Great Clarendon Street, Oxford 0x2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It fu

Toronto Warsaw with associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Pres

mp; Wyman Ltd Reading, Berkshire PREFACE THE subject of this book is the transformation of state and society at Rome b

ormation of state and society at Rome between 60 B.C. and A.D. 14. It is composed round a central narrative that records t

regarded as the consolidation of the revolutionary process. Emphasis is laid, however, not upon the personality and acts

history, as the binding link between the Republic and the Empire: it is something real and tangible, whatever may be the

idual. Even so, the subject almost baffles exposition. The reader who is repelled by a close concatenation of proper names

an, but a partisan of Caesar and of Antonius. This also explains what is said about Cicero and about Livy. Yet, in the end

tic virtues. Δύναµις and Tύχη are the presiding divinities. The style is likewise direct and even abrupt, avoiding metapho

ewise direct and even abrupt, avoiding metaphors and abstractions. It is surely time for some reaction from the ‘tradition

iew of the period. Much that has recently been written about Augustus is simply panegyric, whether ingenuous or edifying.

t Augustus is simply panegyric, whether ingenuous or edifying. Yet it is not necessary to praise political success or to i

o win wealth and honours through civil war. The history of this age is highly controversial, the learned literature over

port of elaborate argumentation. Further, the bibliography at the end is not intended as a guide to the whole subject: it

ce of lectures delivered at Oxford in the summer of 1937. The index is mainly prosopographical in character, and it cove

labels or titles have often been attached; and the relevant evidence is sometimes repeated, in preference to an elaborate

ory in the University of Oxford—the more so, precisely, because there is so much in the present volume that will make him

ack for several years and rewritten. But the theme, I firmly believe, is of some importance. If the book provokes salutary

cant details accruing. Essentially, and strictly, therefore, the book is what it was when it first appeared. OXFORD, 1 J

The corpse had long been dead. In common usage the reign of Augustus is regarded as the foundation of the Roman Empire. T

that made no difference to the source and facts of power. Domination is never the less effective for being veiled. August

f prestige and authority tremendous and not to be defined. Auctoritas is the word his enemies would have called it potenti

’ became ‘Princeps’. He did not cease to be Imperator Caesar. There is no breach in continuity. Twenty years of crowded

rks (c. iii, init) may be read with profit. 2 The Triumviral period is tangled, chaotic and hideous. To take it all for

anted, however, and make a clean beginning after Actium or in 27 B.C. is an offence against the nature of history and is t

Actium or in 27 B.C. is an offence against the nature of history and is the prime cause of many pertinacious delusions ab

of many pertinacious delusions about the Principate of Augustus. Nor is the Augustan period as straightforward or as well

ppear to imagine. PageBook=>004 violence of his earlier career is a question vain and irrelevant, cheerfully to be

ther melancholy or exultant. The conviction that it all had to happen is indeed difficult to discard. 1 Yet that convictio

y the failure of their armies at Philippi; and the memory of Antonius is overwhelmed by the oratory of Cicero, by fraud an

The fame and fate of Cicero, however, are one thing: quite different is the estimate of his political activity when he ra

on from history. The writings of Cicero survive in bulk, and Augustus is glorified in the poetry of his age. Apart from fl

the poetry of his age. Apart from flagrant scandal and gossip, there is a singular lack of adverse testimony from contemp

expression. The debt of Tacitus to Sallustius in style and colouring is evident enough: their affinity goes much deeper t

Revolution as that bitter theme demanded, in a plain, hard style. It is much to be regretted that he did not carry his Hi

(contemporary or going back to contemporary sources, often biased, it is true, but admitting criticism, interpretation, or

all the more sharply be revealed by unfriendly presentation. But it is not enough to redeem Augustus from panegyric and

substitute one form of biography for another. At its worst, biography is flat and schematic: at the best, it is often baff

other. At its worst, biography is flat and schematic: at the best, it is often baffled by the hidden discords of human nat

ne term presupposes the other. The career of the revolutionary leader is fantastic and unreal if told without some indicat

y lurks behind the façade; and Roman history, Republican or Imperial, is the history of the governing class. The marshals,

d adapt that cumbrous theme to a consecutive narrative of events. Nor is it only the biography of Augustus that shall be s

leius 2, 44, I. PageBook=>009 in their open strife. 1 Augustus is the heir of Caesar or of Pompeius, as you will. C

truth, Pompeius was no better ‘occultior non melior’. 2 And Pompeius is in the direct line of Marius, Cinna and Sulla. 3

Diss. Breslau, 1933). 3 Gelzer’s definition (Die Nobilität, 21 ff.) is here accepted. ‘Nobilis’ may not be quite a techn

ted. ‘Nobilis’ may not be quite a technical term, but its connotation is pretty clear. (As Gelzer shows, Cicero, with all

n society and Roman politics, namely a nexus of personal obligations, is here followed closely. PageBook=>011 hundr

bination of merit, industry and protection. The nobilitas did not, it is true, stand like a solid rampart to bar all intru

m clarus neque tam egregiis factis erat, quin indignus illo honore et is quasi pollutus haberetur. ’ Compare the remarks o

t he had ever to be on the alert, jealous to guard his dignitas, that is , rank, prestige and honour, against the attacks o

law-courts and in opposition to the Senate. The Equites belonged, it is true, to the same social class as the great bulk

t in the higher ranks of the aristocracy rather than in the lower. It is all too easy to tax the Roman nobility in the las

He imagined that oratory and intrigue would suffice. A programme, it is true, he developed, negative but by no means desp

oncordia Ordinum, Diss. Frankfurt (Leipzig, 1931). A cardinal passage is Pro Sestio 97 f., on the definition of ‘optimus q

ist, 1, 67 m; 69; 77, 6, &c. PageBook=>018 As an oligarchy is not a figment of political theory, a specious fra

me’s rule extends in Italy, the circle widens from which the nobility is recruited and renewed. None the less, though the

d and renewed. None the less, though the composition of the oligarchy is slowly transformed with the transformation of the

ule alone. Both the framework and the bulk of the governing coalition is revealed in the relations and alliances between t

ions and alliances between that house and two other groups. The first is the Claudii: in addition to three sons, Ap. Claud

ageous matches and an evil repute. 5 Second and more important by far is that enigmatic faction soon to be led by a man wh

above, n. 1 and p. 20, n. 5. The wife of M. Terentius Varro Lucullus is not known. PageBook=>022 the right wing wh

time, but often evading historical record and baffling posterity. It is manifest in action on various occasions, arrayed

ut no weight. NotesPage=>022 1 The family of his wife Tertulla is not known. But his elder son, M. Crassus, married

t;024 1 Plutarch, Cato minor II (67 B.c.). The identity of his wife is inferred from the inscr. ILS 9460. 2 His father

The son therefore inherited ‘urbana gratia’ (Caesar, BC 3, 83, 1): he is described as designate to the consulship from bir

in Africa in 82 B.C.: though some versions exculpate Pompeius, there is a contrary tradition. Like the killing of Cn. Pap

, Römische Studien (1922), 130 ff., esp. 158 ff. The root of the name is the Oscan cognate of the Latin ‘quinque’; and the

ibed as ‘humili atque obscuro loco natus’ (In Verrem 11, 5, 181) that is , simply a novus homo. PageBook=>031 licenc

e assumption that Labienus was a Pompeian partisan from the beginning is attractive, cf. JRS XXVIII (1938), 113 ff. About

ctive, cf. JRS XXVIII (1938), 113 ff. About Gabinius’ origin, nothing is known. But his wife Lollia (Suetonius, Divus Juli

. Münzer, RA, 349 ff. 2 That it need not have been a serious matter is shown by Ad Att. 1, 13, 3: ‘nosmet ipsi, qui Lycu

utarch, Caesar 14; Pompeius 47). Münzer (RA, 338 f.) argues that this is no other than Brutus, adopted by his maternal unc

3), 103 ff. 5 The speeches Pro Balbo and De prov. cons.: the latter is probably not the παλινῳδία to which he refers in

f. Clark; Plutarch, Cato minor 47, &c. 6 Appian, BC 2, 28, 107: is ς θϵραπϵίαν τ ς πóλϵως πιĸλƞθϵίς; cf. Plutarch, P

3 750). Both had probably served under Pompeius in Spain (Marcellinus is attested by coins, BMC, R. Rep. 11, 491 f.). The

nelius Lentulus Crus (cos. 49), cf. Ad Att. 9, 7b, 2; 8, 15a, 2. This is evidence for the origin of Balbus’ gentilicium an

onsuls of the last year of the Republic conveniently added, the array is impressive and instructive. In the first place, P

nd Ahenobarbus, energetic but very stupid. The tail of the procession is brought up by Sulpicius Rufus, a timid and respec

attached by Cicero to the other consulars will not mislead: too much is known about these people. 2 The Lentuli were Sp

ills, and with the design to achieve it by armed force. 1 Such a view is too simple to be historical. Caesar strove to a

ion soon clouded truth and equity. The nature of the political crisis is less obscure. Caesar and his associates in power

ed to appeal to his army for protection. NotesPage=>048 1 What is commonly called the ‘Rechtsfrage’, and interminab

d then to return, like Sulla, to victory and to power. 4 Caesar, it is true, had only a legion to hand: the bulk of his

utable scoundrels on the one side and high-born patriots on the other is as schematic and misleading as the contrast betwe

ts of his Dictatorship do not reveal them. For the rest, the evidence is partisan or posthumous. No statement of unrealize

ence is partisan or posthumous. No statement of unrealized intentions is a safe guide to history, for it is unverifiable a

statement of unrealized intentions is a safe guide to history, for it is unverifiable and therefore the most attractive fo

reatment of Caesar the inspired literature of the Augustan Principate is consistent and instructive. Though in different w

uture or a singular and elementary blindness to the present. But this is only a Caesar of myth or rational construction, a

sis in the person of Caesar of hereditary monarchy and divine worship is difficult to establish on the best of contemporar

rrespondence of Cicero. 4 Moreover, the whole theme of divine honours is fertile NotesPage=>054 1 Below, p. 317 f.

e matter, Roman Ideas of Deity (1914), 112 ff. Phil. 2, 110, however, is a difficult passage. Yet it can hardly be proved

er, beginning as a military demagogue. If Caesar must be judged, it is by facts and not by alleged intentions. As his ac

, for so they were styled, as worse than a crime a folly. The verdict is hasty and judges by results. It is all too easy t

than a crime a folly. The verdict is hasty and judges by results. It is all too easy to label the assassins as fanatic ad

e conspiracy, might lend plausible colouring to such a theory. Yet it is in no way evident that the nature of Brutus would

in Romuli faece sententiam’). Again, ‘Sallust’ (Ad Caesarem 2, 9, 3) is neither just nor relevant when he observes: ‘uniu

rendered, on a cool estimate, as privilege and vested interests. It is not necessary to believe that Caesar planned to e

5. 2 Below, p. 95. PageBook=>060 Without a party a statesman is nothing. He sometimes forgets that awkward fact.

ed there. Another young kinsman, Sex. Julius Caesar (quaestor in 47), is attested with Caesar in 49 (BC 2, 20, 7). On Q. P

hose legislation precipitated the Civil War between Marius and Sulla, is appropriately discovered on the side of Caesar. 4

ing armies and governing provinces under the Dictatorship. 6 Some, it is true, were disappointed or ungrateful: yet of the

not only many senators but nobiles at that. Most conspicuous of all is the group of nobiles of patrician stock. Caesar,

;c, cf. P-W XIV, 966 f. 3 The essential evidence about P. Ventidius is supplied by Gellius 15, 4; Dio 43, 51, 4 f. On th

r Sabinus in Virgil, Catalept. 10, cf. Münzer in P-W I A, 1592 ff. It is not really very plausible. Ventidius was perhaps,

onius. 4 C. Vibius Pansa Caetronianus (for the full name, ILS 8890) is said by Dio (45, 17, 1) to have belonged to a pro

id by Dio (45, 17, 1) to have belonged to a proscribed family. Yet he is surely the same person as C. Vibius Pansa, tribun

as C. Vibius Pansa, tribune in 51 B.C. (Ad fam. 8, 8, 6). A. Hirtius is nowhere mentioned as an army commander in the Gal

army commander in the Gallic campaigns; and some find that his style is not very military. 5 Ad fam. 9, 20, 2. 6 Plin

without the knowledge and the mediation of Balbus. 3 His unpopularity is attested by the elaborate excuses of his advocate

ast events with some accuracy and face the future with equanimity. It is much to be regretted that his letters to apprehen

Rabirius Postumus, was an ardent Caesarian. 4 His father, C. Curtius, is designated as a leader of the equestrian order: n

olence. 5 No details confirm the paradox among Roman financiers. More is known about his son, a banker whose business had

d it highly probable that the Caesarian Curtius, or Curtius Postumus, is the same person as the notorious Rabirius Postumu

On the family, cf. also BG 7, 65, 2. 2 Ad fam. 10, 32, 5, where it is stated that Gallus has in his possession a dramat

o, Lucceius and Theophanes). Of his influence and his intrigues there is abundant evidence, cf. P-W V A, 2090 ff. 3 For

nators stated once to have served in the ranks as centurions only one is sufficiently attested. 1 Worse than all that, C

with the language and the topography of the imperial city. 2 The joke is good, if left as such. Gallia Cisalpina still b

ot the only members of this class, which, lacking full documentation, is sometimes disregarded before it emerges into impe

p. 80, n. 1; also the Etruscan Cafo, JRS XXVII (1937), 135, though it is not certain that he was a senator. 2 Suetonius,

itation by traders and financiers. The colonial and Italian element is more conspicuous in Spain, which had been a Roman

st, some were of Italian, others of native extraction. The antithesis is incomplete and of no legal validity. At the very

3, 27, &c, discussed in JRS XXVII (1937), 127 ff. The gentilicium is Osean. Is he perhaps of the family of the proscri

riestly house from the south of Latium; 2 and the name of the Licinii is Etruscan, disguised by a Latin termination. 3 The

me much will remain obscure and controversial. In itself, the process is natural enough; and it is confirmed not a little

e and controversial. In itself, the process is natural enough; and it is confirmed not a little by subsequent and unimpeac

e Sabine Numa (Plutarch, Numa 21). The origin of the Caecilii Metelli is not known. Caeculus, the god who founded Praenest

ecilii Metelli is not known. Caeculus, the god who founded Praeneste, is said to have been their ancestor (Festus, p. 38 L

lected) topic, cannot be discussed here. 2 The unification of Italy is often dated much too early. That it can have been

en dated much too early. That it can have been neither rapid nor easy is demonstrated by the facts of geography and commun

official title of the War, Bellum Marsicum. The name Bellum Italicum is more comprehensive and no less revealing: it was

of Roman tribunes and hated the Roman poor. C. Maecenas from Arretium is named among the strong and steadfast knights who

terprises of Marius and the insurrections of Lepidus and Catilina. It is not merely that so many of his soldiers and centu

ius (BG 5, 37, 5) and the knight T. Terrasidius (3, 7, 4)’ The latter is a unique name, the former, elsewhere attested onl

nique name, the former, elsewhere attested only once (CIL VI, 24052), is another form of ‘Petrucidius’ or ‘Petrusidius’, I

e peninsula was taken long before it was manifest and announced. It is evident enough that Caesar’s new senators, some f

nfluence was strong furnished partisans. The military man C. Carrinas is presumably Umbrian or Etruscan. 4 Pansa came from

e Granii of Puteoli were notoriously Marian:7 a certain Granius Petro is found among NotesPage=>090 1 BC 1, 15, 2.

can name (W. Schulze, ib.). 6 C. Sallustius Crispus’ town of origin is said to have been Amiternum (Jerome, Chron., p. 1

miternum (Jerome, Chron., p. 151 H). A certain P. Vatinius from Reate is recorded, in fact the grandfather of Caesar’s adh

and requital at last. The Paeligni have to wait a generation yet, it is true, before they can show a senator; 4 the leadi

al Italian origin; 7 and the warlike Marsi emerge into prominence, as is fitting, with another Poppaedius Silo, an histori

Vehilius and M. Cusinius (Phil. 3, 25 f.). The gentilicium‘Vehilius’ is rare and not noticed by Schulze: compare, however

ro, De domo sua 116: ‘Scatonem ilium, hominem sua virtute egentem, ut is qui in Marsis, ubi natus est, tectum quo imbris v

tectum quo imbris vitandi causa succederet iam nullum haberet. ’ This is the house-agent Vettius (Ad. Att. 4, 5, 2; 6, 1,

l wars, by the Dictatorship and by the Revolution. The role of Caesar is evident and important no occasion, therefore, to

y man (P-W XV, 1947): by birth he was M. Satrius (P-W II A, 190), and is described as ‘patronus agri Piceni et Sabini’ (Ci

Stadt u. Staat im römischen Italien (1935). His main thesis, however, is firmly contested by Stuart Jones and by Cary, JRS

That Italy should at last enter the government of the enlarged state is a fair notion, but perhaps anachronistic and not

vilization. 2 The earliest consuls bearing these names all belong, as is appropriate, to families that furnished prominent

hed prominent partisans to the cause of Marius. 3 Another termination is found not only in these regions but extends to Pi

ons but extends to Picenum and the Sabine country. 4 Above all, there is a type peculiar to the Sabellian peoples, thickes

ff.; in (1903), 235 ff. (with statistics and maps). The first consul is presumably T. Didius, or Deidius (98), then a lon

. 199. PageBook=>094 obscure men. 1 That might be expected: it is the earliest consuls that convey the visible evid

ip meant the curbing of the oligarchy, promotion for merit. Yet there is nothing revolutionary about the choice of his can

d three of the plebeians were Claudii Marcelli. 5 Among his legates is found no man with a name ending in ‘-idius’, only

numerous suffect consuls as well. For all their admitted talents, it is by no means likely that the Dictator would have g

ate from Perusia, above, p. 90. 2 Horace, Odes 1, 7, 21. A Munatius is attested as aedile there on an early inscr., ILS

t, accepted by many and reinforced by Münzer (P- W, Supp. v, 375 f.), is certainly attractive. A case can be made out for

ba addidit. ’ An elaborate passionate and dramatic speech of Antonius is recorded by certain historians (esp. Appian, on w

n historians (esp. Appian, on whom see E. Schwartz, P-W II, 230), but is suspect. It is by no means clear that it suited h

sp. Appian, on whom see E. Schwartz, P-W II, 230), but is suspect. It is by no means clear that it suited his plans to mak

adversaries, they too had a share of power and glory. Discontent, it is true, could be detected among the populace of Rom

the will and the resources for action, and eventually for civil war, is another question. Their generous ardour was not p

ul would not allow them to take over their provinces. 1 What happened is obscure the provinces in question may have been a

sar may not have been altogether satisfied with his deputy. Yet there is no proof of any serious estrangement. 1 Lepidus,

uty. Yet there is no proof of any serious estrangement. 1 Lepidus, it is true, was appointed consul in 46 and Master of th

st of that will be coolly discounted. From the influence of Cicero it is less easy to escape. The Philippics, the series o

the Caesarian soldier was careless, disorderly, and even disgraceful, is evident and admitted. He belonged to a class of R

sPage=>104 1 Apart from Plutarch, Antonius 10, the only evidence is Cicero, Phil. 2, 71 ff, which betrays its own ina

er suppress a timid and perhaps perverse admiration. A blameless life is not the whole of virtue, and inflexible rectitude

etiam Bruto nostro probari Antonium. ’ 2 Phil. 1, 6; 2, 5. 3 This is strongly emphasized by Gelzer, P-W x, 1003 f. 4

till at Rome for Antonius to take. The character and fate of the fund is problematical. 3 The wilder charges of corruption

isions of two agrarian laws passed in the consulate of Antonius. It is by no means clear that the behaviour of Antonius

h Antonius may not have desired to set himself in’ Caesar’s place, he is not thereby absolved from ambition, considered or

d upon Roman politics. NotesPage=>111 1 The situation in Syria is very obscure. The quaestor C. Antistius Vetus was

s’. In the early and revolutionary years the heir of Caesar never, it is true, referred to himself as ‘Octavianus’; the us

he sanction of literary tradition, will here be maintained, though it is dubious and misleading. As his enemies bitterly o

s an estimate of the character and personality of the principal agent is of doubtful advantage at the best of times it eit

anus will best be left to emerge from his actions. One thing at least is clear. From the beginning, his sense for realitie

ily, or resentment at the thwarting of his own legitimate aspirations is a question that concerns the ultimate nature of h

PageBook=>114 Exorbitant ambition mated with political maturity is not enough to explain the ascension of Octavianus

ctavianus called on Cicero. The illustrious orator was flattered: ‘he is quite devoted to me’, he wrote. 6 The ground wa

vourable to the Liberators. 3 So much in public. What happened next is obscure. The enemies of Antonius, taking new cour

the word ‘Sextilibus’ wrongly. But even so, the date meant by Cicero is quite certain. PageBook=>118 These hopes w

man to support him. Of the tone and content of Piso’s proposal there is no evidence: perhaps he suggested that Cisalpine

ersione primum coeperim cogitare. ’ So at least on the surface, which is all that we know. Yet Antonius may have spoken as

the speeches and negotiations leading up to the session of August 1st is Cicero’s report of what was told him when he was

would repose on grey hairs or none remaining. Legitimate primacy, it is true, could only be attained at Rome through many

influence neutral or Republican elements. The supreme art of politics is patent to rob adversaries of their adherents and

political behaviour that he possessed and that was all he needed. It is a common belief, attested by the existence of pol

onstancy in all the paths of duplicity. A change of front in politics is not disastrous unless caused by delusion or indec

d and act. 1 NotesPage=>122 1 The whole situation at this time is summed up by Dio (45, 11, 1 ff.) with unwonted in

ee him again for more than three months. The importance of his speech is difficult to estimate: but the stand made by the

l, which they are said to have resigned to Octavianus. 4 Nothing else is known of their attitude or activities at this tim

h last command he triumphed at the end of 45 B.C. (CIL 12, p. 50): he is not heard of again until his consulate, August 43

ex. Appuleius, the husband of his half- sister Octavia, only the name is known (ILS 8963); he was the father of Sex. and o

: had he taken to latinizing the alien gentilicium? or else ‘Salvius’ is a cognomen. 3 Seneca, De ben. 3, 32, 4: ‘M. Agr

notus. ’ Agrippa was the same age to within a year as Octavianus, and is said to have been his schoolfellow (Nicolaus, Vit

oolfellow (Nicolaus, Vita Caesaris 7, 16). The gentilicium‘Vipsanius’ is exceedingly rare. Agrippa himself preferred to dr

at the banquet where Sertorius was murdered (Sallust, Hist. 3, 83 M) is presumably a member of this family. The father wa

he moderns give Octavianus’ friend the name ‘Cilnius Maecenas’, which is false (cf. ILS 7848); ‘Maecenas’ is a gentilicium

he name ‘Cilnius Maecenas’, which is false (cf. ILS 7848); ‘Maecenas’ is a gentilicium, not merely a cognomen (cf. ‘Carrin

ry, Horace, Odes 1, 1, 1, &c. PageBook=>130 The best party is but a kind of conspiracy against the Commonwealth

tive to attack and despoil him. 1 The provenance of these resources is by no means clear; neither is the fate of the pri

. 1 The provenance of these resources is by no means clear; neither is the fate of the private fortune of Caesar the Dic

r the Dictator and the various state moneys at his disposal. Antonius is charged with refusing to hand over money due to C

reedmen were very wealthy. The heir could claim their services. 2 Nor is this all. Caesar, intending to depart without del

ctator and of the annual tribute from the provinces of the East. 2 It is alleged that he duly dispatched these moneys to R

July. 6 Oppius was a diplomat as well as a financier. In November he is discovered on a familiar errand, this time not fo

Λ∈ύκιος. Jacoby conjectures a lacuna after the last name, If Nicolaus is correct and correctly transmitted we might have h

ius (cos. 35 B.C.), however, an early adherent (Plutarch, Brutus 27), is quite possible. Note the absence of Salvidienus.

dherents of Octavianus in the first years of his revolutionary career is deplorably scanty. For sufficient reasons. Histor

utina (Ad fam. 10, 33, 4): who impelled the legion to desert Antonius is not recorded. L. Egnatuleius, Antonius’ quaestor,

by action, but by preventing the actions of others. Even a nonentity is a power when consul at Rome. A policy they had, a

no good prospect for the Republicans, but a gain for Octavianus. Less is known about Pansa. Yet Pansa was no declared enem

more from active politics. Yet his repute, or at least his influence, is sufficiently demonstrated by his election, though

icero preserved none of the letters he received from Octavianus. That is not surprising: the editor knew his business. A n

etween the venerable consular and the revolutionary adventurer. There is a danger, it is true, that the relations of Cicer

able consular and the revolutionary adventurer. There is a danger, it is true, that the relations of Cicero and Octavianus

rroborate it in the light of the most recent history. The De officiis is a theoretical treatment of the obligations which

e obligations which a citizen should render to the Commonwealth, that is , a manual of civic virtue. Once again the ideal s

th, that is, a manual of civic virtue. Once again the ideal statesman is depicted in civilian rather than in military garb

her than in military garb; and the ambition of unscrupulous principes is strongly denounced. 2 The lust for power ends in

es is strongly denounced. 2 The lust for power ends in tyranny, which is the negation of liberty, the laws and of all civi

f all civilized life. 3 So much for Caesar. But the desire for fame is not in itself an infirmity or a vice. Ambition ca

ilures and earlier desertions, if that were the question at issue. It is not: a natural and indeed laudable partiality for

n he passes from the character of the orator to defend his policy. It is presumptuous to hold judgement over the dead at a

ersonal ambition. The Second Philippic, though technically perfect, is not a political oration, for it was never deliver

y perfect, is not a political oration, for it was never delivered: it is an exercise in petty rancour and impudent defamat

tary despotism, entered into the possession of its rights again: that is to say, behind the scenes private ambition, famil

f their kind as are the civic and moral paragons of early days; which is fitting, for the evil and the good are both the f

good are both the fabrication of skilled literary artists. Catilina is the perfect monster murder and debauchery of ever

all come from the municipial! 5 Likewise the foreigner. Decidius Saxa is derided as a wild Celtiberian:6 he was a partisan

age=>151 1 Phil. 2, 99. 2 lb. 11, 9. 3 De officiis I, 150 f. is instructive: if business men retire and buy land

alty of all good citizens? Rome had an unwritten constitution: that is to say, according to the canons of Greek politica

licy. The defenders of the Senate’s rule and prerogative were not, it is true, merely a narrow ring of brutal and unenligh

the People. That was the first duty of every Roman statesman. There is a melancholy truth in the judgement of the histor

er the advantage of nomenclature. 2 The political cant of a country is naturally and always most strongly in evidence on

tter not of legal definition but of partisan interpretation. Libertas is a vague and negative notion freedom from the rule

t or a faction. 1 It follows that libertas, like regnum or dominatio, is a convenient term of political fraud. Libertas wa

Alföldi, Zeitschr. für Num. XL (1928), I ff. PageBook=>156 It is the excuse of the revolutionary that the Republic

utionary that the Republic has succumbed to tyranny or to anarchy, it is his ideal to bring back order again. The decisive

ing the foundations of settled government’; and the crown of the work is summed up in the claim that the Free State has be

modation with a citizen in arms, any hope or guarantee of concord, it is better to fight and to fall, as becomes a Roman a

s tunc legibus locus, ad arma civilia actum’; cf. ib. 1, 10, where it is described as a fraudulent pretext. 5 Dio 48, 5,

n private individuals seize provinces and armies, the higher legality is expressly invoked ‘the ordinance enacted by Heave

t lent its sanction? Why, true patriots were their own Senate. 9 It is evident that res publica constituta or libertas r

e on the government. This was called a consensus: the term coniuratio is more revealing. If it was thought inexpedient for

The fact that Cicero uses this argument to demonstrate that Antonius is not really a consul at all should excite suspicio

te suspicion. The conception of a consul’s imperium maius here stated is rather antiquarian in character, to say the least

4 ‘The consuls are excellent, the consulars a scandal. ’5 ‘The Senate is valiant, the consulars partly timid, partly dislo

ia. The remaining five Cicero did not count as consulars at all: that is to say, they were Caesarians. His harsh verdict i

ulars at all: that is to say, they were Caesarians. His harsh verdict is borne out by the facts. Only one of the five was

ove of peace and loyalty to the Republic who did not? But Plancus, it is clear, was coolly waiting upon events. He already

Republican, Pollio found his loyalties at variance or out of date: it is pretty clear that he had no use for any party. He

Egypt and Macedonia was soon to provide more than rumours. But there is no evidence of concerted design between the Liber

d have become consuls and have vacated their consular provinces, that is , until the end of the year 39 B.C., probably the

s heir refused to take orders from Caesar’s assassin: nor, if he had, is it certain that the troops would have obeyed. 1 A

all river ran between the camps. When soldiers are citizens, rhetoric is worth regiments. At a famous scene by the bank of

consular for colleague. Of the intrigues concerning this matter there is scant but significant evidence. In June (so it wo

rt that Cicero had actually been elected. 2 Of a later proposal there is evidence not lightly to be discarded. 3 Cicero an

ment was aggravated by a complete divergence of aims and policy. This is made evident by two incidents. Already Cicero and

BC 3, 82, 337 ft.; Dio 46, 42, 2; Plutarch, Cicero 45 f. If Plutarch is to be believed, Augustus admitted that he had pla

us Brutus. Two letters reveal his insight. 5 The one to Atticus ‘what is the point of overthrowing Antonius to install the

overthrowing Antonius to install the domination of Octavianus? Cicero is as bad as Salvidienus. Men fear death, exile and

rovinces which they had refused to take over (P-W x, 1000). This date is probably too late, for it does not allow a suffic

of defence. Whether the Senate now declared Octavianus a public enemy is not recorded: these formalities were coming to ma

ondemned him to death. 3 The milder version of the fate of Q. Gallius is that he departed on a voyage. Pirates or shipwrec

PageBook=>189 had few partisans of merit or distinction; which is not surprising. Of his lieutenants, Laterensis in

00 to 300 (Cicero 46; Brutus 27; Antonius 20) presumably senators. It is to be regretted that there is such a lack of evid

7; Antonius 20) presumably senators. It is to be regretted that there is such a lack of evidence for the significant categ

it, ea iudicandum de homine est. ’ 2 Pardon and return after a year is attested by ILS 8393. 3 Nepos, Vita Attici 9, 7

above, p. 31, n. I. 2 Appian, BC 4, 46, 195. 3 Cf. ILS 5349, This is the family of the Pompeian L. Arruntius, cos. 22

tion, nobiles and political adversaries might head the list: the bulk is made up by the names of obscure senators or Roman

om the Triumvirs (41 B.C.), like his first from Caesar: after that he is not heard of again. Antonius’ adherent Q. Fufius

s and relatives of the others the only record in the years 43–39 B.C. is a Metellus and a Lentulus among the proscribed (A

s, if he be the Marcius who also was cos. suff. in that year. Nothing is known of the services to the Triumvirs of either

n 39 B.C. and admiral for Octavianus in the Bellum Siculum. Calvisius is the first consul with a gentilicium ending in ‘-i

gentilicium ending in ‘-isius’: non-Latin, cf. ‘Carisius’. His origin is unknown. The dedication ILS 925 (Spoletium) shoul

anus was admitted to honours by Caesar: the ending of the gentilicium is palpably non-Latin, perhaps indicating Etruscan o

Canidius’, familiar enough to literature from Horace’s witch Canidia, is exceedingly rare: Schulze gives no epigraphic exa

: Schulze gives no epigraphic examples of it. The origin of C. Sosius is unknown: but observe the Roman knight from Picenu

ictor, Epit. de Caes. 12, 1. 6 On whom cf. below, p. 237. Statilius is presumably Lucanian in origin. 7 About L. Canin

canian in origin. 7 About L. Caninius Gallus (cos. 37 B.C.) nothing is known, save that his father married a first cousi

the proverbial trio among the novi homines of the Revolution. 1 Which is appropriate, given the rarity and non-Latin termi

e the passage. Their supremacy at sea was short-lived. Pompeius, it is true, did not intervene; but Cn. Domitius Ahenoba

3 Appian, BC 5, 12, 46, cf. Dio 48, 2, 3. 4 Above, p. 189. There is no evidence of the whereabouts of P. Ventidius in

αὑτ ν αἰτίᾳ μ λλον ἣ τ ν τυραννούντων. PageBook=>204 cause, it is held, was doomed from the beginning, defeat inevi

and respected the tried merit of Cassius. The best of the legions, it is true, were Caesarian veterans. Yet the soldiers w

the fallen were recorded the noblest names of Rome. No consulars, it is true, for the best of the principes were already

Lucullus, a NotesPage=>205 1 Plutarch, Brutus 43. 2 The date is given by the Calendar of Praeneste, L’ann. ép., 1

epublican cause were led before the victorious generals, Antonius, it is alleged, they saluted as imperator, but reviled O

e message, but Nerva stayed with Antonius. NotesPage=>208 1 It is impossible to discover the ultimate truth of thes

tesPage=>210 1 Appian, BC 5, 20, 80 f. 2 Dio 48, 10, 1. 3 It is quite impossible to reconstruct these operations

enalty exacted of the town council of Perusia, with the exception, it is said, of one man, an astute person who in Rome ha

held Venetia for a time against the generals of Octavianus. Then all is a blank, save that he negotiated with the Republi

a, De clem. 1, 11 (‘Arae Perusinae’). 4 Dio 48, 13, 6. The incident is wrongly dated by Suetonius, Divus Aug. 12. 5 Ve

t bound him to Cleopatra more closely than to Glaphyra, there neither is , nor was, any sign at all. Nor did he see the Que

mitted a serious and irreparable error of political calculation which is not so certain. 6 The envoys were L. Scribonius

272. 3 Dio 48, 28, 4; Appian, BC 5, 65, 274 4 An approximate date is provided by the fact that the magistrates of the

very precisely to be inaugurated by Pollio, ‘te duce’. The Golden Age is to be fulfilled, or at least inaugurated, by a ch

ur bellis civilibus aetas suis et ipsa Roma viribus ruit. The Epode is quoted and utilized here, though it may very well

ate. The problem of priority between the Epode and the Fourth Eclogue is difficult. That Virgil’s poem is the earlier is n

een the Epode and the Fourth Eclogue is difficult. That Virgil’s poem is the earlier is now very plausibly argued by B. Sn

nd the Fourth Eclogue is difficult. That Virgil’s poem is the earlier is now very plausibly argued by B. Snell, Hermes LXX

inth age (Servius on Ecl. 9, 47) and died upon the spot: the incident is there brought into connexion with the comet and s

son, and a Roman matron. 1 The identification of the child of destiny is a task that has exercised the ingenuity and revea

gravated by a hazard to which prophetic literature by its very nature is peculiarly liable, that of subsequent manipulatio

he relevance, of Saloninus may be called into doubt; 5 further, there is no reason to imagine that Pollio expected a son o

ellus was born two years earlier. 6 In 40 B.C. Octavianus himself, it is true, had contracted a marriage with Scribonia; J

Caesarian leaders in concord and established peace for the world. It is a fair surmise that the Fourth Eclogue was compos

s’ man, and Pollio had had a large share in negotiating the treaty he is an agent here, not merely a date. Antonius’ son,

ia mention the Parthini, and only the Parthini, a tribe whose habitat is known. A capture of the city of Salonae far away

of Salonae far away in Dalmatia, alleged by the Virgilian scholiasts, is merely an inference from the name of Pollio’s sho

(1932), 75 ff. Appian (BC 5, 75, 320) mentions the Dardani, but there is no record of any operations against them. The his

ations against them. The history of Macedonia in the years 38-32 B.C. is a complete blank. 3 Coins of Sosius, ranging in

ars before, celebrated in Rome his paradoxical triumph. 1 Ventidius is not heard of again save for the ultimate honour o

I2, p. 50, cf. 180. The fullest account of the exploits of Ventidius is given by Dio, 48, 39, 3 ff.; 49, 19, 1 ff. Accord

s of Antonius, Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus and C. Sosius. But five years is a long period in a revolutionary epoch. Octavianu

Silanus, L. Arruntius, M. Titius and C. Sentius Saturninus. The list is partial in every sense of the term. Nero had alre

tius, Fannius and Libo. These persons can mostly be identified. There is only one difficulty, whether Saturninus is the Se

ostly be identified. There is only one difficulty, whether Saturninus is the Sentius Saturninus Vetulo, one of the proscri

son, C. Sentius Saturninus (cos. 19 B.C.), a better-known person (who is clearly referred to by Velleius, 2, 77, 3). The S

first husband was Cn. Lentulus Marcellinus (cos. 56 B.C.). The second is a problem. Her daughter Cornelia, married to Paul

Lepidus had several children. Their destiny, save for the eldest son, is unknown. They were surely employed at an early ag

They were surely employed at an early age for dynastic alliances. It is not known whom Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus married;

f Oppius, ib. 11, 517 ff. The presence of Atratinus in western waters is likewise to be inferred from his coins, some stru

had carefully been worked upon (BC 5, 124, 513), and Dio (49, 12, 1) is cynical about the whole transaction νoμίσας δ δὴ

onfidence in himself. Of his victories the more considerable part, it is true, had been the work of his lieutenants. His h

e Dictator, and was the first triumviral consul. 3 The noble Calvinus is a solitary and mysterious figure. It was from his

ian, BC 5, 54, 229, cf. Groag, PIR2, C 1331. If or when he was consul is uncertain, for Velleius describes him as ‘ex priv

in 38 and in 32: the former eludes certain identification, the latter is probably L. Cornelius Cinna. Of Balbus himself, n

the latter is probably L. Cornelius Cinna. Of Balbus himself, nothing is recorded between 40 and 19 B.C. 7 Dio 48, 30, 7

itrae). Also Titinius and Carisius (Appian, BC 5, 111, 463). Titinius is unknown. Carisius is probably P. Carisius, of lat

and Carisius (Appian, BC 5, 111, 463). Titinius is unknown. Carisius is probably P. Carisius, of later notoriety as legat

Appian. 5 Calvisius was an Antonian in 44 B.C. (Phil. 3, 26). There is no evidence how soon he joined Octavianus. On his

s (cos. suff. 33) and indeed of his subsequent history nothing at all is known. 2 Destined ere long to a place in war and

hilippi and was proud of it. He then followed Antonius for a time, it is uncertain for how long. 5 The young Lepidus went

enemy by sea and NotesPage=>237 1 Plutarch, Brutus 27. Nothing is known of his family or attachments: there is no e

arch, Brutus 27. Nothing is known of his family or attachments: there is no evidence that he was related to Q. Cornificius

the fact of his consulate, the only clear testimony about Q. Laronius is a tile from Vibo in Bruttium (CIL X, 804118), whi

which was presumably his home, cf. ILS 6463. 3 In whose company he is first mentioned, in 43, perhaps as one of his leg

y have come with ships from Antonius as did Bibulus and Atratinus. He is not attested with Octavianus before 36 B.C. The r

i homines splendid matches were now in prospect. By chance, no record is preserved of the partners of Taurus, Calvisius, C

perator before becoming a senator (BMC, R. Rep. 11, 407). Q. Laronius is ‘imp. II’, even on a tile (CIL X, 804118). 4 Ca

1, 12). 7 The daughter of Scribonia, above, p. 229. Pulcher’s wife is not known, but there is a link somewhere with the

r of Scribonia, above, p. 229. Pulcher’s wife is not known, but there is a link somewhere with the Valerii, cf. PIR2, C 98

ade vast conquests in Illyricum, including the whole of Bosnia: which is neither proved nor probable. PageBook=>241

utility. His minister NotesPage=>241 1 The presence of Agrippa is attested by Appian, Ill. 20; Dio 49, 38, 3 f. Mes

nius, Divus Aug. 29, 5; Tacitus, Ann. 3, 72. The complicated evidence is digested and discussed by F. W. Shipley, Mem. Am.

n (Dio 49, 44, 3). None of these men ever commanded armies, so far as is known, save Autronius and M. Acilius (Glabrio), l

t, BJ 3, 1: ‘neque virtuti honos datur neque illi, quibus per fraudem is fuit tuti aut eo magis honesti sunt. ’ 2 Ib. 4,

ander. To discern which demanded no singular gift of perspicacity: it is the merit of the least pretentious of contemporar

he duty of confiscating lands in the north after Philippi; and Pollio is the earliest patron of Virgil, who was the son of

they cannot be employed in historical reconstruction. 6 His Lycoris is alleged to have been Volumnia (the freedwoman of

fter the Pact of Brundisium:1 how long he remained an Antonian, there is no evidence at all. Virgil, however, persevered

m, revealing the dependence of NotesPage=>253 1 Not that there is any definite evidence at all: the Arcadian scener

estige, though waning, was still formidable enough in 33 B.C.; and it is fatally easy to overestimate the strength and pop

), 579. 3 Emphasized by Kromayer, ib. 585. The evidence of Josephus is clear and valuable, AJ 15, 75 ff.; 79; 88; 91 f.;

a, reconstituting the Ptolemaic kingdom as a wedding-gift. 3 The fact is difficult to establish. From the Egyptian allia

; Strabo, p. 625). 3 Josephus, AJ 14, 137; 143; 162, &c. 4 It is seldom possible, however, to determine whether th

r victory. NotesPage=>265 1 Velleius 2, 82, 3. Livy, Per. 130, is moderate two legions cut to pieces, further eight

Crassus, compare the coins, BMC, R. Rep. 11, 532: L. Pinarius Scarpus is attested there in 31 B.C., Dio 51, 5, 6; BMC, R.

a in 31 B.C. (Dio 51, 7, 3), was perhaps appointed by Antonius. There is no evidence of any provincial commands held by L.

in of his most intimate friends had once been Antonians. 1 Evidence is scanty. Yet it could be guessed that the Cocceii,

adversariorum castris conscripsit. ’ 2 M. Cocceius Nerva (cos. 36) is honoured on an inscription of Lagina in Caria as

‘cos. des. ’ and ‘proconsul’ (probably of Asia). The origin of Titius is unknown possibly Picene, cf. CIL IX, 4191 (Auximu

, 39, 2 f.). About C. Fonteius Capito (cos. suff. 33) precious little is known. One of the negotiators at Tarentum in 37 B

us, attested as governor of Syria in the year 31 B.C. (Dio 51, 7, i), is otherwise unknown: perhaps a relative of the Caes

sarian legate C. Didius (Bell. Hisp, 40, I, &c). M. Oppius Capito is known only from coins (BMC, R. Rep. II, 517 ff.):

etellus who defies close identification. 6 The total of noble names is impressive when contrasted with the following of

n had never yet sat in the Roman Senate. That mattered little now, it is true. They NotesPage=>269 1 Appian, BC 5,

ian, 1. c, and Velleius 2, 87, 3 (the last of the assassins). Cassius is also a figure in literary history, cf. P-W III, 1

n of the Pompeian consul of 72 B.C., cf. Münzer, P-W VII, 103 ff.: he is the Gellius infamously derided by Catullus (88-91

ed by Catullus (88-91). His wife Sempronia, daughter of L. Atratinus, is mentioned in IG 112, 866 and other inscriptions.

καὶ ἀντυστράτηγὸν (ILS 9461). He was a Calpurnius Bestia by birth. It is not quite certain that his adoptive parent was de

42, 175 ff). L. Pinarius Scarpus, the nephew of Caesar the Dictator, is difficult to classify: on him, cf. F. Münzer, Her

ripe. The official Roman version of the cause of the War of Actium is quite simple, consistent and suspect a just war,

utarch (Antonius 54) and Dio (49, 41, 1 ff.) are lavish of detail. It is strange that neither Velleius (2, 82, 2 f.) nor L

e phraseology recur in the history of war and politics whenever there is a public opinion worth persuading or deceiving.

c opinion worth persuading or deceiving. The version of the victors is palpably fraudulent; the truth cannot be disinter

erotic romance as well as in political mythology. Of the facts, there is and was no authentic record; even if there were,

unrealized intentions may be logical, artistic and persuasive, but it is not history. Up to a point the acts of Antonius

r over a separate kingdom or over the whole world? Again the argument is from intentions intentions which can hardly hav

stent attempts to augment her kingdom at the expense of Judaea. There is no sign of infatuation here if infatuation there

umbed to the power of her imagination and her understanding. Yet that is not proved. Antonius was compelled to stand by Cl

s was but her dupe and her agent. Of the ability of Cleopatra there is no doubt: her importance in history, apart from l

o doubt: her importance in history, apart from literature and legend, is another matter. It NotesPage=>274 1 Plutar

4 W. W. Tarn, JRS XXII (1932), 141; CAH x, 82 f. PageBook=>275 is not certain that her ambition was greater than th

augment her Ptolemaic kingdom under the protection of Rome. The clue is to be found in the character of the War of Actium

Salviam Titiseniam aut omnes. an refert, ubi et in qua arrigas? ’ It is evident that this famous fragment, matching in fr

be the wives of certain associates of Octavianus at least Terentilla is presumably Terentia, the wife of Maecenas, not un

did in 32 B.C. On the other, the statement and attitude of Octavianus is perfectly clear: he had been Triumvir for ten yea

tumn. They may previously have made a compromise with Octavianus:1 it is more likely that they were afraid to divulge its

n consuls departed from Rome without securing a lex curiata. 3 This is a pure conjecture, based on the presence of the n

nted, for peace. For war his prestige and his power were enormous. It is in no way evident that the mishap in Media had ru

n (like the meaning of the word ‘uxor’) complicate the question which is perhaps in itself not of prime importance. Antoni

spera, was founded, or at least named, in his honour: this conjecture is confirmed by the existence of a city called Titio

cus. 4 Plutarch, Antonius 58; Dio 50, 3, 1 ff.; Velleius 2, 83. Dio is not very explicit about the cause of their desert

Plancus. Complete silence envelops the discreet Cocceii; and there is no sign when Atratinus and Fonteius changed sides

r nobiles remained, however, some to the very end. Most significant is the strong Republican following of one already de

the secrets of Antonius, the renegades brought a precious gift, so it is alleged news of the documentary evidence that Oct

mong other enormities NotesPage=>282 1 The truth of the matter is lost for ever. Octavianus had the first view of t

s of forgery, at least partial, should not summarily be dismissed. It is a question not of scruples but of expedience how

r (Cicero, Pro Balbo 53; ILS 3700) and hostile to Plancus. 3 If Dio is to be believed (50, 4, 2). The publication of the

3 If Dio is to be believed (50, 4, 2). The publication of the will is not given so much importance and effect by Plutar

rnment, a certain suspension of belief may safely be recommended. Nor is it to be fancied that all the land rose as one ma

(37, 11) furnishes the text of an oath of allegiance to Drusus, which is significant though the phraseology cannot be genu

ng of the work that Augustus the Princeps was later to consummate. It is evident that the most confident as well as the mo

n personal allegiance. Dux partium became princeps civitatis. 4 Nor is surmise entirely vain about the manner in which t

the Greek East. The Empire might split into two parts very easily. It is one of the miracles of Roman history that in subs

the Caesarian party, old and new, about Plancus, or about Agrippa. It is to be regretted that no history preserves the opi

his legions to thirty. The new recruits were inferior to Italians, it is true, but by no means contemptible if they came f

on. Antonius concentrated his forces in the neighbourhood. Then all is obscure. Months passed, with operations by land a

es. NotesPage=>295 1 As Tarn argues, CQ XXVI (1932), 75 ff. It is clear, however, that provincial levies were heavi

e battle of Actium was decided before it was fought. The true story is gone beyond recall. It is uncertain whether Anton

ided before it was fought. The true story is gone beyond recall. It is uncertain whether Antonius designed to fight a na

dated, cf. Dio 50, 13, 8; Velleius 2, 84, 2). 2 Dio 51, 4, 3. There is no indication of the date of his desertion. He ha

an legions. The course, character and duration of the battle itself is all a mystery—and a topic of controversy. There m

battle (if treachery there was), and avoidance of bloodshed to Rome, is not known. Sosius might be suspected. Certain of

us fervently extols the clemency of Italy’s leader after Actium. 5 It is naturally difficult to control or refute these pa

Cleopatra presented a more delicate problem. ‘A multitude of Caesars is no good thing. ’3 That just observation sealed th

nd Cleopatra Selene were reserved to walk in a Roman triumph. The boy is not heard of again—he was probably suppressed. Th

was put in charge of Syria :3 Octavianus’ first governor of Macedonia is nowhere attested—perhaps it was Taurus. 4 But Mes

ne the less his command in Spain may have preceded that of Taurus. He is not mentioned at Actium. As for Gaul, Dio records

rial salutation (ILS 895). The precise nature and date of his command is not certain (see Ritterling, Fasti des r. Deutsch

governor of Syria. About the date, no evidence. The period 29–27 B.C. is attractive, but 27–25 not excluded. On his habits

roduces a divine decree, forbidding Troy ever to be rebuilt; 5 Virgil is quite explicit; 6 and Livy duly demonstrates how

4 Dio 53, 1, I ff. That this was done in virtue of censoria potestas is shown by the Fasti of Venusia, ILS 6123. The incr

beyond the forms and names of an outworn constitution. The reference is probably wider, not merely to the oath of allegia

Caesar’s heir stood supreme—’potentiae securus’. 4 Naked despotism is vulnerable. The imperator could depend upon the p

P-W XIII, 283 ff. 3 Nonius Gallus (ILS 89s, cf. Dio 51, 20, 5). It is not certain, however, what position he was holdin

n among them, the course of events might have been different. 1 There is a mysterious calamity in these years unexplained

offender. Gallus took his own life (27 B.C.). 2 The offence of Gallus is variously described as base ingratitude, statues

tavianus. The successor of L. Autronius Paetus as proconsul of Africa is not known. 2 Jerome (Chron., p. 164 h) puts his

der, under the year 26 B.C.: his account of the procedure (53, 23, 7) is also vague— καì ἡ γερʋυσία ἃττασα ἁλῶναί τє αὐτὸν

ecalled from Egypt in 28 B.C. With the proconsul of Macedonia no link is known, save that each was once a partisan of Anto

partisan of Antonius. 3 Who had not been? Neither Gallus nor Crassus is even mentioned by the loyal historian Velleius Pa

6. PageBook=>312 The word ‘princeps’, as applied to Augustus, is absent from the Aeneid of Virgil and is not of ve

eps’, as applied to Augustus, is absent from the Aeneid of Virgil and is not of very common occurrence in the first three

muli’). 2 Odes 4, 5, 5. 3 Fasti 1, 613; 2, 60; 5, 145; 6, 92. Nor is this merely, as might be expected, with definite

ories or to the power of Augustus. His attention to ancient monuments is described as ‘sacrati provida cura ducis’ (Fasti

ention a grant of proconsular imperium. That such there was, however, is clear enough. Premerstein (Vom Werden und Wesen d

hat it carried imperium maius over the provinces of the Senate. Which is by no means necessary, cf. W. Kolbe, in the volum

ae’ (o. c, 120 ff.). That Augustus exercised such a supervision there is no doubt—but in virtue of his auctoritas. Augustu

Varro, RR 3, 1, 2). 2 Suetonius, Divus Aug. 7, 2. 3 Dio’s account is anachronistic and misleading. He states that Augu

uls are definitely attested in the early years of the Principate. Nor is the information provided by the contemporary Stra

se parallel from the recent past might properly have been invoked: it is pretty clear that it was not. The Romans as a p

stood, the Roman constitution would serve his purpose well enough. It is , therefore, no paradox to discover in the Princip

blican Rome. The historical validity of the inferences thence derived is another question. It will be doubted whether Au

ught to refute Sallustius. The tone of literature in the Augustan age is certainly Pompeian rather than Caesarian, just as

abilitation of the last generation of the Republic, which in politics is the Age of Pompeius. In his youth Caesar’s heir,

Odes omits all mention of Caesar the Dictator. Only the Julium sidus is there— the soul of Caesar, purged of all earthly

celestial auspices to the ascension of Caesar’s heir. 1 The picture is consistent. Livy, Virgil and Horace of all August

as the victory itself, on quieter reflection an uncomfortable matter, is no longer fervently advertised. A purified Pomp

deal state that was realized under the Principate of Augustus. 1 That is an anachronism: the theorists of antiquity situat

their social and political Utopias in the past, not in the future. It is a more convincing view that Cicero, in despair an

that anybody who does not wish the present dispensation to be altered is a good citizen. 1 Precisely for that end Augustus

cia of Pollio came as a verbal reminder of that tradition. Pollio, it is true, was preserved as a kind of privileged nuisa

gality’ should find no quarrel with a rigid law of high treason. It is time to turn from words and theories. Only a robu

o be their protector against oppression. Free elections returned—that is to say, a grateful people would unfailingly elect

n the res publica which he sought to ‘establish upon a lasting basis’ is not a matter of paramount importance. No man of

ma revocata. ’2 The words have a venerable and antiquarian ring. That is all; and that is enough to show them up. Sueton

he words have a venerable and antiquarian ring. That is all; and that is enough to show them up. Suetonius, however, a s

as the creation of a ‘novus status’. 4 From a distance the prospect is fairer. It has been maintained in recent times th

nd Agrippa. The transition to liberty was carefully safeguarded. It is an entertaining pursuit to speculate upon the sub

e to age the transmission of perennial maxims of political wisdom; it is more instructive to discover, in any time and und

of this remarkable person are highly obscure (P-W V A, 706 ff.). Nor is his nomenclature constant. Yet it is pretty clear

obscure (P-W V A, 706 ff.). Nor is his nomenclature constant. Yet it is pretty clear that the consul of 23 B.C. ‘A. T[ere

consul of 23 B.C. ‘A. T[erentius … ] V[ar]ro Murena’ (CIL ι2, p. 28) is the same person as the Terentius Varro in Dio (53

t of Spain, Baetica, to the list of public provinces in 27 B.C. Which is not at all likely. Strabo is even worse. In his a

ist of public provinces in 27 B.C. Which is not at all likely. Strabo is even worse. In his account of the original divisi

the original division (p. 840), Gallia Narbonensis as well as Baetica is senatorial. Syria at this time was simply the Ant

of imperial provinces into the categories of consular and praetorian is a subsequent and a natural development. No new sy

tion of consular and praetorian provinces gradually developed; and it is by no means certain that it held good for the pub

lassi (Dio 53, 25, 3 f.; Strabo, p. 205). M. Appuleius (cos. 20 B.C.) is attested at Tridentum, bearing the title of ‘lega

e command held by generals operating in northern Italy in this period is a matter of no little difficulty. 5 In Spain C.

victory in Gaul in 25 B.C. (Dio 53, 26, 4). In Syria a certain Varro is attested c. 24-23 (Josephus, BJ 1, 398; AJ 15, 34

es C. Sentius Saturninus (cos. 19 b.c.) and P. Silius Nerva (cos. 20) is known; as for L, Arruntius (cos. 22), only his co

) is known; as for L, Arruntius (cos. 22), only his command at Actium is attested. L. Tarius Rufus (cos. suff. 16) and M.

s efforts on behalf of Murena. 4 What friends or following Murena had is uncertain but the legate of Syria about this tirk

ensibly prophetic, in an Ode addressed to Licinius (2, 10, 9 ff.) who is probably Murena. 3 Dio 53, 24, 2. 4 Ib. 54, 3

of Actium for Actium was the foundation-myth of the new order. There is something unreal in the sustained note of jubilat

ibus nec vitia nostra nec remedia pati possumus. ’ Horace, Odes 1, 2, is quite relevant here, though the poem may well hav

. Wesen des Prinzipats, 232 ff. That Augustus received imperium mains is explicitly stated by Dio, ought never to have bee

ins is explicitly stated by Dio, ought never to have been doubted and is confirmed, if that were needed, by the five edict

e (for a text of which, cf. J. G. C Anderson in JRS XVII, 33 ff.). It is reasonable enough to suppose that the powers gran

y. The tribunicia potestas was elusive and formidable; while imperium is so important that all mention of it is studiously

and formidable; while imperium is so important that all mention of it is studiously omitted from the majestic and misleadi

Agrippa for five years. The exact nature and competence of the grant is uncertain: it probably covered the dominions of t

be urged the fact that a few years later, in 20 and 19 B.C., Agrippa is found, not there, but in Gaul and Spain (Dio 54,

and definition. If an exact date must at all costs be sought in what is a process, not a series of acts, the establishmen

t Secular Games should be celebrated precisely in that year; 5 and it is at least remarkable that certain Odes of Horace (

he crisis in the inner councils of the government. The constitution is a façade as under the Republic. Not only that. Au

on is a façade as under the Republic. Not only that. Augustus himself is not so much a man as a hero and a figure-head, an

ired in disgust and resentment,6 in another his residence in the East is described as a mild but opprobrious form of banis

st is described as a mild but opprobrious form of banishment. 7 There is no truth in this fancy a political suspect is not

of banishment. 7 There is no truth in this fancy a political suspect is not placed in charge of provinces and armies. P

, 3; Tib. 10. 7 Pliny, NH 7, 149: ‘pudenda Agrippae ablegatio. ’ It is evident that Tiberius’ retirement to Rhodes has c

cenas the advocacy of monarchy, republicanism to Agrippa. The fiction is transparent but not altogether absurd. Unity wa

the virtuous Aristides of Greek historians and moralists. The picture is consistent and conventional. It was destined for

His refusal of honours was represented as modest self-effacement: it is rather the sign of a concentrated ambition, of a

that Augustus had been. The nobiles would not have stood it. Agrippa is rather to be regarded as the deputy-leader of the

r can one man, though empire may appear to presuppose monarchy. There is always an oligarchy somewhere, open or concealed.

Princeps and his family, to build up a syndicate of government. 1 It is time to investigate in some detail the compositio

n thirty years had elapsed. But some perished or disappeared. Nothing is heard again of the consular L. Gellius Poplicola

c he could rise to the centurionate, but no higher. After service, it is true, he might be in possession of the equestrian

strian census, and hence eligible for equestrian posts; 5 further, it is by no means unlikely that sons of equestrian fami

ctus equitum) were reserved for members of the equestrian order, that is to say, for knights (including senators’ sons who

porarily of their rank to become centurions. 2 The equestrian order is recruited in two ways. First, soldiers or soldier

ing the Triumviral period an ex-slave became military tribune. Horace is ferociously indignant ‘hoc, hoc tribuno militum’.

the practices of Pompeius and of Caesar. NotesPage=>354 1 This is the type of ‘sanguine factus eques’ (Ovid, Amores

lower of its own members to the Senate. The class of knights, indeed, is the cardinal factor in the whole social, military

trian career of service in the army, in finance and in administration is gradually built up, in itself no sudden novelty,

raefectus equitum. 2 Others served for even longer T. Junius Montanus is the prime example. 3 Again, in Egypt, a land forb

r. Ritterstand, 142 ff. The equestris militia in the time of Augustus is a highly obscure subject. The post of praefectus

itself, the promotion of knights to the Senate was no novelty, for it is evident that the Senate after Sulla contained man

nquillitate vitae, nullis rei publicae negotiis permixtos. ’ Augustus is not to be taken too seriously here. 5 Cf. above

scilicet virorum et locupletium, in hac curia esse voluit. ’ Claudius is not quite correct, however, in assigning the inno

r towns, and desperately proud of birth. 1 Of some the town or region is attested; in others the family-name, by root or t

S 947, cf. 5346: the first consul with a name terminating in ‘-isius’ is C. Calvisius Sabinus (39 B.C.). As for P. Viriasi

us Naso (ILS 158; 5940), the earliest consul with a name of this type is Sex. Vitulasius Nepos, cos. suff. A.D. 78, who pr

ending in ‘-idius’. 3 ILS 5925. He has two gentilicia. Each of them is found at Canusium and nowhere else (‘Sotidius’: C

obably came from Picenum. 2 The origin of M. Lollius and of P. Silius is unknown. 3 A novus homo held the consulate as c

two consuls. 7 NotesPage=>362 1 Tacitus, Ann. 3, 48. Lanuvium is only five miles from Velitrae. 2 No certain evi

cina (Severus), cos. suff. 1 B.C. (L’ann. ép., 1937, 62). Passienus is the first consul with a name of that type, nearly

of a man who had been ‘equestris ordinis princeps’. Nothing definite is known about the origin of Q. Haterius, C. Caelius

cos. suff. A.D. 10? The Origin of Lucilius Longus, cos. suff. A.D. 7, is not known: perhaps the son of Brutus’ friend (Plu

um, R. S. Conway, The Italic Dialects 1, 246, no. 225). 4 ILS 932: ‘ is primus omnium Paelign. senator | factus est et eo

y have desired or sought to stem their steady advance. Augustus, it is commonly held, lacked both the broad imperial vis

atisfy the needs of the moralist, the pedagogue or the politician but is alien and noxious to the understanding of history

BSR Papers XIV (1938), 1 f. PageBook=>367 Caesar’s liberalism is inferred from his intentions, which cannot be kno

ustus exalted Italy; but the contrast between Italy and the provinces is misleading and erroneous when extended to colonie

4 Not only Gallus. C. Turranius (c. 7-4 B.C.) came from Spain, if he is rightly to be identified with Turranius Gracilis

stus alone the advancement of novi homines under the Principate? That is to leave out the influence of his adherents. The

ally: in truth the latter was the more important. On neither occasion is evidence recorded of vital changes concerning the

is evidence recorded of vital changes concerning the magistracies: it is therefore hard to discern under what conditions t

stored to Republican freedom. That there was change and development is clear. The minor magistracies were not definitely

asp on the consulate, as the names on the Fasti attest and prove. Nor is there a hint anywhere of electoral ambition, corr

come of new families against five nobles. 3 The restored Republic, it is evident, meant no restoration of the nobiles, the

e from the Triumviral period. After 19 B.C., however, a development is perceptible. Yet this may be a result, not only o

p. 243 f. For the whole Triumviral period (43–33 B.C.) the proportion is twenty-five to ten. 3 Not counting Varro Murena

suffect consuls become frequent and regular upon the Fasti. The date is not accidental: the flagrant dynastic policy of A

ons for political advancement in the Principate. The game of politics is played in the same arena as before; the competito

relationship with the Marcii Censorini (cf. Velleius 2, 14, 3). There is an unexplained connexion with the Messallae in th

excellent men, amassed fortunes without discredit: precisely how, it is not recorded perhaps by inheritance. 5 Quirinius

iate, administrative positions and provincial commands. When religion is the care of the State in an oligarchical society,

When religion is the care of the State in an oligarchical society, it is evident that sacerdotal preferment will be confer

ach held at least two priesthoods; 4 the excellent Sentius Saturninus is found next to Augustus as deputy-master of the co

proconsuls of the public provinces. The precise manner of its working is unknown, the results no doubt satisfactory. Moreo

s Maximus certainly came from Aeclanum (ILS 1335). As the gentilicium is not uncommon it would hardly be fair to conjectur

ILS 8996. The stemma drawn up by Cichorius, Hermes XXXIX (1904), 470, is hazardous: see Table VI at end. PageBook=>38

For Otho, Suetonius, Otho 1, 1. The influence of Urgulania with Livia is attested by Tacitus, Ann. 2, 34; 4, 21 f. It may

ts without title or official powers. In 26 B.C. Taurus was consul, it is true; but the authority of Agrippa, Maecenas and

us Agrippa (1933), 98 ff. Whether or no he should be called co-regent is a question of terminology. 3 Res Gestae 12. The

cedonia: a great advance was designed all along the line. 1 Illyricum is the central theme, and the extension of Illyricum

theme, and the extension of Illyricum to the bank of the river Danube is the cardinal achievement of the foreign policy of

d awkward, lacking above all in lateral communications there was (and is ) no way along the littoral of the Adriatic. The A

f. Aug. | L. Tario Ruf. pro | pr. | leg. X Fret. | pontem fecit. ’ He is not described as ‘proconsul’. This may mean that

er the province or refrained from having a proconsul appointed. There is no record of the title of M. Lollius. 2 Dio 54,

e Principate of Augustus only one besides Agrippa, namely M. Lollius, is honoured by Horace with the dedication of an ode.

bus receive no ode from Horace. PageBook=>393 Above all, there is a singular lack of historical evidence for the ni

omonadenses and the Isaurians. NotesPage=>393 1 This intention is palpable and flagrant in Velleius Paterculus. The

partition of provinces in 27 B.C., and reveals its own inadequacy. It is here assumed, though it cannot be proved, that M.

of the campaigns of Piso. The first clearly attested legate of Moesia is the consular A. Caecina Severus in A.D. 6 (Dio 55

. Asinius Gallus (cos. 8 B.C.), certainly in 6–5 B.C., ILS 97. Fabius is described as ἀπò т ς κ∈ίνου δ∈ξιâς κα γνώμης ἀπ∈σ

m in primis, belli ac rei militaris peritum (In Pisonem 54). 2 That is , on the assumption that Labienus was, from the be

945. The first person to be described as legate of a definite legion is P. Cornelius Lcntulus Scipio, holding that post i

hese were among the greatest, but they were not exceptional. Vinicius is a close parallel; it is unfortunate that so littl

test, but they were not exceptional. Vinicius is a close parallel; it is unfortunate that so little is known of the career

ional. Vinicius is a close parallel; it is unfortunate that so little is known of the careers of L. Tarius Rufus and C. Se

Sentius Saturninus. 2 The most striking example of continuous service is afforded by the novus homo from Picenum, C. Pop

peace on the frontiers. The historical record of the wars of Augustus is fragmentary and capricious. Design has conspired

, 80; 6, 39; Dio 58, 25, 4. PageBook=>398 After Varro, Agrippa is the next attested legate, governing the province

when he went to the East in 1 B.C.4 L. Calpurnius Piso (cos. 15 B.C.) is attested in Galatia-Pamphylia c. 13 B.C.5 His e

ubsequently, it may be, legate of Syria. 8 NotesPage=>398 1 He is attested at some time between 13 and 8 B.C. (Jose

ns. The argument for assigning to him the inscr. from Tibur (ILS 918) is not so strong. Cf. n. 8. 2 Josephus, AJ 16, 344

. Cf. n. 8. 2 Josephus, AJ 16, 344, &c. The date of his command is probably 9–6 B.C. (P-W I A, 1519 ff.). There migh

ight be room for another legate between Titius and Sentius, but there is no point in inserting one. 3 Dio 54, 20, 4 ff.;

r of a man who was legate of Augustus in a province the name of which is lost but which earned him ornamenta triumphalia f

his would fit Piso and his Bellum Thracicum quite well; but Quirinius is still not absolutely excluded (below, p. 399, n.

. Cornelius Lentulus. 4 The situation in the Balkans in these years is doubly obscure. The army of Macedonia may still h

Tacitus, Ann. 4, 44. 4 The date of M. Vinicius’ command (ILS 8965) is quite uncertain. A. v. Premerstein argues for 14–

is quite uncertain. A. v. Premerstein argues for 14–13 B.C. (when he is in fact attested in Illyricum at the beginning of

Ann. 4, 44), cf. now E. Groag, PIK2, C 1379, who demonstrates that he is the consul of 14 B.C., not, as hitherto believed,

n the period 9 B.C.–A.D. 6. PageBook=>401 As for the Rhine, it is not certain who followed Tiberius in 6 B.C.1 Befo

yed. Including the four governors of Galatia already discussed, there is a total of ten eminent men. Of these, three are n

. The significance of this fact for the secret politics of the period is evident and enormous. 5 Thus the New State endu

nicius (Velleius 2, 104, 2, under A.D. 2). 3 Paullus Fabius Maximus is attested in 3/2 B.C., ILS 8895 (Bracara), cf. CIL

and that the two Spanish armies had by now been fused into one. Which is not unlikely. As for Varus, his proconsulate of A

e mentioned, that of praefectus urbi. In the nature of the matter, it is difficult to see how the Princeps could be repres

tus, Ann. 1, 79, cf. ILS 5893. 6 Dio 55, 25, 6; 26, 2. C. Turranius is attested as praefectus annonae in A.D. 14, Tacitu

. For difficulties about the date, cf. PIR2 C 289. No praefectus urbi is mentioned in A.D. 14. 3 Suetonius, Divus Aug. 2

v. Premerstein, Vom Werden u. Wesen des Prinzipats, 112 ff. 5 This is the ‘pars populi integra et magnis domibus adnexa

νκίον Moυvατίoυ. 4 IGRR IV, 244 (Ilium). 5 Dio 53, 15, 4 f. There is no evidence, however, about the date of this inno

The language in which the cities of Asia extol Paullus Fabius Maximus is suggestive ὰπò τ ς ἐκεíνου δεξι ѕ καí γνώμης ὰπεσ

and public debate: they were now decided in secret by a few men. 1 He is right. If Augustus wished his rule to retain the

tional liberty, with free elections and free debate in the Senate, it is evident that there would have to be expert prepar

executive powers. It was therefore advisable for the government that is , the Princeps and the party- dynasts to sound the

who wrote out a part of Augustus’ will (Suetonius, Divus Aug. 101, 1) is perhaps the person who turns up as a studiis and

Turranius, C. Julius Aquila and M. Magius Maximus. These persons, it is true, have no known history among the equestrian

e his colleague, ib. 1, 24. 3 Suetonius, Divus Aug. 58, 2. 4 That is , if the magister fratrum Arvalium on the fragment

, 75, cf. above, p. 382. 2 Cf. W. Kolbe, Aus Roms Zeitwende, 51. It is not safe to infer from the Lex de imperio Vespasi

accidisset, si aut Agrippa aut Maecenas vixisset. ’ Seneca’s comment is instructive and cynical ’non est quod existimemus

ew State was designed to keep women in their place: the name of Livia is never mentioned by an official poet like Horace.

defunct, by Plotina his wife and by the Prefect of the Guard. 2 It is evident that Augustus and his confidential advise

he danger from the provincial armies. Late in 97 or early in 98 Syria is found to be without a consular legate (ILS 1055).

Gaius was to have the consulate after an interval of five years (that is , in A.D. I); and three years later the same disti

d Drusus had received special dispensations and early distinction, it is true. Tiberius became consul at the age of twenty

and public progress of monarchy the importance of cabinet government is enhanced; secret policy and secret strife in the

tonius, Tib. 14, 4, cf. Tacitus, Ann. 6, 21. 4 The narrative of Dio is brief and fragmentary, in part preserved only in

years nothing had been heard of Lollius and Vinicius. Their emergence is dramatic and impressive. Close behind comes Quiri

ly the son of M. Antonius. More remarkable than any of them, however, is L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 16 B.C.), the husba

d of the great northern armies, passing from Illyricum to Germany. He is described as cruel, arrogant and extravagant, a s

1 Propertius 4, 11, 63 ff. See Table IV at end. 2 Nothing at all is known about M. Livius Drusus Libo, cos. 15 B.C. L

m was colleague with Ap. Claudius Caecus in his famous censorship. It is assumed by Münzer that M. Plautius Silvanus (cos.

921, &c). PageBook=>423 So Livia worked for power. But it is by no means certain that Silvanus was popular wit

, Crassus and Pompeius. Some missed the consulate and none, so far as is known, were permitted by Augustus to govern the g

111 A, 2204). 2 The last consul was in 16 B.C. The consul of A.D. 2 is probably a Lentulus. 3 Namely two consuls in 18

re (3 B.C., 1 B.C., A.D. 2, A.D. 10). 4 The last consular Marcellus is Aeserninus (22 B.C.), a person of no great note w

isan of Caesar the Dictator. As for the Metelli, the consul of A.D. 7 is a Junius Silanus by birth. 5 See Table V at end

6 NotesPage=>424 1 The family of Piso, like that of Messalla, is a nexus of difficult problems. Presumably he was

, it appears, by the mysterious M. Licinius Crassus, cos. 14 B.C., as is inferred from 1G 112, 4163. On this problem, cf.

pparently neutral or discreet, while Quirinius trimmed artfully. 5 It is evident that the political crisis in Rome and def

ng, and it brought no immediate benefit to her son. The whole episode is mysterious. NotesPage=>425 1 ILS 8892. 2

or in A.D. 16, were grandsons of Sex. Pompeius. 3 Precisely how, it is not quite clear: the adopted son of L. Arruntius

it is not quite clear: the adopted son of L. Arruntius (cos. A.D. 6) is called L. Arruntius Camillus Scribonianus; and hi

6) is called L. Arruntius Camillus Scribonianus; and his son in turn is described as the ‘a[bnepos]’ or ‘a[dnepos]’ of Po

sanction the moral regeneration of Rome. 7 It may be tempting, but it is not necessary, to rehabilitate her entirely. Juli

. Velleius (2, 100, 4) says that he took his own life. The difference is not material. 3 Velleius 2, 102, 5: ‘singularem

the accomplished Antonius more amiable than her grim husband. But all is uncertain if Augustus struck down Julia and Anton

w the truth of the whole episode, they were not likely to tell it. It is evident, and it is demonstrated by another incide

whole episode, they were not likely to tell it. It is evident, and it is demonstrated by another incident nearly twenty ye

tionem vitiosissimo. ’ 5 Velleius 2, 97, 1. The truth of the matter is revealed by Dio 54, 20, 4 ff. Too much has been m

e responsibility to which he was doomed by his implacable master:4 it is alleged that he asked for permission to dwell in

ny with more credit to Rome, perhaps, and more solid achievement than is indicated by a historian who omits Ahenobarbus an

chievement than is indicated by a historian who omits Ahenobarbus and is as cool about the services of Vinicius as his per

ment more merciful but none the less arbitrary and effective. Agrippa is described as brutal and vicious. 5 NotesPage=&g

2 Tacitus, Ann. 4, 71, cf. 3, 24. 3 lb. 3, 24. 4 The whole affair is highly obscure. The conspiracy and death of Paull

re. The conspiracy and death of Paullus (Suetonius, Divus Aug. 19, 1) is undated. The scholiast on Juvenal 6, 158, states

me authorities substituted Cn. Piso (cos. 7 B.C.) for Arruntius. That is not the only uncertainty here. The MS. of Tacitus

Lepidus, cos. A.D. 6 (PIR2, A 369), the son of Paullus and Cornelia, is a more prominent character. His daughter was betr

country; also L. Apronius and Q. Junius Blaesus. No less significant is the name of Lucilius Longus, honourably commemora

defraud them of military glory. The deplorable Lollius had a son, it is true, but his only claim to fame or history is th

Lollius had a son, it is true, but his only claim to fame or history is the parentage of Lollia Paullina. P. Vinicius and

. 5 In the East, L. Volusius Saturninus, a family friend of Tiberius, is attested as governor of Syria (A.D. 4-5); after h

. 1, 31). 4 Velleius 2, 105, 1 (A.D. 4). How long he had been there is not recorded. Velleius says of Sentius ‘qui iam l

Cornelii Lentuli. L. Calpurnius Piso (cos. 15 B.C.) was connected, it is true, with the family of Caesar; but the bond had

2 (Postumus and Apronius); 2, 116, 3 (Lamia). 4 About whom Velleius is lavish of non-committal praise (2, 98, 1): ‘de qu

sse mores eius vigore ac lenitate mixtissimos. ’ Seneca (Epp. 83, 14) is more valuable: ‘L. Piso, urbis custos, ebrius ex

ius Saturninus), and a firm company of novi homines. A new government is already in being. Yet this was not enough to pr

ure of the crisis provoked by the death of Augustus. The exaggeration is palpable and shameless. 3 At Rome due provision

bronze in front of the Mausoleum. These were official documents. It is evident that Augustus had taken counsel with the

anicus(Drusus), Tacitus, Ann. 6, 40. 2 Asprenas (cos. suff. A.D. 6) is attested in A.D. 14/15 (Tacitus, Ann. 1, 53). Lam

is attested in A.D. 14/15 (Tacitus, Ann. 1, 53). Lamia (cos. A.D. 3) is presumably his successor. For the evidence for hi

ent ‘mores’ needed to be professed and inculcated, if not adopted. It is not enough to acquire power and wealth: men wish

1 Virgil, Aen. 1, 278 f. 2 Livy 9, 18 f. 3 Aen. 6, 851. 4 This is the undertone of the whole preface to Livy’s Hist

tues: if it lacked them, it must learn them. The spirit of a people is best revealed in the words it employs with an emo

with mild remedies and incomplete redress, into a crime. The wife, it is true, had no more rights than before. But the hus

iae. 3 PageNotes. 445 1 The study of Greek philosophy and science is of subordinate value ‘istae quidem artes, si modo

could be only one answer. The official head of the state religion, it is true, was Lepidus, the pontifex maximus, living i

ecincts of the city. 3 The national and patriotic revival of religion is a large topic; and a movement so deep and so stro

e its validity or its success from mere action by a government. There is much more authentic religious sentiment here than

s and pietas could not be dissociated; and the root meaning of virtus is ‘manly courage’. The Roman People occupied a priv

6, 37 f. 6 Georgics 2, 532 ff., cf. 167 ff. PageBook=>451 It is by no means certain what class of cultivator the

er though in truth their offence was political rather than moral. Nor is it certain that the Princeps himself was above re

there was a certain duplicity in the social programme of the Princeps is evident enough. More than that, the whole concept

rugal: he was also narrow and grasping, brutal and superstitious. Nor is it evident that the Roman aristocrat of the golde

. There was another side to that. Yet the strong suspicion of fraud is not enough to lame the efficacy of the Augustan r

s’ own views were narrow and definite. How far they won acceptance it is difficult to say. Of the efficacy of mere legisla

’ Cf. the reticent obituary notice, Ann. 14, 19. 3 Very impressive is the cumulative effect of Velleius 2, 130, 2; Taci

ency of legionary recruits giving Transpadane towns as their domicile is easily explained numerous tribes of attributi wer

Narbonensis supplies only two auxiliary regiments; and that province is early evident in the Guard (ILS 2023); where, in

sad fate of literature under the Empire. When the rule of Augustus is established, men of letters, a class whose habit

rtisan men of letters were less in evidence. There was Sallustius, it is true, attacking both oligarchy and the power of m

supporting a Greek versifier, Antipater of Thessalonica. 5 Pollio, it is true, was honoured by Horace in a conspicuous ode

As for the plebeian military men promoted under the New State, there is no evidence that they were interested in fosterin

late date in Horace’s life and was dedicated to two sons of this Piso is so plausible that it can dispense with the suppor

rdour but did not impair the sceptical realism of his character there is no warrant for loose talk about conversion to Sto

qui terminet astris, Iulius a magno demissum nomen lulo. 3 Later it is not the conqueror of the world but the coming ina

a condet saecula qui rursus Latio. 4 The character of the epic hero is neither splendid nor striking. That was not inten

That was not intended. The perpetual guidance lavished upon the hero is likewise repugnant to romantic notions. Aeneas is

ished upon the hero is likewise repugnant to romantic notions. Aeneas is an instrument of heaven, a slave to duty. ‘Sum pi

s himself at once. Throughout all hazards of his high mission, Aeneas is sober, steadfast and tenacious: there can be no r

m, no repose, no union of heart and policy with an alien queen. Italy is his goal ‘hie amor, haec patria est. ’ PageNote

to pietas, firm in resolution but sombre and a little weary. The poem is not an allegory; but no contemporary could fail t

Italia, spontaneous and admirable. To Virgil the Transpadane, Actium is the victory of Italy, not of Rome only. This conc

6 Ib. 4, 1, 127 ff. 7 Aelia Galla, wife of Postumus (3, 12), who is presumably C. Propertius Postumus (ILS 914). The

914). The Tullus several times addressed by Propertius (e.g. 1, 1, 9) is the nephew of L. Volcacius Tullus, cos. 33 B.C.

onal excuse of the erotic poet his page may be scabrous, but his life is chaste: vita verecunda est, Musa iocosa mea. 5

.). PageBook=>468 Despite earlier vaunts of erotic prowess, he is probably to be believed. The Corinna of the Amore

. The Corinna of the Amores cannot match Propertius’ Cynthia. Corinna is literature, a composite or rather an imaginary fi

ff.). ‘ 2 Tristia 2, 207: ‘duo crimina, carmen et error. ’ The poet is very discreet about the precise nature of the ‘er

(The British Academy, Raleigh Lecture, 1937). PageBook=>470 It is a little surprising that the rich vocabulary of p

form and features were reproduced in Rome and over all the world. It is true that he caused no fewer than eighty silver s

with veiled head, aged, austere and remote. Most revealing, perhaps, is the mailed figure from Prima Porta, showing the P

s Julius had been avenged by his son and heir. This dynastic monument is a reminder, if such be needed, that Dux was disgu

ed every form and sign of allegiance; no proconsul of Rome ever again is honoured in the traditional fashion of the easter

epublican sentiment becomes more and more lavish and ornate. Not only is Augustus, like his predecessors, a god and saviou

mple for the joint worship of Augustus and the Goddess Rome. 2 Asia is incited by that loyal proconsul, the patrician Pa

n Galatia or in the cities of Asia, the aristocracy of land and birth is firmly riveted to the clientela of Caesar Augustu

aly and the provinces illustrate the different aspects of his rule he is Princeps to the Senate, Imperator to army and peo

deemed it safe or expedient to exert their rights, if such they were, is another question. The rule of Rome in the Empire

nius, Divus Aug. 51, 1; Plautius Rufus (ib. 19, 1, cf. Dio 55, 27, 2) is probably a man of Auximum, CIL IX, 5834 (= ILS 92

it falsifies the symptoms. Most of the real history of the Principate is secret history. The nobiles were unable or unwi

they were usually discovered before they had gone very far. 3 This is the argument in Tacitus, Ann. 1, 10 not against t

s who had asked that his life be spared. 3 The claim was impudent: it is refuted by one of his own historians who, praisin

fought at Philippi to pass from Antonius to Octavianus, the statement is not as daring as it might appear, but is rather a

to Octavianus, the statement is not as daring as it might appear, but is rather a subtle compliment. It was Messalla who p

included, but enrolled last on the list of the consulars. 5 Labeo, it is also recorded, brought to ridicule a proposal tha

spontaneous criticism of the whole government. The major scandals, it is true., did not always come before the courts; but

ph a masterly exercise on the august theme of ‘tantae molis erat’. It is to be regretted that Pollio’s comments upon this

early as possible. 4 In these matters Pollio’s own taste and practice is well attested. The words, he said, must follow th

stripped away shams and revealed the naked realities of politics. It is in no way surprising that Pollio, like Stendhal,

t the only defect that Pollio could discover in Livy. Pollio, so it is recorded by Quintilian, criticized Livy for ‘Pata

it is recorded by Quintilian, criticized Livy for ‘Patavinitas’. 3 It is by no means certain that Quintilian himself under

se, or even of the dialect and spelling of his native city. One thing is evident, however: the nature of ‘Patavinitas’ can

rrucini, was provincial himself, in a sense. The original sin of Livy is darker and more detestable. The word ‘Patavinitas

e proscripsit. ’ 6 Tacitus, Ann. 4, 34 f. 7 Ib., Hist. 1, 1. This is assigned as a direct result of the Battle of Acti

direct result of the Battle of Actium. In Ann. 1, 1, however, Tacitus is more conciliatory ‘temporibusque Augusti dicendis

s that the envy incurred by the great ones of earth in their lifetime is silenced in death, being converted into recogniti

, 116, 2. PageBook=>489 Velleius, a typical government writer, is unswervingly loyal to Tiberius and to L. Aelius S

nd indispensable Seianus:4 his whole account of the reign of Augustus is artfully coloured by devotion to Tiberius, with v

nation with which this worthy citizen recounts certain court scandals is matched by his depreciation of the generals of Au

military glory, whether personal enemies of Tiberius or not. Lollius is a monster of rapacity and intrigue, Varus mild-ma

ould not decently be omitted: the praise of his military achievements is cool and temperate. 5 Velleius delights in the

of laudation, or, as he calls it, ‘iustus sine mendacio candor’. 6 It is lavishly bestowed upon social distinction or poli

of the Empire, they wore the purple of the Caesars. Juvenal’s poem is not so much a panegyric of plebeian merit as a la

ls in the age of Pompeius, became extinct in the Civil Wars. Some, it is true, especially decayed branches of the patricia

ung Lepidus. Scaurus was spared after Actium. PageNotes. 492 1 It is not certain that the delator Porcius Cato (Tacitu

nn. 16, 7 ff.). 4 Seneca, Epp. 55, 2 ff., cf. Münzer, RA, 374 f. He is described as ‘ille praetorius dives, nulla alia r

e succumbed to a prosecution in the reign of Tiberius, and the family is not heard of afterwards. 3 The Fabii and the Va

us Camillus Scribonianus, cos. A.D. 32 (PIR2, A 1140). Pompeian blood is attested by ILS 976, cf. PIR2, A 1147, and above,

Nonius Quinctilianus, cos. A.D.8 (ILS 934). 3 For example, no issue is known of T. Peducaeus (cos. suff. 35 B.C.) or of

the stemma, PIR1, V 666. 7 Ti. Plautius Silvanus Aelianus (ILS 986) is probably an Aelius Lamia by birth, of which house

ly connexions, Jahreshefte XXI–XXII (1924), Beiblatt 425 ff. If Groag is correct, the maternal uncle of Nerva married Rube

Julia the granddaughter of Tiberius. The tie with the Julio-Claudians is surely too tenuous to have mattered much. PageB

NQ 4, praef. 5: ‘Plancus, artifex ante Vitellium maximus. ’ Passienus is mentioned in the following section. 4 L. Vitell

en done. The millionaires Balbus and Seneca were the real enemies. It is in every way fitting that Spain and Narbonensis s

nto the rule of the Triumvirs. The man from Gades, consul in 40 B.C., is a portent, it is true but a portent of the future

he Triumvirs. The man from Gades, consul in 40 B.C., is a portent, it is true but a portent of the future power of Spaniar

11 46, and Cn. Domitius Afer, cos. suff. 39. 2 The origin of Burrus is revealed by ILS 1321. It is no accident that the

, cos. suff. 39. 2 The origin of Burrus is revealed by ILS 1321. It is no accident that the governors of Lower Germany e

om Vasio (CIL XII, 1354). 3 That Pompeia Plotina came from Nemausus is made probable, but not proved, by SHA Hadr. 12, 2

ot proved, by SHA Hadr. 12, 2. A slight confirmation, so far ignored, is the woman of Nemausus Pompeia Marullina, sister,

er, wife or mother of an eminent military man of the time, whose name is missing (CIL XII, 3169). PageBook=>503 Whe

us, Piso and Paullus Fabius Maximus govern the military provinces, it is true. But a rational distrust persists, confirmed

, n. 2; for Curtius Rufus, Ann. 11, 21. The origin of Verginius Rufus is made reasonably certain by combining the evidence

s of the Republic was fertile in talent of the most varied orders. It is too simple an explanation of the decline of the n

k of ability; and much of the hostile testimony that could be adduced is nothing more than the perpetuation of the schemat

s. 504 1 ILS 986. The precise meaning of ‘nobilis’ under the Empire is hard to establish. E. Stein (Hermes LII (1917), 5

he people was abrogated. W. Otto s definition (Ib. LI (1916), 73 ff.) is probably too wide. 2 Horace, Odes 2, 10, 5. 3

ient in its effects. Less obvious, less advertised and less discussed is Claudius’ use of Greeks as procurators, his grant

nd Ti. Claudius Dinippus (ib., 1917/8, ι f.: Corinth). This Balbillus is probably the man who was Prefect of Egypt in A.D.

and virtus, that was hard for a patriot and an honest man to bear. It is not so much the rigour of despotism as the servil

nd hated in his old age, and Lollius the rapacious intriguer. Nothing is known to the discredit of T. Statilius Taurus, C.

and Tarius left no consular sons as objects of fear or flattery. It is evident that a traditional Roman prejudice, sharp

fully adopted by the snobbish fervour of other classes in society. It is precisely the sons of Roman knights who have hand

, the accomplished Paullus Fabius Maximus, ‘centum puer artium’, than is revealed by Horace’s charming ode and by the loya

, proverbial for agility, deserted every side at the right moment. It is curious that Horace should have felt impelled to

n in Syria (‘quam pauper divitem ingressus dives pauperem reliquit’), is of no independent value whatever. Varus certainly

ed their spurious Republic: they had ruined the Roman People. There is something more important than political liberty;

and political rights are a means, not an end in themselves. That end is security of life and property: it could not be gu

f the Republic. 4 He might pause when he reflected that great oratory is a symptom of decay and disorder, both social and

imperiti et multi deliberent, sed sapientissimus et unus’. 1 Tacitus is a monarchist, from perspicacious despair of human

no escape. Despite the nominal sovranty of law, one man ruled. 2 This is his comment on Tiberius. It was no less true of

e ’idemque huic urbi dominandi finis erit qui parendi fuerit’. 6 This is a far cry from Marcus Brutus. A new conception of

t of protector: optime Romulae custos gentis. 5 And so Augustus is ‘custos rerum’; 6 he is the peculiar warden of Ro

Romulae custos gentis. 5 And so Augustus is ‘custos rerum’; 6 he is the peculiar warden of Rome and Italy, ever ready

metaphor, though it may have parallels in the language of the Stoics, is Roman and military. 2 He would not desert his pos

of his career, the achievements and character of his rule. The record is no less instructive for what it omits than for wh

entioned by name but are consigned to contemptuous oblivion. Antonius is masked and traduced as a faction, the Liberators

t of 32 B.C. appears as a spontaneous uprising of all Italy, Philippi is transformed into the victory of Caesar’s heir and

Tiberius, whose conquest of Illyricum under the auspices of Augustus is suitably commemorated. 2 Most masterly of all i

spices of Augustus is suitably commemorated. 2 Most masterly of all is the formulation of the chapter that describes the

eague he might have, not in potestas, but only in auctoritas. 3 Which is true as far as it goes not very far, Auctoritas,

very far, Auctoritas, however, does betray the truth, for auctoritas is also potentia. There is no word in this passage o

owever, does betray the truth, for auctoritas is also potentia. There is no word in this passage of the tribunicia potesta

role in the imperial system ’summi fastigii vocabulum’. Again, there is nowhere in the whole document even a hint of the

1 Res Gestae 2: ‘[et] postea bellum inferentis rei publicae | vici b[ is a]cie. ’ 2 Ib. 30. Note also the prominence of

he naval expedition in A.D. 5, commanded by Tiberius, though his name is not mentioned (ib. 26). 3 Ib. 34. 4 As Mommse

e as the title-deeds of his divinity. 1 If explained they must be, it is not with reference to the religions and kings of

e accrued. For the period here concerned the most important accession is the Fasti of the Vicomagistri, first published by

asti Consulares in Inscr. It. XIII, I (forthcoming), the new material is here utilized and incorporated (cf. above, pp. 19

re utilized and incorporated (cf. above, pp. 199 f., 235, 243 f.). It is of decisive value for the following years: 39 B

he identification with P. Cornelius Scipio (for whom cf. 35 B.C.). It is not certain, however, who he was. 36 B.C. The s

5 B.C. Q. Haterius emerges as cos. suff., and the praenomen of Galba is shown to be Gaius, not Servius. 4 B.C. New suff

ot pretend to be in any sense an edition of a part of the Fasti. It is merely an up-to-date list of consuls, designed fo

nce of the historical student. The filiation of consuls, where known, is given, for it is often a valuable clue to ready i

ical student. The filiation of consuls, where known, is given, for it is often a valuable clue to ready identification; an

“II. Louvain, 1878–83. INDEX The scope and purpose of the Index is mainly prosopographical, and it is draw up accord

The scope and purpose of the Index is mainly prosopographical, and it is draw up according to gentilicia, save that August

ance or as the origo of some person: in most cases the bare reference is given, without comment. PageBook=>535 Acer

ble reproduces the researches of Münzer, RA, 328 ff. The leading clue is provided by the two marriages of Livia, the siste

tus, cf. ib. 333 ff. III. THE FAMILY OF AUGUSTUS This tree, which is designed in the main to illustrate the political

endants beyond the second generation. IV. THE AEMILII LEPIDI This is based upon Groag’s table (PIR2, A, p. 57), omitti

en Faustus Sulla and Pompeia the daughter of Magnus (cf. PIR2, A 363) is accepted here and on Table V. V. THE DESCENDANT

XIII, 273 f.; PIR2, C, facing p. 54. M. Crassus Frugi (cos. A.D. 27) is assumed to be the son of L. Piso, adopted by the

able in PIR2, C, facing p. 328. VII. THE CONNEXIONS OF VARUS This is based upon the stemma worked out by E. Groag, P-W