From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (66 page)

10 VARRO MURENA. K. M. T. Atkinson (
Historia
, 1960, 440 ff.) dates the trials of both Primus and Varro Murena to 22 (as Dio) and argues that the conspirator Varro was not A. Terentius Varro Murena the consul of 23 (who will have died during his year of office) but his cousin L. Murena who had probably been governor of Syria in 25. If this dating is accepted the plot cannot then have affected the constitutional settlement of 23. D. Stockton,
Historia
, 1965, 18 ff., defends the more conventional position against Mrs. Atkinson: he puts the trial of Primus in the first half of 23 and believes that it was Aulus Murena who defended him and who was involved in the conspiracy. M. Swan,
Harvard Stud. Class. Phil.
, 1966, 235 ff., argues for L. Murena and 22, as also does R. A. Bauman,
Historia
, 1965, 420 ff., who believes in two separate trials. S. Jameson,
Historia
, 1969, 204 ff., examines the events of 23 and 22 B.C. and places both trials in 23. According to B. Levick,
Gr. and R.
, 1975, 156 ff., Primus was prosecuted in 23 and defended by A. Varro Murena. [p. 180]

11 IMPERIUM MAIUS. This grant, attested by Dio Cassius (53. 32. 5), has in the past been doubted, but since the discovery of the five edicts from Cyrene (Ehrenberg and Jones,
Documents
, n. 311, translated in Lewis and Reinhold,
Rn. Civ.
ii, 36 ff.) which confirm it, the matter must surely be regarded as settled. On the edicts see further, J. G. C. Anderson,
JRS
, 1927, 33 ff.; F. de Visscher,
Les édits d’Auguste découverts à Cyrene
(1940); H. Last,
JRS
, 1945, 93. [p. 181]

12 TRIBUNICIA POTESTAS AND LEX DE IMPERIO. On the varying emphases that Augustus placed on his tribuncian power from 23 B.C. to A.D. 14 see A. K. Lacey,
JRS
, 1979, 28 ff. There survives part of a comprehensive enactment which conferred his various powers on the emperor Vespasian, the
lex de imperio Vespasiani
(Ehrenberg and Jones,
Documents
, n. 364). It is a law of the People and probably embodies a decree of the Senate; it quotes the precedents of grants made to Augustus and others. For a translation see Lewis and Reinhold,
Rn. Civ.
ii, 89 f. For a full discussion of the
lex de imperio
and these grants as made to Augustus’ successors see P. A. Brunt,
JRS
, 1977, 95 ff. [p. 181]

13 AGRIPPA’S IMPERIUM. See R. Syme,
Rom. Rev.
, 337 n. 1, as against M. Reinhold,
Marcus Agrippa
(1933), 167 ff. Reinhold argued for
imperium aequum
in the imperial provinces in 23,
maius imperium
over the eastern senatorial provinces in 18, and
maius imperium
over the western provinces in 13. Despite the discovery of a papyrus fragment, which is apparently a Greek version of Augustus’
laudatio funebris
for Agrippa, the problem remains unsolved. See L. Koenen,
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie
V (1970), 217 ff., and E. W. Gray,
ibid
. VI (1970), 127 ff. The latter suggests an overall
imperium aequum
in 23, which was renewed for five years in 18, and made
maius
in 13. [p. 182]

14 AUGUSTUS’ CONSULAR POWERS. This is suggested by A. H. M. Jones,
JRS
, 1951, 117 ff. (=
Studies
, 12 ff.). This interpretation of Dio 54. 10. 5 would explain how Augustus was able to command troops in Rome or Italy (Praetorian and Urban cohorts) and appoint a
praefectus urbi
, a consular prerogative. Cf. P. A. Brunt,
Cl. Rev.
, 1962, 70 ff. [p. 182]

15 LECTIONES SENATUS. Augustus stated (
Res Gestae
8): ‘senatum ter legi’. These
lectiones
probably refer to 29, 18 and 11 B.C.. He also mentioned three
census
at which the
lustrum
was celebrated in 28, 8 B.C. and A.D. 14, but a
lectio senatus
need not take place at the same time as a
lustrum
. The
lectiones
which Dio attributes to 13 B.C. and A.D. 4 should probably be rejected, the former as confused with a
recognitio equitum
, the latter as a partial census only. See A. H. M. Jones,
Studies in Roman Government
(1960), ch. II. Cf. also E. G. Hardy,
Monumentum Ancyranum
, 54 ff. A. E. Astin,
Latomus
, 1963, 226 ff., believes that the
lectiones
of 13 and 11 are one and the same, begun in 13 and finished in 11, and that this
lectio
and that of 18 were carried out by virtue of
imperium consulare
and not by a grant of
censoria potestas
as in 29.

A serious problem is raised by the census figure of 29/28 which is 4,063,000 in contrast with that of 70/69 which is 910,000
civium capita
. Did Augustus use an essentially different basis for his enumeration from those used by Republican censors, e.g. by including women and children (as argued by A. Toynbee,
Hannibal’s Legacy
, I, 450 ff., following Beloch)? This view, rejected by Tenney Frank,
Cl. Ph.
, 1924, 329 ff., has again been questioned by T. P. Wiseman,
JRS
, 1969, 71 ff., who argues that a system of personal registration at Rome was replaced by a local registration, with the result that the Augustan figures bore a more realistic relation to the actual population than did the earlier figures. On the Augustan census figures see also P. A. Brunt,
Italian Manpower, 225 BC
–
A.D
.
14
(1971), 113 ff. [p. 183]

16 LUDI SAECULARES. See J. Gagé,
Recherches sur les jeux séculaires
(1934); E. Fraenkel,
Horace
(1957), 364 ff. [p. 183]

17 ADOPTION OF TIBERIUS AND AGRIPPA POSTUMUS. H. U. Instinsky,
Hermes
, 1966, 324 ff., believes that although the adoption of Germanicus by Tiberius was a precondition of Augustus’ adoption of Tiberius, nevertheless Tiberius had the freedom to choose, while Augustus’ statement that the adoption was
rei publicae causa
was a political proclamation rather than a sign of resignation. B. Levick,
Latomus
, 1966, 227 ff., emphasizes that the adoption of Germanicus was to make him the equal of the younger Drusus, a wish of Augustus which Tiberius continued to respect as shown by the parallel careers of the younger men. But G. V. Sumner,
Latomus
, 1967, 413 ff., who discusses the ages of Germanicus and Drusus, concludes that Tiberius in the period of his developing ascendancy towards the end of Augustus’ reign, did accelerate the career of his son Drusus.

Augustus in A.D. 4 also adopted the third son of Agrippa and Julia, born in 12 B.C. after his father’s death and called Postumus. If an inscription from Trebula (
Ann. Epigr.
, 1964, no. 107) refers to Postumus and not to his father, this would provide evidence that Postumus at some point for a short time held an official position under Augustus: see J. Reynolds,
JRS
, 1966, 119. But Postumus’ depraved character led Augustus to disinherit him: he was then banished (A.D. 7) and was killed immediately after Augustus himself had died. On the (improbable) story (Dio Cassius, lvi. 30, 1–2) that Augustus secretly visited Postumus on the island of Planasia (his place of banishment) during the closing months of his life, see M. P. Charlesworth,
AJP
, 1923, 146 ff. On the legal steps that Augustus took against Postumus see B. Levick,
Historia
, 1972, 674 ff. See also S. Jameson,
Historia
, 1975, 287 ff. On the last years of Augustus in the light of prosopographical studies see A. Ferrill,
Historia
, 1971, 718 ff. [p. 184]

18 PROVOCATIO. On this see A. H. M. Jones, ‘I appeal unto Caesar’,
Studies presented to D. M. Robinson
, 918 ff. (=
Studies
, ch. iv). P. Garnsey,
JRS
, 1966, 166 ff., questions the view that in the first century A.D. appeal was lodged
before
trial, i.e. the judge did not try the case but merely conducted a preliminary investigation; he argues that in both the first and second centuries appeal was made
after
sentence. If this is so, the classic case of St. Paul will not be a case of appeal proper at all. Mistrusting Festus and his chances of justice in Jerusalem Paul rejected the court (
reiectio
) at the hearing at Caesarea and exercised his right as a Roman citizen to appeal to Caesar, hoping for a trial in Rome. Festus, who was not obliged to agree but could have tried the case himself, decided to grant the request; in practice governors had considerable discretion. For a general survey of
provocatio
see A. W. Lintott,
Aufstieg
, I, ii (1972), 226 ff. [p. 186]

19 IMPERIAL AND SENATORIAL JURISDICTION. For a full discussion see A. H. M. Jones,
Historia
, 1955, pp. 464 ff. (=
Studies
, ch. v). Augustus also exercised appellate jurisdiction in civil cases, and so common were the appeals to him against civil judgements, both in Italy and the provinces, that he delegated the former to the urban praetor and the latter to special
consulares
. He also on occasion seems to have exercised a primary (non-appellate) civil jurisdiction. See further J. Bleiken,
Senatsgericht und Kaisergericht
(1962), on which cf. A. N. Sherwin-White,
JRS
, 1963, 203 ff.; A. H. M. Jones,
The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate
(1972), ch. 3. [p. 186]

20 AERARIUM AND FISCUS. On this vexed problem see H. Last,
JRS
, 1944, 51 ff. and A. H. M. Jones,
JRS
, 1950, 22 ff. (=
Studies
, ch. vi). On the Aerarium and its officials, see F. Millar,
JRS
, 1964, 33 ff. Regarding the Fiscus whereas F. Millar,
JRS
, 1963, 29 ff., believes that the term
fiscus
was restricted to the emperor’s personal wealth, P. A. Brunt,
JRS
, 1966, 75 ff., argues (with Jones) for wider uses as well (public funds handled by the emperor acting as a State agent) and that it came gradually to include the whole financial administration controlled by the emperor. [p. 186]

21 AUGUSTAN COINAGE. See C. H. V. Sutherland,
Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy, 31 BC
–
A.D
.
68
(1951), chs. 2–4. [p. 188]

22 IMPERIAL AND SENATORIAL PROVINCES. F. Millar,
JRS
, 1966, 156 ff., challenges the accepted view and suggests that the division between senatorial and imperial provinces did not create a clear-cut division of responsibility and authority. He argues that, apart from the method of appointment, the only administrative difference (until the second century) was that, whereas the emperor gave instructions (
mandata
) to his
legati
, he did not so instruct proconsuls. In other respects the emperor and Senate were active in each other’s sphere (though the Senate did not deal with imperial provinces as a whole); both (and especially the emperor) made regulations which were applicable everywhere and passed measures relating to places in either type of province. Cf. Millar,
The Roman Empire
(1967), 55. If this view may seem rather extreme the reassessment of the evidence must emphasize at very least that the system has too often been regarded as more rigid than it probably was. [p. 189]

23 THE IMPERIAL COUNCILS. See J. A. Crook,
Consilium Principis
(1955), a useful study of a controversial subject, which stresses the personal influence and importance of the
amici principis
as counsellors. A new papyrus fragment (see E. G. Turner,
Oxyrhynchus Papyri
, xxv, 2435) describes the reception of a deputation from Alexandria by the Consilium Principis in A.D. 13. [p. 189]

23a SENATORIAL ORDER. Augustus’ handling of the senatorial census is discussed by C. Nicolet,
JRS
, 1976, 20 ff., whose views are based on the (unorthodox) belief that under the Republic entry to the Senate was
via
the equestrian order and that therefore senators had to have a census rating (at least that of the first class). [p. 189]

24 THE VIGINTIVIRATE. This group of offices comprised
iiiviri monetales
(mint-officials),
ivviri viarum curandarum
(in charge of the streets of Rome),
iiiviri capitales
(a kind of police) and
xviri stlitibus iudicandis
(who had jurisdiction in cases concerning the freedom of citizens). The two first colleges seem to have provided the surer path to later military commands in the emperor’s service: see E. Birley,
Proc. Br. Acad.
, xxxix, 197 ff., who also believes that military service, as
tribunus laticlavius
, was not an essential qualification for entry into the Senate, though it was a necessary prerequisite for all senators who wished to be considered for appointment in the emperor’s service. On possible variations in the early stages of the senatorial career see A. McAlindon,
JRS
, 1957, 191 ff. On the
leges annales
and the minimum age for office, see J. Morris,
Listy Filologicke
, 1964, 316 ff. [p. 189]

25 THE ELECTIONS. For this view, as opposed to the older belief that throughout his reign Augustus systematically ‘rigged’ the elections, see A. H. M. Jones,
JRS
, 1955, 9 ff. (=
Studies
, ch. iii). For the preponderance first of nobles, then of new men, see R. Syme,
Rom. Rev.
, 362, 372 ff., 434 f. P. A. Brunt (
JRS
, 1961, 71 ff.) has argued that Jones’s theory is not supported by the Fasti: the humbler men became suffect consuls, while the ordinary consulship was reserved for men of consular lineage, and ‘it should not be assumed that Augustus normally refrained from influenceing the consular elections’. In ‘Imperial Control of the Elections under the Early Principate’,
Historia
, 1967, 207 ff., B. Levick concludes ‘in the Julio-Claudian era there were no legally defined, cut and dried rights called
nominatio, commendatio
, and
suffragatio
, which the Princeps exercised in a fixed and rigid way’ (p. 228). See also R. Frei-Stobla,
Untersuchungen zu Wahlen in der römischen Kaiserzeit
(1967). A. E. Astin,
Latomus
, 1969, 863 ff., argues that
nominare
had no technical meaning in electoral contexts in the early Principate. See also E. S. Staveley,
Greek and Roman Voting and Elections
(1972), especially 217 ff. [p. 190]