Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T15:44:57.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Triumvirate and Principate*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Fergus Millar
Fergus Millar
Affiliation:
The Queen's College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

More than thirty years after its publication The Roman Revolution still stands unrivalled, not as the ‘definitive’ account of the emergence of a monarch from the ruins of the Republic but as something far more than that, the demonstration of a new method in the presentation of historical change. The aspect of this method, which has found most imitation, is of course prosopography; and it is indeed essential to it. But far more important is the use made of contemporary literature to mirror events, and to analyse and define the concepts and the terms in which the events were seen by those who lived through them.

It is the common characteristic, perhaps even the definition, of great works of history that they invite imitation and offer a challenge, not just to apply their methods and standards to other areas, but to pursue their own conclusions further. The present paper is gratefully offered as an attempt to portray with a different emphasis some aspects of the establishment of Octavian as a monarch, first by demonstrating the extent to which the institutions of the res publica remained active in the Triumviral period, and secondly by redefining the change which culminated in 27 B.C., precisely by asking again in what terms it and the novus status which emerged from it were seen by contemporaries.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 63 , November 1973 , pp. 50 - 67
Copyright
Copyright ©Fergus Millar 1973. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Val. Max. vi, 2, 12.

2 Dio liii, 2, 5; cf. Tac., Ann. iii, 28, 3.

3 Tac., Ann. iii, 28, 1.

4 For the direct evidence on the provincial aspects of the settlement of 27 see JRS, lvi (1966), 156–7.

5 Fadinger, V., Die Begründung des Prinzipats: quellenkritische und staatsrechtliche Untersuchungen zu Cassius Dio und der Parallelüberlieferung (Diss. Munich, 1969), esp. 31–83.Google Scholar

6 See Livy, Epit. 120; Res Gestae 1, 7; Vell. Pat. ii, 69.

7 Degrassi, A., Inscriptiones Italiae xiii, 1Google Scholar: Fasti Consulares (1947), pp. 273–4.

8 Jones, A. H. M., ‘The Elections under Augustus’, JRS xlv (1955)Google Scholar, 9 = Studies in Roman Government and Law (1960), 27; Brunt, P. A., ‘The lex Valeria Cornelia’, JRS li (1961), 71Google Scholar; Levick, B. M., ‘Imperial Control of the Elections under the Early Principate’, Historia xvi (1967), 207.Google Scholar

9 R. Frei-Stolba, Untersuchungen zu den Wahlen in der römischen Kaiserzeit (1967). On the period from 42 to 28 B. C. see pp. 80–6.

10 Dio xlvii, 15, 2–3.

11 xlvii, 19, 4.

12 xlviii, 32, 1 and 3.

13 xlviii, 35, 1–3. Under 31 B. C. Dio duly notes that the arrangement of eight years before had been that Octavian and Antonius should be consuls, 1, 10, 1.

14 xlviii, 36, 4; 54, 6.

15 I am indebted to Professor Badian for emphasising to me the importance of indicating the extent to which Triumviral irregularities increased or decreased in the course of time.

16 xlviii, 43, 2.

17 xlviii, 53, 1–3.

18 One may note a couple of suffect praetors in 33, Dio xlix, 43, 7.

19 Appian, Ill. 28/80; Dio xlix, 43, 6.

20 Plut., Cic. 49.

21 Aelian, Apospasmata 66. Cf. Dig. 1, 14, 3.

22 li, 23, 1.

23 xlix, 16, 2.

24 BC iv, 17–18/68–70.

25 Val. Max. ix, 11, 6.

26 Appian, BC v, 20/79.

27 Appian, BC v, 132/548.

28 Dio li, 21, 1–2 (Valerius Potitus, suffect consul of 29).

29 Dio xlviii, 32, 4; Vell. Pat. ii, 79, 6, M. Titius ‘ludos in theatro Pompei faciens’, presumably as suffect consul in 31; Dio xlviii, 20, 2, Agrippa as praetor in 40 giving the ludi Apollinares.

30 Dio xlix, 42, 2, Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, suffect consul of 34, dedicating the Basilica Aemilia; xlix, 45, 1–5, Agrippa's building-programme as aedile in 33.

31 Appian, BC iv, 37/158; 45/193.

32 Dio xlix, 41, 4.

33 Dio 1, 2, 3.

34 Appian, BC iv, 51/221.

35 See also Dio xlvii, 18–19, and below, p. 55.

36 ILS 73 ‘divo Iulio iussu populi Romani statutum est lege Rufrena’, cf. ILS 73a. See Diz. Epig. s. v. ‘lex’, 730–1; Degrassi, , ILLRP I 2, 409.Google Scholar

37 Dio xlviii, 33, 5 etc. Diz. Epig. s. v. ‘lex’ 731–2. See Broughton, , MRR ii, p. 372.Google Scholar

38 Appian, BC v, 131/543; Dio xlix, 15, 5–6; li, 19–20.

39 RG 8; Tac., Ann. xi, 25, cf. Dio lii, 42, 5. For other possible leges of this period see Rotondi, G., Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), 435–41.Google Scholar

40 Dio xlviii, 33, 2–3.

41 Josephus, , Ant. xiv, 14, 4–5Google Scholar (384–9). For the date and circumstances see now Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. Vermes, and Millar, , i (1973), 281.Google Scholar

42 Dio xlviii, 34, 1.

43 Dio xlviii, 53, 5–6.

44 e.g. Appian, BC v, 130/538, 541; Dio xlix, 43, 6; 45, 1; Appian, Ill. 28/83.

45 Appian, BC iv, 45/193.

46 First published by Erim, K., PBSR xxxvii (1969), 92–5Google Scholar; see Drew-Bear, T., ZPE viii (1971), 285–8Google Scholar, and for a full discussion idem, ‘Deux décrets hellénistiques d'Asie Mineure’, BCH xlvi (1972), 435, on pp. 443–71.

47 See Syme, R., ‘Imperator Caesar, a Study in Nomenclature’, Historia vii (1958), 172Google Scholar; Combès, R., Imperator (1966), 132–5.Google Scholar

48 Mommsen, , Staatsrecht iii, 312Google Scholar, n. 2. Weinstock, S., Divus Julius (1972), 402Google Scholar, suggests, surely wrongly, that this is a letter from the Senate.

49 S. Weinstock, loc. cit. (n. 48).

50 Robert, L., ‘Inscriptions d'Aphrodisias’, Ant. Class. xxxv (1966), on pp. 401–32.Google Scholar

51 See JRS liv (1964), pp. 34–5; cf. Frederiksen, M. W., ‘The Republican Municipal Laws: Errors and Drafts’, JRS lv (1965), 183Google Scholar, on pp. 184–7.

52 For comparative evidence see Magie, , Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), 439–40Google Scholar and notes. If, however, the titulature has been seriously abbreviated, it remains possible that Octavian wrote as consul designate for the second and third time, i.e. in 39/4, and that these embassies too referred to the war of Labienus.

53 Dio li, 4, 1–3.

54 Dio xlviii, 2, 1.

55 Appian, BC v, 21/82. cf. Seneca, , Ep. 114, 6Google Scholar, the signum being obtained from Maecenas ‘cum absentis Caesaris partibus fungeretur’. For further evidence see Durry, M., Les cohortes prétoriennes (1938), 76–7Google Scholar; Passerini, A., Le coorti pretorie (1939), 30–3.Google Scholar

56 Appian, BC iv, 8–11/34–44. It is not clear what was the form of the pronouncement quoted in iv 38/159, by which Messala was removed from the list of the proscribed. But the term ‘proscriptionis edictum’ applying to an individual, is attested in Seneca, de clementia I, 9, 5.

57 Plut., Ant. 24; Jos., Ant. xiv, 12, 2 (301); Appian, BC iv, 47/201; v, 52/216.

58 CIL vi, 1527 = ILS 8393: Durry, M., Eloge funèbre d'une matrone romaine (éloge dite de Turia) (1950), ii, lines 21–8.Google Scholar

59 Strafrecht, 144, n. 5.

60 Quintilian, , Inst. Orat. v, 13, 5–6.Google Scholar

61 The evidence is collected and discussed only, so far as I know, by Volkmann, H., Zur Rechtsprechung im Principat des Augustus 2 (1969), 11–50.Google Scholar

62 Val. Max. i, 7, 7; Plut., Ant 72; Dio li, 2, 4–6; li, 16, 1.

63 Not ‘cognitio extra ordinem’, an expression which, as indicated in JRS lviii (1968), 222, is a grammatical monstrosity, since ‘extra ordinem’ is an adverbial phrase, which can qualify various verbs including ‘cognoscere’, but is not found as an adjectival phrase. The modern use of the pseudo-concept ‘cognitio extra ordinem’, even in the titles of books – some are listed in Kaser, M., Das römische Zivilprozessrecht (1966), 339Google Scholar—is a classic instance of the process of nominalization brilliantly discussed by Daube, D., Roman Law: Linguistic, Social and Philosophical Aspects (1969), ch. 1.Google Scholar

64 No trace of the question in the excellent work of Gelzer, M., Caesar: Politician and Statesman (1968). (1968).Google Scholar

65 Even Greenidge, A. H. J., The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time (1901), contains no discussion of the jurisdiction of Caesar as dictator.Google Scholar

66 Jos., , Ant. xiv, 12, 2Google Scholar (302–3);

67 e.g. by Bleicken, J., Senatsgericht und Kaisergericht (1962), 72 f.Google Scholar

68 One may list by way of illustration Livy, Epit. 134 (I presume that ‘conventum Narbone egit’ must refer to Augustus’ jurisdiction in 27); Seneca, Controv. 10 praef. 14; from ‘senatorial’ provinces, Jos., BJ i, 26, 4 (531); Suet., Div. Aug., 93.

69 Suet., Div. Aug. 33.

70 Criminal: Val. Max. ix, 15, 2; Ovid. Tristia ii. 127 ff.; Dio liv, 15, 4; lv, 7, 2; lvi, 23, 2–3; 24. 7; Seneca, QN i, 16, 1; Suet., Div. Aug. 24; 33; 45, 1; Dig. xlviii, 24, 1; Strabo 670. Civil: Val. Max. vii, 7, 3 and 4; ix, 15, ext. 1; Suet., Div. Aug. 97; Dig. viii, 3, 35.

71 Dio 1, 4, 5.

72 Nepos, , Atticus 22, 3–4.Google Scholar

73 For recent discussions see Fadinger, op. cit. (n. 5), ch. 2; Petzold, K. E., ‘Die Bedeutung des Jahres 32 für die Entstehung des Principats’, Historia xviii (1969), 334Google Scholar; Gabba, E., ‘La data finale del secondo Triumvirato,’ RFIC xcviii (1970), 3.Google Scholar

74 Dio liii, 1, 1.

75 Dio, loc. cit.

76 Tac., Ann. iii, 28.

77 cf. JRS lvi (1966), 156–7.

78 e.g. Appian v, 129/537; 132/549; Dio xlviii, 22, 1.

79 e.g. Appian, BC iv, 38/161; Dio li, 23, 2 (cf. Dio li, 17, 1, Cornelius Gallus left in charge of Egypt.)

80 e.g., Degrassi, , ILLRP 2 i, 433Google Scholar, cf. Broughton, , MRR ii, 369Google Scholar, n. 1; and n. 83 below. Documentary evidence for the titles borne by governors is however extremely sparse throughout the Triumviral period.

81 ILS 37 = Degrassi, , ILLRP 2 i, 372.Google Scholar

82 Degrassi, , ILLRP 2 i, 426.Google Scholar

83 The evidence on triumphs between 43 and 28 B.C. is admirably collected by Degrassi, A., Fasti Consulares et Triumphales, Inscriptiones Italiae xiii, 1 (1947), 567–70.Google Scholar

84 xlviii, 42, 4.

85 Dio liii, 11, 2.

86 I owe this essential point to Professor Badian. The documentary evidence is still very poor for this period. In Hispania Citerior, however, it is clear that ‘legatus pro praetore’ was normal, see Alföldy, G., Fasti Hispanienses (1969), 3–13Google Scholar, though Paullus Fabius Maximus, c. 3/2 B.C., uses ‘legat. Caesaris’ (p. 9). ‘[Legatus pro] pr. Augusti Caesaris in [Illyrico]’ is used of M. Vinicius, there 10/9 or some years later, see Dobo, A., Die Verwaltung der römischen Provinz Pannonien (1968), 16–18.Google Scholar Milestones from Galatia of 6 B.C. have ‘curante Com. Aquila leg. suo pro pr.’, Sherk, R. K., The Legates of Galatia (1951), 24.Google Scholar

87 Alföldy, op. cit. (n. 86), 131.

88 See Reynolds, J. M., ‘Cyrenaica, Pompey and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus’, JRS lii (1962), 99–100Google Scholar, no. 7, = ILLRP 2 i, 1234.

89 See Millar, op. cit. (n. 77).

90 Mommsen, , Staatsrecht ii, 2, 778.Google Scholar

91 Op. cit. in n. 8 above.

92 Tac., Ann. ii, 43 (Calpurnius Piso); iii, 75 (Ateius Capito); Seneca, , de clementia, I, 9Google Scholar, 12 (L. Cinna); Dig. i, 2, 2, 47 (Antistius Labeo).

93 The following argument returns, in greatly expanded form, to some points briefly made in CR, n. s., xviii, (1968), 265–6.

94 Tacitus, , Ann. i, 3, 7.Google Scholar

95 CIL vi, 873 = ILS 81.

96 Ogilvie, R. M., A Commentary on Livy Books 1–5 (1965), p. 2.Google Scholar

97 Livy iii, 20, 1.

98 CIL i2 p. 231; Degrassi, A., Inscriptiones Italiae xiii, 2 (1963), 112–13.Google Scholar

99 R.I.C. i, Augustus no. 10; Sutherland, C. H. V., Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy 31 B.C.-A.D. 68 (1951), 31Google Scholar; Sutherland, , Olcay, , Merrington, , The Cistophori of Augustus (1970), 89–90.Google Scholar

100 Degrassi, A., Inscriptiones Italiae xiii, 2 (1963), p. 191Google Scholar (Fasti Amiternini), cf. 31, 135.

101 Velleius ii, 89, 3–4.

102 Dio liii, 2, 6–12, 3.

103 Dio li, 1, 1–2.

104 Nepos, , Atticus 20, 5.Google Scholar

105 v, 1, 7, referring to an aedes Augusti at Fanum, ought to be conclusive, but it has sometimes been suggested on general historical grounds that the expression is impossible in Italy at this date. But other indications show that the work was complete by 23 or 22 B.C.: Schanz-Hosius, , Gesch d. röm. Lit. 4 ii (1935), 387–8Google Scholar, cf. A. Boethius, ‘Vitruvius and the Roman Architecture of his Age’, ΔΡΑΓΜΑ M.P. Nilsson dedicatum (1939), 114.

106 Suet., Div. Aug. 53.

107 RG 5; Vell. Pat. ii, 89; Suet., Div. Aug. 52; Dio liv, 1, 3–4.

108 Gellius, Aulus, NA xv, 7Google Scholar, 3 = Malcovati, E., Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti Operum Fragmenta 5 (1969), Ep. xxii.Google Scholar

109 Ibid. xiii, 12, 1–2.