Lives of the Caesars

Lives of the Caesars

Edited by Anthony A. Barrett

© 2008 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia

The right of Anthony A. Barrett to be identified as the author of the editorial material in thiswork has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed astrademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names,service marks, trademarks, or registered trademarks of their respective owners. Thepublisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regardto the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is notengaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistanceis required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

First published 2008 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

1 2008

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataLives of the Caesars / edited by Anthony A. Barrett

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978–1–4051–2754–7 (hardcover : alk. paper)—ISBN 978–1–4051–2755–4

(pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Emperors—Rome—Biography. 2. Rome—History—Empire,30 B.C.–476 A.D. I. Barrett, Anthony, 1941–

DG274.L56 2008937′.060922—dc22

2007043478

A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.

Set in 10.5/13pt Minionby Graphicraft Limited, Hong KongPrinted and bound in Singaporeby Markono Print Media Pte Ltd

The publisher’s policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainableforestry policy, and which has been manufactured from pulp processed using acid-freeand elementary chlorine-free practices. Furthermore, the publisher ensures that the textpaper and cover board used have met acceptable environmental accreditation standards.

For further information onBlackwell Publishing, visit our website at

www.blackwellpublishing.com

Contents

List of Illustrations viiNotes on Contributors ixAcknowledgments xiiAbbreviations xiiiTimeline xivFamily Trees xviMaps xviii

Introduction 1Anthony A. Barrett

I Augustus 7Werner Eck

II Tiberius 38Greg Rowe

III Caligula 61Anthony A. Barrett

IV Claudius 84Donna W. Hurley

V Nero 107Miriam T. Griffin

VI Vespasian 131Barbara Levick

VII Hadrian 155Mary T. Boatwright

VIII Marcus Aurelius 181Anthony R. Birley

IX Septimius Severus 204David Potter

X Diocletian 228Simon Corcoran

XI Constantine 255Noel Lenski

XII Justinian 280James Allan Evans

Glossary of Roman Terms 304Index 309

vi Contents

Illustrations

Coin of Augustus 7Numismatische Bilddatenbank EichstättForum of Augustus 25Photograph: Werner EckCoin of Tiberius 38Numismatische Bilddatenbank EichstättBust of Tiberius 52Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. CopenhagenCoin of Caligula 61Numismatische Bilddatenbank EichstättBust of Caligula 65Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond. The Arthur andMargaret Glasgow FundCoin of Claudius 84Numismatische Bilddatenbank EichstättBust of Claudius 97Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, CopenhagenCoin of Nero 107Numismatische Bilddatenbank EichstättBust of Nero 120WikimediaCoin of Vespasian 131Numismatische Bilddatenbank EichstättBust of Vespasian 149Museo Nazionale, Rome. Photo Archivi Alinari, FlorenceCoin of Hadrian 155Numismatische Bilddatenbank Eichstätt

Bust of Hadrian 162Museo Nazionale, Rome. Photo Archivi Alinari, FlorenceCoin of Marcus Aurelius 181Numismatische Bilddatenbank EichstättCoin of Commodus 200Numismatische Bilddatenbank EichstättCoin of Severus 204Numismatische Bilddatenbank EichstättArch of Severus 221E. Strong, Roman Sculpture from Augustus to ConstantineCoin of Diocletian 228Numismatische Bilddatenbank EichstättBust of Diocletian 237Museo Nazionale, Rome. Photo Archivi Alinari, FlorenceCoin of Constantine 255Numismatische Bilddatenbank EichstättBust of Constantine 269WikimediaCoin of Justinian 280Numismatische Bilddatenbank EichstättThe Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus 285Author’s photograph

viii Illustrations

Notes on Contributors

Anthony A. Barrett is Emeritus Professor and Distinguished UniversityProfessor at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. He is a Fellowof the Royal Society of Canada. He has written extensively on the ancientworld and is the author of biographies of Caligula, Agrippina the Younger,and Livia. Most recently he co-authored, with John Yardley, the OxfordWorld’s Classics edition of The Annals of Tacitus. Since retirement he isstudying Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge.

Anthony R. Birley was Professor of Ancient History at the universities ofManchester, from 1974 to 1990, and Düsseldorf, from 1990 to 2002. Hispublications include biographies of the emperors Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius,and Septimius Severus. He is Chair of the Trustees of the Vindolanda Trust.

Mary T. Boatwright is Professor of Ancient History in the Department ofClassical Studies at Duke University. She has published widely on the Romanworld, and her works include Hadrian and the City of Rome (Princeton,1987) and Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire (Princeton, 2000).With Daniel Gargola and Richard J. A. Talbert she has co-authored TheRomans: From Village to Empire (Oxford, 2004) and A Brief History of theRomans (Oxford, 2005).

Simon Corcoran is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of History atUniversity College London. He is currently working on Roman law and itslegacy in late antiquity and the early middle ages as part of the VolterraRoman law projects. His book The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pro-nouncements and Government ad 284–324 (Oxford, 1996) won a silver medalin the IV Premio romanistico internazionale Gérard Boulvert (1998).

Werner Eck is Professor of Ancient History at Cologne University, and oneof the world’s leading historians of the Roman empire. His books include

Die Verwaltung des römischen Reiches in der Hohen Kaiserzeit, 2 vols (Basel,1995, 1998), Das senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre (with A. Caballos andF. Fernández; Munich, 1996), Tra epigrafia, prosopografia e archeologia: scrittiscelti, rielaborati ed aggiornati (Rome, 1996), Köln in römischer Zeit (Cologne,2004) and The Age of Augustus (2nd edn Oxford, 2007).

James Allan Evans was until retirement Professor of Classics at the Univer-sity of British Columbia, Vancouver, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society ofCanada. He has published widely on Hellenistic economic history, Herodotusand the Persian Wars, and the proto-Byzantine period. His latest book is TheBeginnings of History: Herodotus and the Persian Wars (Campbellsville, Ont.,2006); forthcoming are Everyday Life in the Hellenistic World from Alexanderthe Great to Cleopatra (2008) and The Power Game in Byzantium: Antoninaand the Empress Theodora (London, forthcoming).

Miriam Griffin is Emeritus Fellow of Somerville College, Oxford, havingserved as Tutor in Ancient History for thirty-five years. She is the author ofSeneca, a Philosopher in Politics (Oxford, 1992), Nero, the End of a Dynasty(London and New Haven, 1984), and (with E. M. Atkins) Cicero: On Duties(Cambridge, 1991). She is also co-editor with Jonathan Barnes of PhilosophiaTogata I and II (Oxford, 1989 and 1997). She is currently working on a studyof Seneca’s De Beneficiis.

Donna W. Hurley has taught at Columbia, Princeton, and Rutgers uni-versities. She is the author of a number of articles on Roman history andof two commentaries on Suetonius: An Historical and HistoriographicalCommentary of Suetonius’ Life of C. Caligula (Atlanta, 1993) and Suetonius:Divus Claudius (Cambridge, 2001).

Noel Lenski is Associate Professor of Classics at the University of Coloradoat Boulder, specializing in late antiquity. He is the author of Failure ofEmpire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century ad (Berkeley,2002) and editor of The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine(Cambridge, 2005).

Barbara Levick, Emeritus Fellow and Tutor in Literae Humaniores at StHilda’s College, Oxford, is the author of Claudius (London and New Haven,1990), Vespasian (London and New York, 1999), and Tiberius the Politician(2nd edn, London and New York, 2000), and co-editor with Richard Hawleyof Women in Antiquity: New Assessments (London, 1995). She is now work-ing on a book about Augustus.

x Notes on Contributors

David Potter is Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Greek and Latin in theDepartment of Classical Studies at the University of Michigan. His recentbooks include The Roman Empire at Bay (London, 2004), A Companion tothe Roman Empire (editor; Oxford, 2006), and Emperors of Rome (London,2007).

Greg Rowe is Associate Professor of Greek and Roman Studies at the Univer-sity of Victoria, Canada. He is the author of Princes and Political Cultures:The New Tiberian Senatorial Decrees (Ann Arbor, 2002).

Notes on Contributors xi

Acknowledgments

The task of completing this book was made much lighter by the generoushelp afforded by a number of individuals. In a collaborative venture like thisit would perhaps be odious to single out individuals, since each of the con-tributors has been able to call on the generosity of colleagues, friends, andfamily members, but the cheerful, patient, and persistently helpful role of theeditorial staff at Blackwell should not go unrecorded.

Abbreviations

Standard abbreviations are used for ancient texts and modern collectionsand journals. The following abbreviations for modern authorities are alsoused throughout the book:

McCrum and M. McCrum and A. G. Woodhead, Select Documents ofWoodhead 1961 the Principates of the Flavian Emperors, including the Year

of Revolution ad 68–96 (Cambridge, 1961)Oliver 1989 J. H. Oliver, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors

from Inscriptions and Papyri (Philadelphia, 1989)Sherk 1988 R. K. Sherk, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian

(Cambridge, 1988)Smallwood 1966 Smallwood, E. M., Documents Illustrating the Reigns of

Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge, 1966)Smallwood 1967 Smallwood, E. M., Documents Illustrating the Principates

of Gaius, Claudius and Nero (Cambridge, 1967)Syme 1958 Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford, 1958)

Timeline

The following list shows the sequence of Roman emperors from Augustus tothe Severan dynasty, and (with omissions) through to Justinian. The subjectsof individual essays in this volume are shown in bold type.

After the death of the last member of the Severan dynasty in 235 thepicture becomes very complicated; hence the full list of emperors after thatdate is not given.

27 bc–ad 19 Augustusad 19–37 Tiberius37–41 Caligula41–54 Claudius54–68 Nero68–9 Galba69 Otho69 Vitellius69–79 Vespasian79–81 Titus81–96 Domitian96–8 Nerva98–117 Trajan117–38 Hadrian138–61 Antoninus Pius161–80 Marcus Aurelius161–9 Lucius Verus177–92 Commodus193 Pertinax193 Didius Julianus193–211 Severus

211–17 Caracalla211 Geta (joint emperor)217–18 Macrinus218–22 Elagabalus222–35 Alexander Severus[. . .]284–311/12 Diocletian[. . .]306–37 Constantine[. . .]527–65 Justinian

Timeline xv

Family Trees

[Aelius] = [Ulpia]

Domitia Paulina I = Publius Aelius Hadrianus Afer

Marcus Ulpius Traianus

[Ulpius]

TRAJAN = Pompeia PlotinaGaius Salonius = Ulpia Marciana

Annius Verus

Lucius Vibius Sabinus = Matidia I = Libo Rupilius Frugi

Domitia Paulina II HADRIAN = Vibia Sabina Rupilia Faustina = M. Annius Verus

MARCUS AURELIUS

Matidius Patruinus

Trajan and Hadrian

Julius Caesar Julia = Atius Balbus

Atia = Gaius Octavius

TIBERIUS = Julia = Marcus AgrippaAntonia = Drusus

Octavia = Marc Antony

Tiberius Claudius Nero = Livia = AUGUSTUS = Sempronia

Agrippa PostumusJuliaLuciusGaius(2) Livilla

DrususNeroDrusillaLivillaCALIGULA

NERO

Messallina = (3) CLAUDIUS = Agrippina = Domitius Ahenobarbus

Britannicus

(1) Germanicus = Agrippina

The Julio-Claudians

Family Trees xvii

Marcus Aurelius

Marcus Annius = Domitia Lucilla IIVerus

Annia Galeria = ANTONINUS PIUSFaustina I

Marcus Annius Verus = Rupilia Faustina

Annia CornificiaFaustina

Faustina II = MARCUS AURELIUS

GALLIA

COMATA

GALLIANARBONENSIS

Massilia

Tarraco

Emerita

Gades

LUSITANIA

BAETICA

Asture

s Cantabri

CORSICA

SARDINIA

UMBRIA

SAMNIUM

SICILIA

CAMPANIA

Roma

12 3

4

5

6

98 10

12

13

7 11

LIGURIA

ET HISTRIA

VENETIA

TRAN

SPADANAGAL

LIA

ETRU

RIA

Moguntiacum

Marktbreit

CamunturnNORICUMRHAETIA

PANNONI

A

ILLYRICUM

KalkrieseHaltern

Oberaden

GERMANIA

HISPANIA TARRACO

NE

NSIS

Ebro

Tajo

Duero

Loire Mos

el

Seine

Danube

Main

Elbe

Neckar

North Sea

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

G a e t u l e r

G a r a m a n t e s

AF

RI C

A

P R OC O

N S U L A R I S

DrauSave

Rubicon

Ubii

Cherusci

Sugambri

Marcomanni

1 Mantua2 Mutina3 Bononia4 Perusia5 Velitrae6 Circei7 Beneventum

8 Nola9 Misenum

10 Tarentum11 Brundisium12 Naulochos13 Mylae

A d r i a

Rhine

M AU R E TA N I A

(DALMATIA)

Tingis

Barcino

ForumIulii

Arausio

Waldgirmes

Oppidum Ubiorum

LUGDUNUM

Cirta

500 km

M e d i t e r r a n e a n S e a

The Roman empire in the time of Augustus

Maps

MACEDONIA

Byzantium

Ancyra

Kyme

Samos Miletus

Philippi

Limyra

Apollonia

Corcyra

NicopolisActium

Athenae

Alexandria

CYPRUS

CRETE

RHODES

Carrhae

?Artagira

TaurusASIA

MOESIATHRACE

IBERIA

ARMENIA

CaucasusPAPHLAGONIA

GALAT

IA

PONTUS

SYRIA

PAMPHYLIA C

ILICIA

LYCIA

IUD

EA

EGYPT

Nile

Jordan

Tigris

Euphrat

Albani

Parthians

Danube

Tisz

a

ACHAEA

B l a c k S e a

M e d i t e r r a n e a n S e a

BITHY

NIA

PAPHLAGONIA

Alexandria Troas

Beirut

Antioch

Maps xix

Tom

iSi

nop

ePe

tra

Dyr

rhac

hiu

mT

hes

salo

nic

a

Ath

ens

Cor

inth

Eph

esu

s

Mile

tus

Cor

ycu

s

Dar

a

Tars

us

An

tioc

h

Bei

rut

Tyre

Cae

sare

a

Gaz

a

Pelu

siu

mA

lexa

ndr

ia

Con

stan

tin

ople

Th

eodo

siop

olis

Med

iter

rane

an S

ea

Bla

ck S

ea

AVA

RS

SLAV

SLA

ZIC

AIB

ER

IA

PE

RS-

AR

ME

NIA

LAK

HM

IDS

GHASSAN

IDS

Sirm

ium

BU

LGA

RS

GE

PID

S

Nis

ibis

An

cyra

Sin

gidu

nu

m

Dam

ascu

s

Jeru

sale

m

Ph

ilae

Tin

gis

New

Car

thag

eMar

seill

es

Mila

n

Rav

enn

aA

rim

inu

m

An

con

a

Rom

eB

enev

entu

mN

aple

s Bru

ndi

siu

m

Mes

san

a

Car

alis

Hip

po

Reg

ius

Con

stan

tin

aH

adru

met

um

Trip

olis

Syra

cuse

Car

thag

e

Med

iter

rane

anSe

a

VIS

IGO

TH

ICK

ING

DO

M

BURGU

NDIA

NS

BE

RB

ERS

Lim

it o

f th

e R

oman

em

pire

600

km

Aqu

ileia

Spol

eto

Cor

doba

Th

eves

te

LOM

BA

RD

S

FRA

NK

ISH

KIN

GD

OM

Th

e E

mpi

re i

n t

he

Tim

e of

Ju

stin

ian

xx Maps

Introduction

Anthony A. Barrett

Since at least the time of Edward Gibbon the Roman empire has alwaysseemed to represent the quintessential imperial enterprise. Other great empiresmay rise and fall, but when they do they somehow follow a preordainedcourse that this archetypal model laid down for them. So it is, that whendoomsayers predict that our civilization is teetering on the brink of collapse,they more often than not point out that it is the Romans, specifically, whoteach us that such a fate is inevitable. While we continue to be intrigued byalmost every aspect of this remarkable institution, what holds our attentionmost firmly is undoubtedly the succession of individuals who stood at itscentre, the emperors. The last decade or so has seen a surge of books, bothpopular and academic, on the lives of these individuals, a trend that hasflourished in the teeth of considerable opposition from those classicalscholars who harbor a deep suspicion about the biographical approach tohistory. The late Oxford historian Sir Ronald Syme argued that emphasis onindividual emperors distorted historical analysis, and that once the systemhad been put in place it made little difference who was emperor, especially bythe second century ad. Fergus Millar, who was later appointed to the sameOxford chair that Syme held, similarly sees the emperor as defined essentiallyby the institution and does not attach great significance to the personalitiesof individual emperors. Both viewpoints have considerable merit, but itis possible to make a very strong case that individuals can, under certaincircumstances, influence, if not determine, the course of history in a pro-found way, and that those circumstances existed in imperial Rome. In fact,it is arguable that there are few topics potentially more rewarding to thestudent of history than the lives of the Roman emperors. They can surelyteach us better than most the relationship between humans and power, andthe ends, sometimes good but more often malign, to which arbitrary powercan be directed.

2 Anthony A. Barrett

The title of this collection of essays on the most significant (or, in oneor two cases, the most familiar) emperors is undoubtedly reminiscent ofSuetonius’ Lives of the Caesars, written in the second century ad, and the factthat we have similarly included twelve lives might, to some small degree, beseen as an unconscious homage to Suetonius’ great classic. It is also fair tosay that we aim for a similar, non-specialist readership. But the parallelismgoes no further. If we concede that Suetonius was a seeker after the truth, wewould want at the same time to point out that he shared with other authorsof his age a more flexible concept of the truth than we now consider acceptablein historical writing. The ancient historian would, for instance, without fearof contemporary censure, make up a speech where none existed in the recordor blithely ascribe motives based on nothing more than supposition. Thetwelve essays of this collection are written by individuals who, as a matter ofroutine, subject the available evidence to rigorous scrutiny, and who areprofessionally committed to the ideal of objective historical truth, in so faras it is humanly attainable. The authors have all published extensively ontheir subjects and each can lay claim to considerable expertise in the periodon which they write; indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that most of themare the recognized world authorities on their chosen emperors.

Each chapter is self-contained, although for the first eleven we have triedto provide enough linkage to enable them to be read consecutively as areasonably coherent narrative. The last emperor, Justinian, reigned muchlater than the others, and in a way stands alone; but his inclusion is clearlyjustified as a link between the Roman empire and the Byzantine empire thatfollowed, or, one might argue, into which it metamorphosed. While all theessays adhere to broad guidelines, and there is a degree of consistency insome of their mechanical aspects (such as citations and terminology), therehas been no attempt to impose a rigid conformity. Hence there is nouniformity of approach. These chapters will introduce readers to the changingdynamics of the Roman empire, and they will also introduce them to thedifferent ways in which modern scholars approach their subjects. As a result,while each chapter reflects the idiosyncrasy of the emperor being studied, italso reflects the individual methodology (as well, perhaps, as a little of theidiosyncrasy) of the scholar writing on him. Thus, while it is hoped that therewill be no jarring contradictions, it is felt to be healthy for the reader to beexposed to differing conclusions. A good case in point is the interpretationof the period marking the end of Caligula’s reign and the beginning ofClaudius’, where it will be seen that the confused testimony of the ancientscan legitimately be interpreted in more than one way.

Introduction 3

Perhaps what distinguishes the Roman empire above all else is the way itcombined, within a single institution, both revolution and conservatism.Romans were not innovators; the principle they most zealously upheld wasthat of mos maiorum, “the tradition of our ancestors.” So when toward theend of the first century bc the Roman republic collapsed under the weightof ambitious warlords and civil conflicts, it was not replaced by a radicalnew system. Instead, the republican constitution was refined and modified,in such a way that it remained in form a republic although it was in realitya monarchy. This set the pattern for the following centuries. Remarkably,although by the time of Justinian the system had in many ways been trans-formed, in others it still preserved the essence of Augustus’ great contributionto history at the birth of the empire. It will be useful to provide an outline ofthat Augustan system, as a background against which the essays might be read.

The main deliberative and legislative body in Rome was the senate, con-sisting of some 600 former magistrates (in Roman times, the word meanssimply “officials”) of the rank of quaestor or above. Arguably, it was initiallynot strictly legislative, since in a narrow technical sense the senate could notpass legislation during the Augustan period or, it seems, for a century orso after his death. For a senatorial decree (consultum) to have the force of alaw (lex) it had to be ratified by the popular assemblies, although thisratification tended to be little more than a formality. Through a process thatis not fully understood, by the second century ad senatorial decrees hadacquired the force of law. Membership of the senate was usually permanent,but subject to the approval of the censor. This official maintained the citizenlist and had the power to remove senators either on moral grounds or if theirfinancial assets fell below the necessary property qualification. Membershipof the body required, as a result of Augustus’ reforms, a property qualificationof 1,000,000 sestertii. It might be noted that Romans normally expressedmonetary amounts in sestertii (abbreviated HS), the highest denominationof the common coins, made of brass (an alloy of copper and zinc) and valuedat four to one silver denarius. It is impossible to cite precise monetaryequivalence, but we do know that in the Julio-Claudian period the legionarysoldiers were paid HS900 (225 denarii) each year, before deductions.

The first significant event in the life of a Roman male occurred usuallyaround the age of fourteen, when he underwent the formal ceremony thatmarked his entry into manhood. At this point he exchanged his purple-edged toga (toga praetexta) for a plain white one, the toga virilis or “toga ofmanhood.” If he aspired to a senatorial career (such aspirations were notharbored by young Roman women, since, with the exception of certain priestly

4 Anthony A. Barrett

positions, public offices were not open to them), he might hope to enter thequaestorship when he had reached at least his twenty-fifth year. Twentyquaestors were elected annually; they were concerned with a variety of duties,financial and other, and, by virtue of holding the office, granted entry intothe senate. The quaestorship might be followed by one of two offices. Theposition of aedile brought responsibility for certain aspects of municipaladministration in Rome. The alternative, that of the tribune of the plebeians,had originally been meant for the protection of the interests of the plebeians,and in Augustus’ time the office was still reserved for plebeians; but the oldprinciple by which each Roman belonged to either the lower-class plebeiansor the upper-class patricians was by now largely a relic with few practicalimplications, and the tribune was primarily concerned with minor legislativematters. The quaestor could, however, bypass the tribunate or aedileship,and pass straight to the next office in the hierarchy, the first major one: thepraetorship. Under Augustus, twelve praetors were elected annually. Theyhad responsibility for the administration of justice, and could afterwardscompete for one of the two consulships, the most prestigious and muchsought-after senior offices in the state. Strictly speaking, consular rank couldbe attained only after the candidate had reached the age of forty-two, butfamily background could enable an individual to seek the office much sooner,possibly by thirty-two, while members of the imperial family were able toachieve it even earlier. From 5 bc it became common for consuls to resignduring the course of the year. Their replacements were called ‘suffect’ consuls(suffecti). There was a certain cachet to being appointed one of the first pairof the year, in part no doubt because the year was officially identified by theirnames. The consul first appointed was known as ordinarius, the Latin termusually still employed in preference to the misleading “ordinary.”

The magistrate’s sphere of action was known as his provincia. By theAugustan period this term tended to be applied to Rome’s external possessions.The victory over the Carthaginians in the late third century bc had led to thecontrol of much of Spain, beginning a process by which more and moreterritories fell to Rome. These acquisitions came about usually through warfare,but they could be voluntary, as in the case of the province of Asia, organizedfrom a kingdom bequeathed to Rome by Attalus III of Pergamum on hisdeath in 133 bc. During the republican period, praetors and consuls governedthese provinces after their regular terms of office had expired. They con-sequently exercised their power, their imperium, in the capacity of the officespreviously held, as propraetors or proconsuls. In 27 bc, Augustus handed theterritories he controlled over to the senate and people. They for their partgranted him an enormous “province” (its precise extent varied over time),

Introduction 5

made up basically of provinces in Gaul, Syria, and Spain, for a term of tenyears, with the option of renewal. In these “imperial” provinces, by and largewhere the Roman legions were stationed, the governors (legati Augusti) andthe legionary commanders (legati legionis) were appointed by the emperor,so that in effect he was commander of the Roman armies. As a consequence,the culminating achievement of a military campaign, the splendid parade or“triumph” that followed a major victory in the field, was the prerogative ofthe emperor and his family. Less well-connected commanders had to remaincontent with triumphal insignia. The remaining “public” provinces (sometimesmisleadingly referred to in modern sources as “senatorial”) were governed bysenators appointed by lot (competence was maintained in the “lot” systemby a strict process of regulating who would be eligible to put his name intothe hat). The most desirable of these public provinces were Africa and Asia.Generally this class of province did not house legionary troops; Africa, withone legion, was the most notable exception to this principle (and only untilthe time of Caligula). The Augustan provincial arrangements remainedvirtually unchanged until the very end of the third century ad, when Diocletianbroke up the provinces into smaller units and organized them into twelve“dioceses,” each headed by a deputy (vicarius). The terminology of thisarrangement has survived in ecclesiastical language.

Egypt became a Roman possession under Augustus. Like some of the smallerdistricts, it was governed by an imperial appointee from the equestrian order,the “knights”: broadly, a social rank with a lower property qualification(HS400,000), whose members engaged openly in commercial business. Aman could not be knight and senator simultaneously (different sets of officeswere open to them), although he could be transferred from one order toanother, to match the upward, or downward, change in his fortunes. Thegovernor of Egypt held the rank of prefect, and most of the other prefectureswere the prerogative of the equestrian class, the most significant being thoseof the annona (corn supply), of the vigiles (fire and police service), and, mostimportantly, of the imperial or praetorian guard, the elite cadre of troopsstationed in the city itself, and initially elsewhere in Italy, enjoying specialpay and privileges. There was a small number of senatorial prefectures, themost noteworthy being the ancient office of prefect of the city (praefectusurbi), largely ritual by the late republic but given real functions by Augustusand charged with maintaining order in Rome. It had originally been held bya senator of consular rank and continued to be so. This city prefect heldpowers of summary justice in dealing with minor criminal cases and throughtime assumed responsibility for more serious cases. In the later empire hebecame an individual of considerable importance.

6 Anthony A. Barrett

Augustus acquired two of the constitutional rights of the plebeian tribunes,without holding the actual office (one of the fictions that allowed the republicto function as a monarchy). They were in turn inherited by his successors.Tribunician sacrosanctitas made an assault on his person sacrilegious, whilehis tribunician potestas gave him a number of rights, including those ofconvening the senate and the popular assemblies, and of initiating or vetoinglegislation. This special authority was a potent symbol of the principate –indeed, in many ways it lay at its heart. Emperors dated their reigns from thepoint when their tribunicia potestas was assumed. In the later period coveredby this collection the emperor Diocletian introduced a government innova-tion that was in many ways radical, but in a very Roman way continued theinstitutions that had been laid down since Augustus. To deal with the com-plexities of empire, he instituted the principle of two Augusti, each taking ashare of the responsibilities. Each Augustus was to be assisted by a successorin waiting, a Caesar. This fourfold arrangement is known generally by theGreek term tetrarchy (not used in antiquity). The reform marked an importantstage in the ultimate evolution of the empire into a western and an easterndivision, the latter with its capital in Byzantium/Constantinople. By virtueof the shared origin of the Roman and Byzantine empires the institutioncreated by Augustus in 27 bc endured in a very real sense for almost fifteencenturies, until 1453, when the last Byzantine emperor was defeated by theOttoman Turks.

Augustus 7

I

Augustus

Werner Eck

On March 15, 44 bc, a cataclysmic event stunnedthe people of Rome. In the senate chamber insidethe Theater of Pompey, Gaius Julius Caesar layin a pool of his own blood. He had been assas-sinated. During the previous disastrous civilwars he had been opposed by his arch-rivalPompey and by most of the senators, but he hadprevailed, and gone on to establish autocraticrule. The precise nature of this rule had not

yet been clearly defined, but he had made it clear that he had no intentionof relinquishing control of Rome or of allowing supreme authority to slipout of his hands. After all, what else could the title dictator perpetuo, “dictatorfor life,” as proclaimed on his coins, mean? The frustration of many of hisenemies, among them highly respected men like the two senators Brutusand Cassius, was understandable. They saw no real place for themselves inthis political scheme. This is why the conspiracy to assassinate him was ableto succeed.

For a brief moment the conspirators seemed to have achieved their aim:freedom for Rome, which of course meant freedom for the ruling senatorialaristocracy. Soon, however, it became evident how little they had in factachieved. They had attributed the crisis of the republic to a single man. Theyhad not recognized that the crisis went much deeper and that there weremany others striving for the same goals as Caesar. Confronted by popularanger and the astuteness of Marc Antony, who as consul represented legalauthority, the conspirators were obliged to retreat from the city. Therewere many reasons why Antony, a long-time follower of Caesar, now had thebest chance in the looming battle to succeed him.

Publisher's Note:Permission to reproducethis image online was notgranted by the copyrightholder. Readers are kindly requested to refer to the

this chapter.printed version of

8 Werner Eck

Emergence of Octavian

From the town of Velitrae, however, a nineteen-year-old, born during theconsulship of Cicero on September 23, 63 bc, entered the Roman politicalarena – an arena he would not quit until his death on August 19, ad 14,almost fifty-seven years later. In April 44 he had just returned to Romefrom the province of Macedonia, beyond the Adriatic, where he had spenttime with Caesar’s troops as they prepared to go to war against the Parthians.Until then he had borne the name of his senatorial father Gaius Octavius;but shortly after his return from Macedonia he began to use the name GaiusJulius Caesar. His great-uncle Julius Caesar had adopted him in his will ashis nearest male relative, the grandson of his sister Julia, and had bequeathedto him a three-quarter share of his estate. Normally an adoption was aprivate legal transaction, but not when it was made by a man like JuliusCaesar. The decision meant that the young Caesar would also be his great-uncle’s political heir. Perceptive observers would have recognized that thecourse to monarchy on which Julius Caesar had earlier embarked would bepursued. Indeed, they would have recognized that Octavian, as we call himafter his adoption, although he himself never used the name, could do noother than pursue it. A short while later he made this intention very clear ina public speech in Rome (Cic. ad Att. 16, 15, 3).

Even before Octavian arrived in Rome, he had left no room for doubt thathe was a force to be reckoned with. Without authorization from the senateor the people, he attempted to raise an army on his own initiative. In theRes Gestae, the summation of his reign he wrote in ad 14, he stated thisclearly: “At nineteen years of age, by my own decision and at my own expense,I raised an army, with which I freed the republic oppressed by the tyrannyof a faction” (Res Gestae 1). It is no accident that the Res Gestae begin withthis sentence. His association with the army was the basis not only for hisinitial rise to power; he also depended on it on later occasions, as did all ofhis successors.

All the same, in the year 44 the young Octavian was only one of the actorson the political and military stage. At first he was also one of the weakest,because his name was a reminder that he was not Caesar’s blood relative, butonly his adopted son. Yet he soon managed, through tactical finesse andunabashed switches of loyalty, to strengthen his position. At first the consulAntony seemed to be his main adversary. So Octavian associated himselfwith all those senators opposed to that man’s growing power. Their leaderwas Cicero, who saw the opportunity to play the decisive role of his life at the

Augustus 9

republic’s helm (rector rei publicae). Cicero actually believed he could useOctavian to further his own ambitions against Antony. But Octavian outdidCicero both in tactics and in ruthless determination. He had the senate assignto himself an official position that enabled him legally to raise an army andto take part in the senate and public assemblies. Together with the consuls of43, Hirtius and Pansa, long-standing supporters of Caesar, Octavian embarkedon a campaign against Antony, who was using his army to build a power-base in northern Italy. In the resulting conflict, at Mutina, in April 43 bc,Antony’s army was defeated by Octavian and the consuls. The two consulsfell in the battle and, without troubling to offer a justification, Octavian tookover their legions. The senate and its leader Cicero had thus lost their ownmilitary prop. Octavian grasped the initiative. A contingent of his centurionsappeared in Rome and promoted his case for the consulship, the highestlegal office obtainable. When the senate rejected him, Octavian returned,this time with the legions. Neither the senate nor the people (to the extentthat they participated in the elections) could hold out against the might ofhis armies. On August 19, 43 bc, Octavian, not yet twenty years old, waselected consul for the first time. Never before had someone so young attainedthis position. Decades later, when he set about nominating his own suc-cessors, the similar conferment of an early consulship was a clear signal ofhis dynastic intentions, as will later be demonstrated by the prematureadvancement of his adopted sons Gaius and Lucius, and of his nephewMarcellus.

The first consulship proved to be only a short episode for the new youngCaesar. Antony had recovered from his defeat and, with the support of thegovernors of the Gallic and Spanish provinces, had established himself innorthern Italy. Among the notable allies of Antony were Aemilius Lepidusand Munatius Plancus, men who, like him, had had close ties to the lateCaesar (they would both play an important role also in Octavian’s futurecareer). Octavian could not have held his ground against such a united milit-ary force. But he was not to be put to the test, since there was an incentivefor both camps to come to an agreement, if they wanted to keep the upperhand in both the political and the military spheres. Caesar’s murderers hadto be defeated. They had established a stronghold in the eastern provinces,from where they threatened the Caesarians, Antony as well as Octavian.Many in the senate, especially Cicero, placed their hopes in Brutus and Cassiusand their armies. It was with good purpose that these put on their coinsthe date of Caesar’s assassination: Eid(us) Mart(iae) = ‘the ides of March’(15 March), thus identifying themselves as the collective enemy of theCaesarians.

10 Werner Eck

Triumvirate

Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian met on an island in the Reno river, not farfrom Bologna. Deeply mistrustful of one another, they negotiated for threedays before reaching an agreement. Their first and most important goal wasto secure their own positions of power. They agreed to a triple rule, a trium-virate. Since Antony had officially abrogated the position of dictator, whichwould have been inappropriate in a triumvirate in any case, they chose thetitle of triumviri rei publicae constituendae (“board of three men entrustedwith the organization of the state”). It seemed a harmless designation at firstglance. Yet, just forty years earlier, Sulla had used the same expression, onlyin his case the first word had been “dictator.” This should have been a grimwarning. No one had forgotten the horror of that time. Indeed, the new alliesdecided, just as Sulla had, to rid themselves of their enemies by proscriptions.By this means approximately 300 senators and 2,000 equestrians were iden-tified as opponents of the regime and proscribed – effectively, sentenced todeath. Whoever killed one of them received a portion of the victim’s pro-perty as compensation; the remainder was collected for the state treasury,that is, for the use of the triumvirs. Octavian apparently argued againstincluding among the intended victims Cicero, a man who had so decisivelyaided the young man’s rise while so seriously underestimating his abilities.But Antony had a deep hatred for Rome’s greatest orator. After Caesar’sdeath Cicero seemed to have snatched away from Antony an almost guar-anteed succession, and Antony insisted on including him on the list. In theend, Octavian acceded to his murder. Nor did he show mercy toward others.All these proceedings were perfectly legal. The position of the triumvirs, andthe absolute power that resulted from it, was confirmed for a period of fiveyears through a law carried in the popular assembly on November 27, 43 bc.Theirs was a legalized, albeit arbitrary, power.

The triumvirs divided among themselves the task of regaining enemy-heldterritories. Initially Antony seemed to be the strongest member of the coalition.He accordingly received as his province northern Italy and the part of Gaulannexed by Caesar, along with all its resources. Lepidus received the provincesof Gallia Narbonensis and Spain. Octavian was given the two islands ofSardinia and Sicily, as well as Africa. All these areas were under the direct orindirect control of anti-Caesarians, who had powerful fleets at their disposal.

Before a new state order could be initiated, the power of Caesar’s murderershad to be broken. Octavian enacted a law to have them declared enemies ofthe Roman people. But legal measures were insufficient. The problem had to