Read From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 Online
Authors: H. H. Scullard
Tags: #Humanities
CHAPTER X
1 FIRST CENTURY ART. See G. M. A. Richter,
Ancient Italy
(1955), chs. iii–vi, to which this section owes much; and E. Strong,
CAH
, IX, ch. xxii. In general see J. M. C. Toynbee,
The Art of the Romans
(1965); L. Crema,
L’Architettura romana
(1959); F. E. Brown,
Roman Architecture
(1961); M. Wheeler,
Roman Art and Architecture
(1964); A. Boethius and J. B. Ward-Perkins,
Etruscan and Roman Architecture
(1971); R. B. Bandinelli,
Rome, the Centre of Power, Roman Art to A.D
. 200 (1970); D. Strong,
Roman Art
(1976). [p. 161]
2 PORTRAITURE. See G. M. A. Richter,
JRS
, 1955, 39 ff., where the possibility of Egyptian influence is discounted, and J. M. C. Toynbee,
Roman Historical Portraits
(1978). [p. 162]
3 LATIN POETS. In general see the histories of literature, e.g. H. J. Rose,
A. Handbook of Latin Literature
(3rd ed. 1966); J. Wight Duff,
Literary History of Rome
(3rd ed. 1960); T. Frank,
Life and Literature in the Roman Republic
(1930). See also Gordon Williams,
Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry
(1968), detailed analysis of the essential nature of Roman poetry. [p. 162]
4 SATIRE AND LUCILIUS. See J. Wight Duff,
Roman Satire
(1937). See also W. S. Anderson, ‘Recent Work in Roman Satire (1937–55)’,
Class. World
, 1956, 33 ff., and
ibid.
‘(1955–62)’,
Cl. W.
, 1964, 293 ff., 343 ff. For text and translation of Lucilius’ fragments see E. H. Warmington,
ROL
, iii. On the events of 133–129 B.C. referred to in the fragments of Lucilius, see W. J. Raschke,
JRS
, 1979, 78 ff. [p. 163]
5 TRAGEDY AND COMEDY. See G. E. Duckworth,
The Nature of Roman Comedy
(1952); M. Bieber,
The History of the Greek and Roman Theater
2
(1961); W. Beare,
The Roman Stage
3
(1964);
Roman Drama
(1965), ed. D. R. Dudley and T. A. Dorey, essays by seven scholars. [p. 163]
6 CATULUS AND CINNA. On Catulus’ work and his supposed literary circle see H. Bardon,
La Littérature latine inconnue
, I (1952), 115 ff. On Cinna see T. P. Wiseman,
Cinna and Poet
(1974). [p. 165]
7 CATULLUS. See edition by C. J. Fordyce (1961); cf. E. A. Havelock,
The Lyric Genius of Catullus
(1939). For recent work, including the problem of the identification of Lesbia, see R. G. C. Levens,
Fifty Years of Classical Scholarship
(1954), 284 ff. See also G. Highet,
Poets in a Landscape
(1957), ch. i; T. P. Wiseman,
Catullan Questions
(1969), and in
JRS
, 1979, 161 ff. [p. 166]
8 LUCRETIUS. See C. Bailey,
Lucretius
, 3 vols. (1974). E. E. Sikes,
Lucretius, Poet and Philosopher
(1936).
Lucretius
(1965), ed. D. R. Dudley, essays by seven scholars. L. A. Holland,
Lucretius and the Transpadanes
(1979), discusses the poet’s local, cultural and literary background [p. 166].
9 ROMAN HISTORIANS. For the surving fragments of the lost Roman historians see H. Peter,
Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae
, 2 vols., (1906–1914). See also
OCD
, s.v. Historiography, etc., and A. H. McDonald,
Fifty Years of Classical Scholarship
, 384 ff.
Latin Historians
(1966), edited by T. A. Dorey, contains a useful account of the annalists by E. Badian. E. Rawson,
Cl. Qu.
, 1972, 158 ff., argued that the
annales maximi
were not
actually widely used by Roman historians, while T. P. Wiseman,
Clio’s Cosmetics
(1979), 9 ff. suggests that it was Piso rather than the
annales
that provided the annalistic framework of Roman history. [p. 166]
10 SALLUST. The fragments of his
Historiae
were edited by B. Maurenbrecher 2 vols. (1891–3). Cf M. L. W. Laistner,
The Greater Roman Historians
(1947), ch. iii; D. C. Earl,
The Political Thought of Sallust
(1961). R. Syme,
Sallust
(1964); G. M. Paul in
Latin Historians
(see n. 9), ch. iv; A. D. Leeman,
A Systematical Bibliography of Sallust, 1879–1964
(1965). [p. 168]
11 ORATORY. The surviving fragments of the Roman orators are edited by E. Malcovati,
Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta
(2nd ed. 1955). Cf. M. L. Clarke
Rhetoric at Rome, a Historical Survey
(1953); S. F. Bonner,
Fifty Years Cl. Sch.
, 335 ff. On the orators of the late Republic see G. V. Sumner,
The Orators in Cicero’s Brutus
(1973), and in general G. Kennedy,
The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, 300
B.C.–A.D.
300
(1972)=
A History of Rhetoric
, vol. ii. [p. 169]
12 ROMAN EDUCATION. See A. Gwynn,
Roman Education
(1926); H. I. Marrou,
A History of Education in Antiquity
(1956), 242 ff; S. F. Bonner,
Education in Ancient Rome from the elder Cato to the younger Pliny
(1977). [p. 171]
13 RHETORICA AD HERENNIUM. This has been edited by H. Caplan (Loeb Cl. Lib., 1954). [p. 171]
14 LAW AND LAWYERS. See H. F. Jolowicz,
Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law
(2nd ed. 1952), chs. xiii–xviii; F. Schulz,
History of Roman Legal Science
(1946), pt. ii; B. Nicholas,
An Introduction to Roman Law
(1962); J. M. Kelly,
Roman Litigation
(1966); W. Kunkel,
An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History
(1966);
id., Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen
(1952); and above all for law in its social setting of everyday life, J. Crook,
Law and Life of Rome
(1967). On the ‘sources’ of law in this period see A. Watson,
Law Making in the Later Roman Republic
(1974); he discusses topics such as the development of the praetor’s edict, attitudes to the XII Tables, and (chs. 10–12) the content of the legal writings; he believes Greek influence to have been very limited [p. 171]
15 STOICS AND EPICUREANS. See M. L. Clarke,
The Roman Mind
(1956), chs. ii–iii. For Stoicism see above ch. I, n. 12. For Epicureans see A. J. Festugiere,
Epicurus and his Gods
(1955); on their activities at the end of the Republic see A. Momigliano,
JRS
, 1941, 149 ff.; B. Farrington,
The Faith of Epicurus
(1967). [p. 173]
16 CICERO’S THOUGHT. See H. A. K. Hunt,
The Humanism of Cicero
(1954). [p. 174]
17 ASTROLOGY. See F. H. Cramer,
Astrology in Roman Law and Politics
(1954), ch. ii. [p. 174]
18 ROMAN RELIGION. In general see W. Warde Fowler,
The Religious Experience of the Roman People
(1911);
id., The Roman Festivals
(1908); H. J. Rose,
Ancient Roman Religion
(1949); R. M. Ogilvie,
The Romans and their Gods
(1969). H. H. Scullard,
Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic
(1981). The two standard works are G. Wissowa,
Religion und Kultus der Römer
2
(1912) and K. Latte,
Römische Religionsgeschichte
(1960). For Oriental cults see ch. XVI, n. 14 below. [p. 174]
CHAPTER XI
1 SOURCES FOR THE PRINCIPATE OF AUGUSTUS. The chief literary sources are the
Res Gestae Divi Augusti
(editions by J. Gagé
3
, 1977: P. A. Brunt and J. M. Moore, 1967); Suetonius,
Augustus
(edited by M. Adams, 1939); Dio Cassius, lii–lvi; Velleius Paterculus, ii, 89–128; Tacitus,
Ann.
1. 2–15. The fragments of Augustus’ own works are
collected in H. Malcovati,
Caesáris Augusti operum fragmenta
(3rd ed. 1948). The most important documents are collected by V. Ehrenberg and A. H. M. Jones,
Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius
(2nd ed. 1955). Contemporary poets and monuments are of the first importance. For the coinage see H. Mattingly,
British Museum Catalogue of the Coins of The Roman Empire
, vol. i,
Augustus to Vitellius
(1923); H. Mattingly and others,
The Roman Imperial Coinage
, i (1923); M. Grant,
From Imperium to Auctoritas
(1946); C. H. V. Sutherland,
Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy
(1951), chs. 2–4. K. Chrisholm and J. Ferguson,
Rome. The Augustan Age
(1981), a source book in translation.
Modern works include T. Rice Holmes,
Architect Rom. Emp.
, II (1931);
Augustus, Studi in occasione del bimillenario Augusteo
(1938); R. Syme,
Rom. Rev.
(1939); J. Buchan,
Augustus Caesar
(1937); D. Earl,
The Age of Augustus
(1968); G. W. Bowersock,
Augustus and the Greek World
(1965); W. Schmitthenner (ed.),
Augustus
(1969), collected articles; A. H. M. Jones,
Augustus
(1970).
Tacitus
. Since this great historian lived after the period covered by this volume and therefore his work is not described elsewhere, short reference may be made to him here at a point where his
Annals
begin to have relevance. Cornelius Tacitus was born
c.
A.D. 55, married in 77 the daughter of Agricola (later governor of Britain), lived through the oppressive tyranny of Domitian’s last years, held the consulship in 97 in the same year as the emperor Nerva, and was proconsul of Asia about 112. Of his writings we are concerned here only with the
Annals
, probably written in eighteen books and covering the years from A.D. 14 to 68; there survive books 1–4, a fragment of 5 and 6, about half of 11, all of 12–15 and a few chapters of 16. He claimed to write ‘since ira et studio’, and in the facts that he gives he is accurate, but he confines his attention to certain aspects (mainly court-life and senatorial and military affairs to the neglect of other aspects of the history of the Empire), and his interpretation of the facts is often open to question. He could not shake himself free from the experiences of his own life and outlook. He was not at heart reconciled to the Principate and he looked back to the ‘libertatem et consulatum’, the free institutions of the Republic which he saw through rose-coloured glasses. His portrait of Tiberius may be coloured by his own experiences under Domitian, but Tacitus is not guilty of deliberate falsification: he thought that Tiberius was like that. But despite any preconceptions and unconscious temperamental bias, Tacitus sought the truth and recorded it, as he saw it, in a work of sombre magnificence and brilliant style. The standard English edition of the
Annals
is by H. Furneaux, vol. i (books 1–6, 2nd ed., 1896), II (books 11–16, by Furneaux, Pelham, Fisher, 1907). Of modern works the following may be mentioned: G. Boissier,
Tacitus
(Engl. trans. 1906); M. L. W. Laistner,
The Greater Roman Historians
(1947), chs. vi–vii; B. Walker,
The Annals of Tacitus, A study in the Writing of History
(1952); R. Syme,
Tacitus
, 2 vols. (1958); C. W. Mendell,
Tacitus, the Man and his Work
(1958). For a sceptical view of Tacitus’ historical accuracy see G. Walser,
Rom. das Reich und die fremden Völker in der Geschichtsschreibung der frühen Kaiserzeit
(1951). See also T. A. Dorey (editor),
Tacitus
(1969), seven essays; F. R. D. Goodyear,
Tacitus
(
Greece and Rome
, New Surveys of the Classics, no. 4, 1970) and
The Annals of Tacitus
, vols. i and ii (1972 and 1981). [p. 176]
2 CONSENSUS UNIVERSORUM. This phrase from Augustus’
Res Gestae
, 34, is sometimes interpreted as having a semi-constitutional force: the
coniuratio
of 32 B.C. gave Octavian an
imperium
to fight the war and this was widened by later general expressions of support. For a convincing criticism of this and similar interpretations see G.E.F. Chilver,
Historia
, 1950, 412 ff. See also P. A. Brunt and M. Moore,
Res Gestae
(1967), 76, who also discuss (75 f.) Octavian’s constitutional position from 32 to Jan. 27 and consider what powers he may have surrendered in 28 as well as in 27
(as Dio Cassius, liii, 1–2): e.g. he allowed his colleague in the consulship, Agrippa, to hold the
fasces
alternately with himself; this implies that hitherto he had refused complete equality to his consular colleagues. On Octavian’s position in January 27 see W.K. Lacey,
JRS
, 1974, 176 ff. [p.176]
3 TRIBUNICIA POTESTAS. Dio Cassius appears to say (51. 19. 6) that Octavian received
trib. pot.
in 30 B.C.; he also says that he received it in 23 (53. 32. 5). As Octavian is not likely to have relinquished it during the interval, some scholars have thought that he may have received some of the functions of a tribune in 30 and the rest in 23, but it is perhaps more probable (as argued by H. Last,
Rendiconti, Istituto Lombardo
, 1951, 93 ff.) that Dio is mistaken and that Octavian did not accept such an offer in 30 but only in 23. [p. 177]
4 THE AUGUSTAN SETTLEMENT. On the powers that Augustus received in 27 and 23 B.C. there is an immense modern literature. It is possible here to mention only some of the more recent works written in English: M. Hammond
The Augustan Principate
(1933); M. Grant,
From Imperium to Auctoritas
(1946; cf.
Greece and Rome
, 1949, 97 ff.); H. Last,
JRS
, 1947, 157 ff., and 1950, 119 ff; R. Syme,
JRS
, 1946, 149 ff.; G. E. F. Chilver,
Historia
, 1950, 408 ff. (a review of the work done on this subject between 1939 and 1950); A. H. M. Jones,
JRS
, 1951, 112 ff. (=
Studies in Roman Law and Government
, 1960, ch. 1); M. I. Henderson,
JRS
, 1954, 123 ff.; E. T. Salmon,
Historia
, 1956, 456 ff. These works will indicate the non-English literature of recent years. See also P. Grenade,
Essai sur les origines du Principat
(1961; on this see P. A. Brunt,
JRS
, 1961, 236 ff.) and P. Sattler,
Augustus und der Senat
(1960) which discusses how Augustus built up his power in face of those senators who opposed him until 17 B.C. Cf. also F. de Martino,
Storia della costituzione romana
, IV, i (1962). P. Cartledge (
Hermathena
, 1975, 35 ff.) discusses Augustus’ approach to legitimizing his principate in 28–27. Recent work on Augustus is surveyed by B. Haller,
Aufstieg
II, ii, 55 ff. and by H. W. Benario,
id.
, 75 ff. [p. 178]
5 THE IMPERIUM OF AUGUSTUS. On this matter Augustus was somewhat reticent in his
Res Gestae
(whether because he thought a mention of his first grant in 43 B.C. was enough, or in order to soft-pedal the military aspect of his rule, or because the matter did not concern the Senate and People directly but rather the provinces). Though Augustus himself did not mention it, there is general agreement that the
imperium
which he exercised in the provinces from 23 was proconsular. But on the thorny question as to the nature of his provincial
imperium
, whether consular or proconsular, from 27 to 23, no agreement has been reached. Those who maintain that the consulship was essentially a domestic magistracy since Sulla’s reforms, believe that Augustus’ command was proconsular (cf. e.g. Salmon,
op. cit.
). For the view that it was consular see H. Pelham,
Essays
(1911), 60 ff. or M. Hammond,
op. cit.
The important distinction lies between
imperium militae
and
imperium domi
, since the former is the same whether held by a consul or proconsul. R. Syme suggests (
op. cit.
, 153) that Augustus governed his province ‘while consul’ rather than ‘as consul’. A. H. M. Jones believes (
op. cit.
, p. 113) that in 27 the question did not arise: ‘Augustus was consul, and the Senate assigned him a
provincia
: no grant of
imperium
was required’. It may well be that the approach to the problem has often been too legalistic and academic. The view of Mommsen that the grant of
imperium
gave Augustus
imperium maius
over the provinces controlled by the Senate, though followed by Von Premerstein, is not usually accepted. Nor is Premerstein’s theory, based on Dio 53. 12. 1, that the Senate gave Augustus a general ‘cura rei publicae’, widely followed. It is probable that the grant of the
provincia
by the Senate in 27 was confirmed by a
lex
of the People. The view that Augustus’
imperium
as exercised in the provinces from 27 to 23 derived from his
consulship may receive support from a new inscription from Cyme: see H. W. Pleket,
Greek Inscriptions in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden at Leyden
(1958) 49. This is the Greek version of a decree of Augustus and Agrippa as joint consuls in 27, ordering the restitution of sacred property (specifically in Asia, or in all senatorial provinces, or throughout the Empire?); it is followed by a letter of the proconsul of Asia, Vinicius, to the local authorities of Cyme about a case arising from it; the proconsul refers to the decree as
iussu Augusti Caesaris
. Pleket regards this as Augustus interfering in a senatorial province by virtue of consular
imperium maius
, whereas K. M. T. Atkinson (
Rev. intern. de droits de l’ant.
1960, 227 ff.) thinks that the
iussum
refers merely to a judicial ruling given by Augustus in person when in Asia (20–19) by virtue of his
auctoritas
and therefore not bearing upon his
imperium
(and that the decree was part of a
senatusconsultum
transmitted by Augustus and Agrippa; this does not seem very probable). J. Reynolds (
JRS
, 1960, 207) points out that if the actual case at Cyme did not arise until after 23 (the date is not given), then ‘the proconsul’s attitude to Augustus would be more conventionally explicable’. Cf.
SEG
, XVIII, n. 555, XX, 15, and J. A. Crook,
Proc. Cambr. Philological Soc
. 1962, 23 ff. Augustus later claimed that he was acclaimed as imperator twenty-one times (
Res. Gestae
, 4,1); fourteen of these military salutations were made after he had acquired the title of Augustus. On their dates and occasions see T. D. Barnes,
JRS
, 1974, 21 ff. [p. 178]
6 CLUPEUS VIRTUTIS. Augustus records with pride this honour granted in 27 (
Res Gestae
, 34). A replica has been found at Arles, dated 26; copies of this new symbol must have been set up widely in the provinces. See W. Seston,
Comptes Rend. Ac. Inscr
. 1954, 286. See also M. P. Charlesworth, ‘The Virtues of a Roman Emperor’ (
Proc. Br. Acad.
, 1937). On two other attributes which were increasingly associated with the emperor during the first two centuries, see Charlesworth, ‘Providentia et Aeternitas’ (
Harvard Theol. Rev.
, 1936, 107 ff.). [p. 179]
7 AUGUSTUS’ NAME AND POTESTAS. On the name Augustus see P.A. Brunt and J. M. Moore,
Res Gestae
(1967), 77 f. In
R.G.
34, after saying that he excelled all men in
auctoritas
(see below, n. 9), Augustus added ‘potestatis autem nihilo amplius habui quam ceteri qui mihi quoque in magistratu conlegae fuerunt’. That is, in each magistracy of his (reading qu-que, not qu-que, which would mean that Augustus was saying that ‘he too had colleagues’: see F. E. Adcock,
JRS
, 1952, 10 ff.), Augustus claims that his power was no greater than that of any of his colleagues in office. The interpretation is uncertain, but he is probably referring to the consulship and saying that he would not misuse the powers inherent in this office in the future: it should become normal again. This view can be used to support the belief that his provincial command was pro-consular: use of the consulship would be restricted to Italy. See further Brunt and Moore,
Res Gestae
, 78 f. [p. 179]
8 PRINCEPS. This use of the word should of course be sharply separated from the position of Princeps Senatus which Augustus also held (p. 179). Though it had Republican associations, there is no good reason to believe that he took it over from Cicero’s political writings (cf. p. 135 and ch. VIII n. 6). The view of Ed. Meyer (
Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompejus
, 3rd ed., 1922) that Cicero’s
De Republica
suggested the creation of a Principate of Pompey and foreshadowed the ideal state created later by Augustus’ Principate, is not now widely held. [p. 180]
9 AUCTORITAS. For recent discussions of its meaning see G. E. F. Chilver,
Historia
, 1950, 420 ff. The title of M. Grant’s book,
From Imperium to Auctoritas
(1946), indicates its thesis that Augustus gradually shifted the basis of his power from military
imperium
to civilian
auctoritas
; but this is not acceptable because it gives to
auctoritas
a constitutional meaning that it can hardly have had. Attempts to endow it with a semi-mystic,
or ‘charismatic’ significance, are equally suspect. It was a personal attribute which could not be given or transferred from one man to another by law. [p. 180]