Philosophical Works of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Vol. 2

What this woman was, and to what husband she was married, you will learn in my notes there. But when he held the quaestorship, I do not know for certain: his age does not rule out that it was under Tiberius: he could also have done so under Gaius, nor do I care to define it. That he held the praetorship immediately after his exile, by the agency of Agrippina, is more certain. For Tacitus says thus: "Agrippina obtains from her husband the pardon of his exile for Annaeus Seneca, and at the same time the praetorship, thinking it would be popular, because of the renown of his studies, and so that the boyhood of Domitius might grow up under such a tutor, and might use his counsels for the hope of power." (Annals XII). You see, he was designated praetor at once, and [you see] the praises and gifts which Tacitus candidly adds. The benevolence of the populace was being won by that act; because Seneca was already on the tongues and in the favor of the people, because of the renown of his studies; and finally, she wanted her Domitius to grow up with such a great tutor; and likewise to rely on his counsels (note the civil prudence) for preparing the principate, and also for governing it. Therefore he was praetor in the year of the city 802: was he perhaps consul afterwards? The books of laws affirm it, regarding the SC. Trebellianum; as Ulpian: "In the times of Nero, on the eighth day before the Kalends of September, in the consulship of Annaeus Seneca and Trebellius Maximus, a decree of the Senate was made." The same is written in the second book of Justinian's Institutions. Those who have compiled the fasti for us, however, make these men suffect consuls (for they were not ordinary ones) in the year of the city 815: which would be one year and a few months before the death of Seneca. Someone might perhaps doubt the whole matter; because Ausonius, in his Gratiarum Actio, states openly: "Rich Seneca, yet not a consul:" and likewise Seneca himself never mentions this honor, even though he wrote most of his letters then. I answer: concerning Ausonius, it should be understood that he refers to the Ordinary consulship: concerning our man himself, silence is not a denial. But I add this too, that the compilers of the Fasti do not seem to have organized it well: and he certainly was not [consul] in that year. For behold, right at the beginning of the year, Tacitus relates (Annals XIV) that his favor with Nero had cooled, and that calumniators had assailed him in various ways: and that he himself approached the prince with a spirited speech, seeking leave to retire and refunding his wealth. Nero did not admit it, to be sure: but still, from that time, Seneca (adds Cornelius) "changed the institutions of his former power, forbade the gatherings of those who greeted him, avoided his attendants, [and was] rare"