus. This is because Tacitus' Annals mentions two different men from the Sanquinia gens who acted in completely opposite ways during the post-Sejanus purges. [1, 2, 3]

The consular Sanquinius Maximus did not technically propose a broad "policy of leniency." Instead, his intervention served as a pragmatic, localized attempt to stop the political bloodsport in the Senate. [1]

1. Sanquinius Maximus: The Pragmatic Peacekeeper

In the specific passage from Annals VI.4, Sanquinius Maximus steps in during the explosive trial of the rival consuls, Fulcinius Trio and Publius Regulus. [1, 3]

• The Proposal: Sanquinius Maximus formally moved that the Senate defer judgment of the entire dispute to Emperor Tiberius.
• The Motive: He argued that the Senate should not compound the emperor’s anxieties with further bitterness (acerbitatibus).
• The Effect of Leniency: While not a philosophical plea for general amnesty, this procedural move acted as a de facto mechanism for leniency. It successfully paused the mutual denunciations, immediately saved Regulus, and bought time for Trio. In an environment where allegations of treason (maiestas) meant automatic death or forced suicide, shutting down the trial was the closest a senator could get to proposing mercy without painting a target on their own back. [1, 3, 4, 5]

2. The "Other" Sanquinius: The Merciless Informer

Historians and readers sometimes conflate Sanquinius Maximus with another member of his family who appears shortly after in the historical record. [1]

• The Action: A different man named Sanquinius acted as a delator (a professional state informer). He launched a vicious, treasonous accusation against Lucius Arruntius, a highly respected senator of unblemished character. [1]
• The Senate's Backlash: By this point, the Senate was completely exhausted and terrified by the non-stop accusations and climate of fear following Sejanus's execution. Rather than entertaining this new trial, the Senate revolted against the informer. They voted to throw out the case and explicitly punished Sanquinius the informer instead. [1, 2]

Summary of the Association

While Sanquinius the Informer weaponized the fall of Sejanus to attack his peers, Sanquinius Maximusused his immense political capital as a senior statesman to build a legal off-ramp. By proposing that the Senate stop digging up "further occasions of bitterness," Maximus successfully cooled the political temperature and saved lives in a deeply volatile environment. [1, 2, 3]

If you would like, we can explore:

• How Tiberius responded from Capri when the Senate deferred these cases to him.
• The starkly different fate that eventually befell Fulcinius Trio.
• The role of informers (delatores) in the late reign of Tiberius.