Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 January 2015
Erich Gruen has questioned the notion of ‘succession planning’ under Augustus, arguing that the princeps was careful to avoid giving the impression that he wanted to create a heritable dynasty, for it was not in his interest to emphasise autocracy and there was no office of state to pass on. This view seems incomplete, since the prerogatives and resources of the Julian family were of such magnitude that Augustus’ heir could hardly fail to occupy a position of dominance in the state, as everyone surely knew. Moreover, it seems likely that Gruen overestimates the level of opposition to autocracy, that the cause of state stability was aided overall by clear lines of succession, that relevant attitudes were dynamic rather than static, and that there was a higher public profile (and more practical, substantial importance) for the imperial family than Gruen describes.
1 Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 342-3Google Scholar; Seager, R., Tiberius, 2nd edn (Oxford 2005, orig. 1972) 18–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Levick, B., Tiberius the Politician, 2nd edn (London 1999, orig. 1976) 21Google Scholar; Galinsky, K., Augustan Culture: An Introduction (Princeton 1996) 247, 365Google Scholar.
2 In other words, Augustus preferred to operate as princeps (‘leader’) within the framework of the traditional republican state rather than set up a new, autocratic state (a Principatus or ‘Principate’) based on the concept of principatus (‘leadership’). See Gruen, E.S., ‘Augustus and the Making of the Principate’, in Galinsky, K. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus (New York 2005) 33-51, esp. 36, 50Google Scholar. Edwin Judge has also argued against the idea of a heritable autocracy, emphasizing instead the republican offices and powers held by Augustos and his stated aim of wanting to provide an exemplar for future principes to follow: e.g. Judge, E.A., “The Eulogistic Inscriptions of the Augustan Forum: Augustus on Roman History’, in Harrison, J. (ed.) The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays by E.A. Judge (Tübingen 2008) 165-81Google Scholar, and other papers in this collection; id. “The Failure of Augustus”, Classicum 38.1 (2012) 2-7. Judge believes that scholarship on Augustus' principate has been unduly governed by a hindsight conception of the Principate, a form of government which developed predominantly after his death and in light of his model. Augustus did not aim to create the form of state now commonly described as the Roman ‘Empire’ (mied by a Roman emperor). Instead, he sought to function as princeps and provide a leadership model for other Romans to emulate, whether they were members of his family or not. For the edict in which he offers himself as an exemplar to be compared with the heroes represented in his Forum, see Suet, . Aug. 31.5Google Scholar; cf. Aug, . RG 8.5Google Scholar. For the edict in which he vows to maintain the state safe and sound and be called the author of the finest state of affairs, see Suet, . Aug. 28.2Google Scholar; Girardet, K., ‘Das Edikt des Imperator Caesar in Suetons Augustusvita 28,2. Politisches Programm und Publikationszeit’, ZPE 131 (2000) 231-43Google Scholar. Wardle, D., ‘Suetonius and Augustas' “Programmatic Edict”’, Rh. Mus. 148 (2005) 181–201Google Scholar, argues that the edict is essentially irrelevant in constitutional terms. Augustus was not ‘restoring the Republic’ or creating a ‘new order’, but looking forward ‘to the ultimate fulfilment of his former triumviral role to have put the state on a firm footing’ (201).
3 Aug, . RG 1.1Google Scholar (trans. Cooley): ‘Aged nineteen years old [44 BC] I mustered an army at my personal decision and at my personal expense, and with it I liberated the state, which had been oppressed by a despotic faction.’ Cf. Cic, . Att. 16.15.3Google Scholar (Octavian states publicly that he is aspiring to the honours of his father). For the legality of Augustus' behaviour as triumvir, including a period of ‘discreetly clouded continuatio’ from January 31 to January 27 BC, see Vervaet, F., ‘In What Capacity Did Caesar Octavianus Restitute the Republic?’, in Hurlet, F. and Mineo, B. (eds), Le principat d'Auguste: réalités et representations du pouvoir autour de la res publica restituta (Rennes 2009) 49–71, esp. 59-70Google Scholar.
4 Cf. Cic, . Phil. 13.11.24–25Google Scholar (Antony's sneer that Octavian is a boy who owes everything to a name, viz. ‘[Julius] Caesar’). Nicolaus of Damascus, who was closely familiar with conditions in Augustan Rome, writes unhesitatingly about the heritability of Caesar's power - specifically his offices and honours – by Octavian (Caes. 53; cf. 57, where Octavian decides to adopt a conventional, law-abiding route to his father's honours). For a penetrating narrative, see Osgood, J., Caesar's Legacy: Civil War and the Emergence of the Roman Empire (Cambridge 2006) 12–61Google Scholar; cf. Levick, , Augustus: Image and Substance (Harlow 2010) 23–62Google Scholar; Richardson, J., Augustan Rome 44 BC to AD 14: The Restoration of the Republic and the Establishment of the Empire (Edinburgh 2012) 10–47, esp. 16-34Google Scholar.
6 Ibid., esp. 140-57.
7 In the famous words of Ov. Trist. 4.4.13: res est publica Caesar (‘Caesar [Augustus] is the state’).
8 Lange, C. Hjort, Res Publica Constituta: Actium, Apollo and the Accomplishment of the Triumvirat Assignment (Leiden and Boston 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rich, J., ‘Deception, Lies and Economy with the Truth: Augustus and the Establishment of the Principate’, in Turner, A., Kim, J. On Chong-Gossard and Vervaet, F. (eds), Private and Public Lies: The Discourse of Despotism and Deceit in the Graeco-Roman World (Leiden and Boston 2010) 167-92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Roller, M., Constructing Autocracy: Aristocrats and Emperors in Julio-Claudian Rome (Princeton and Oxford 2001) 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘[In the Julio-Claudian period] the emperor was being invented on the fly, through various feats of imagination, as a social figure who related in particular ways to other members of society, and particularly to elites’; cf. 127-287, where it is argued that giving and receiving gifts, and applying authority paradigms (like father and master), were ways of negotiating social relationships with an emperor and even of applying pressure to him. Flaig, E., Den Kaiser herausfordern. Die Usurpation im Römischen Reich (Frankfurt and New York 1992)Google Scholar, suggests that the Principate had legitimacy, while the individual emperors only had acceptance; id., ‘How the Emperor Nero Lost Acceptance in Rome’, in B. Ewald and C. Noreôa (eds), The Emperor and Rome: Space, Representation, and Ritual (Cambridge and New York 2011) 275-88.
10 Aug, . RG 34.3Google Scholar (trans. Cooley): ‘After this time I excelled everyone in influence (auctoritas), but I had no more power (potestas) than the others who were my colleagues in each magistracy.’ On auctoritas, see Crook, J., ‘Augustus: Power, Authority, Achievement’, in Bowman, A., Champlin, E. and Lintott, A. (eds) CAH2 10.113-46, esp. 121-3Google Scholar (auctoritas), 133-40 (ideology); Eck, W., The Age of Augustus, 2nd edn, trans. Schneider, D. Lucas and Daniel, R. (Oxford 2007, orig, 1998) 148Google Scholar; Cooley, A., Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation and Commentary (Cambridge 2009) 271-2Google Scholar. Cf. Galinsky, , Augustan Culture (n. 1) esp. xGoogle Scholar, where Augustan culture is defined as ‘the sum of creative activities during this period’, and 10-41, where it is argued that the auctoritas of Augustus gave rise to Augustan culture and that the two phenomena shared a reciprocal and mutually reinforcing relationship. In respect of the events of January 27 BC, Levick, Augustus (n. 4) 71, writes that ‘[i]t was ultimately on the basis of his military power, imperium, … that Octavian's extra-legal influence, his auctoritas, was to rest. If the imperium were withdrawn he could still rely on that power, better called by the sinister word potentia in this context: soldiers would follow him whatever the Senate said, as they had already shown.’
11 Wallace-Hadrill, A., ‘Review: D. Kienast, Augustus: Prinzeps und Monarch’, JRS 75 (1985) 245-50, esp. 247Google Scholar.
14 For the emperor as a unifying symbol, see Millar, F., ‘State and Subject: The Impact of Monarchy’, in Millar, F. and Segal, E. (eds), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (Oxford 1984) 37–60Google Scholar; Ando, C., Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 2000) e.g. 206-73CrossRefGoogle Scholar (art); Norefia, C., Imperial Ideals in the Roman West: Representation, Circulation, Power (Cambridge 2011)Google Scholar.
15 For opposition to Augustus, see Dio 52.48.8, 54.3.3-4. Raaflaub, K. and Samons, L. II, ‘Opposition to Augustas’, in Raaflaub, K. and Toher, M. (eds), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1990) 417-54Google Scholar, argue for limits to the idea of Opposition'. Levick, , Augustus (n. 4) 164-201, esp. 164-79Google Scholar, takes the point about Augustus' support but expands the horizons of Opposition' in a nuanced discussion. Cf. Wilkinson, S., Republicanism during the Early Roman Empire (London 2012) 35–82Google Scholar. For charismatic imperial patronage of the plebs, see Yavetz, Z., Plebs and Princeps (Oxford 1969) esp. 103-29Google Scholar; Veyne, P., Bread and Circuses, intro. Murray, O., trans. Pearce, B. (London 1990)Google Scholar. For the plebs as essentially apolitical, see Mouritsen, H., Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic (Cambridge 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Millar, , The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic (Ann Arbor 2002)Google Scholar, and Morstein-Marx, R., Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic (Cambridge 2003)Google Scholar, have more generous views of the political engagement and power of the plebs.
16 On the practice of recusatio, see Dio 54.10.4, 54.30.1, 55.34.1, 56.43.1-3; Wallace-Hadrill, , ‘Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King’, JRS 72 (1982) 32–48Google Scholar; Hillard, T.W., ‘Augustus and the Evolution of Roman Concepts of Leadership’, Ancient History: Resources for Teachers (Macquarie University) 38.2 (2008) 107-52, esp. 112-14, 135-43Google Scholar.
19 The honours of 27 BC – specifically the name ‘Augustus’, the oak wreath and the laurel branches flanking the door of his house on the Palatine – appeared subsequently in both public and private art. Aes coinage of 23-19 BC bore images of these honours in place of the usual portraits of gods. Cf. EJ p. 45 (date); Aug, . RG 34.2Google Scholar; Ov, . Fast. 1.614Google Scholar; Trist. 3.1.36–48Google Scholar; Vell. Pat. 2.91.1; Suet, . Aug. 7.2Google Scholar; Dio 53.16.4, 6-8; Rich (ed. with trans, and comm.), Cassius Dio: The Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53-55.9) (Warminster 1990)Google Scholar ad loc.; Cooley, , Res Gestae (n. 10) 262-71Google Scholar.
20 Severy, , Augustus and the Family (n. 5) 59–61Google Scholar argues that the initial concentration was on Augustus himself, rather than on his family.
21 Eck, , Age of Augustus (n. 10) 157Google Scholar: ‘When it came to the descent of his line of blood the behaviour of Augustus could almost be described as obsessive.’
24 Clark, M., Augustus, First Roman Emperor: Power, Propaganda and the Politics of Survival (Exeter 2010) 131Google Scholar: ‘Julia would have had no expectation of being able to choose her own husband.’
29 Vell. Pat. 2.79.1; Dio 53.27.1-4, 54.29.
30 Kuttner, A., Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus: The Case of the Boscoreale Cups (Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford 1995) 182-3Google Scholar.
31 H. Lindsay, Adoption in the Roman World (Cambridge and New York 2009) 79-86, 182-9.
32 Cf. Levick, , Augustus (n. 4) 84Google Scholar: ‘It would have been the omission of the requirement [for Marcellus] to take the name Julius Caesar that made it possible to offer to open the will.’
33 On Marcellus and Agrippa, see Severy, , Augustus and the Family (n. 5) 68–77Google Scholar. Eck, , Age of Augustus (n. 10) 151Google Scholar, thinks that the reading of the will would have been aimed reassuringly at Augustas' supporters, above all Agrippa himself, rather than at opponents or potential opponents. Cf. Clark, , Augustus, First Roman Emperor (n. 24) 132Google Scholar, who thinks that Agrippa was elevated because he ‘had evidently been annoyed by Marcellus' prominence.’
34 Friction between Agrippa and Marcellus would not surprise under such circumstances, though evidence for it probably derives largely from uninformed attempts to interpret Agrippa's speedy departure for the East after Augustus' recovery in 23 BC: Vell. Pat. 2.93.2; Plin, . NH 7.149Google Scholar; Tac, . Ann. 14.53, 14.55Google Scholar; Suet, . Aug. 66.3Google Scholar; Tib. 10.1 (comparing Agrippa's withdrawal to that of Tiberius in 6 BC over friction with Gaius Caesar); Dio 53.32.1; Levick, , Augustus (n. 4) 86 (‘absurd’).Google Scholar
39 Lacey, , ‘19 BC’, Classicum 23 (1983) 30-5, esp. 35Google Scholar; Lacey, , Augustus and the Principate (n. 12) 153Google Scholar; Gruen, , ‘Augustus’ (n. 2) 43Google Scholar. Crook, , ‘Power, Authority, Achievement’ (n. 10) 92Google Scholar, distinguishes between ‘honour’ and ‘power’ in respect of the measures of 19 BC. Levick, Augustus (n. 4) 90, writes that ‘[t]his was the turning point in the Augustan Principate, a victory for the Princeps that changed his relationship with the Commonwealth and its leading members … it means that he was no longer on the attack, using every means to entrench himself; his future efforts went towards consolidation’; cf. 168 (‘19 is a good place for the definitive “start” of the Principate, when relations settled into a stable partem.’).
46 Clark, , Augustus, First Roman Emperor (n. 24) 132Google Scholar; ‘[The adoptions] strengthened his bond with Agrippa.’
47 Eck, , Age of Augustus (n. 10) 152Google Scholar, writes of an ‘elegant, two-generation solution’.
50 Ibid. 59-61. For prayers at the Secular Games for ‘myself, my house, fand] my family’, see Richardson, , Augustan Rome (n. 4) 126Google Scholar.
51 For denarii of 13 BC bearing portraits of Julia with Gaius and Lucius Caesar, see Galinsky, , Augustan Culture (n. 45) 124, fig. 18Google Scholar.
52 Aug, . RG 12.2Google Scholar (trans. Cooley): ‘When I returned to Rome from Spain and Gaul, having settled affairs successfully in these provinces, in the consulship of Tiberius Nero and Publius Quintilius [13 BC], the senate decreed that an Altar of Augustan Peace should be consecrated in thanks for my return on the field of Mars, and ordered magistrates and priests and Vestal Virgins to perform an annual sacrifice there.’ Zanker, , Power of Images (n. 5) 215-30Google Scholar sees the Ara Pacis as a pictorial representation of Augustus' succession plans following Agrippa's death in 12 BC.
55 Aug, . RG 10.2Google Scholar (trans. Cooley): ‘I rejected the idea that I should become chief priest [pontifex maximus] as a replacement for my colleague [Lepidus] during his lifetime, even though the people were offering me this priesthood, which my father had held. After several years, on the eventual death of the man who had taken the opportunity of civil unrest to appropriate it, I did accept this priesthood; from the whole of Italy a crowd, such as it is said had never before been at Rome, flooded together for my election, in the consulship of Publius Sulpicius and Gaius Valgius [12 BC].’ It is hard to resist the impression of orchestration, but this would mean that a great display of consensus (achieved via an election) was deemed important, since family and state headships were being extraordinarily linked on essentially dynastic grounds (‘priesthood, which my father had held’). Fast, Maff., Praen. and Fer. Cum. (EJ p. 47 = Inscr. Ital. 13.2.74, 121, 279, 420); Ov, . Fast. 3.415-28Google Scholar; Dio 54.27.2 (dating to 13 BC).
56 Lacey, , Augustus and the Principate (n. 12) 169-89Google Scholar, describes penetration by Augustus into Roman family worship rather than pressure for him to assume the office of pontifex maximus and thereby exercise pivotal authority over both state and family worship. For Augustus as pontifex maximus, see Bowersock, G., “The Pontificate of Augustas’, in Raaflaub, and Toher, (eds), Between Republic and Empire (n. 15) 380-94Google Scholar; Severy, , Augustus and the Family (n. 5) 99–104Google Scholar.
57 Dio 55.8.6-7; Swan, P., The Augustan Succession: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History Books 55-56 (9 BC–AD 14) (Oxford 2004) 78–82Google Scholar.
59 Dio 54.28.2-5, 54.29.6; EJ p. 366.
63 Vell. Pat. 2.99.1-2; Tac, . Ann. 1.53.1, 6.51.1-2Google Scholar; Suet, . Tib. 10.1-11.1, 5Google Scholar; Dio 55.9.5-8; Swan, , The Augustan Succession (n. 57) 86-8Google Scholar. Eck, , Age of Augustus (n. 10) 153Google Scholar, believes ‘we will never know for certain just what happened’, while Severy, Augustus and the Family (n. 5) 163, writes that ‘[w]e simply cannot know what motivated this action of Tiberius in 6 B.C.E.’
64 Dio 55.9. Eck, , Age of Augustus (n. 10) 153Google Scholar, thinks that the honours for Tiberius represent a failed attempt to combat Tiberius’ jealousy: ‘It was already too late.’ Clark, , Augustus, First Roman Emperor (n. 24) 143Google Scholar believes ‘it was clear he would be moved aside in favour of Gaius and Lucius Caesar … [and that he despaired of his own] fundamentally subordinate position.’ Galinsky, , Augustus (n. 45) 129Google Scholar, writes that ‘[i]t didn't take much for Tiberius to conclude that he was merely warming the seat for Gaius.’ Cf. Richardson, , Augustan Rome (n. 4) 146Google Scholar.
65 Aug, . RG 14.1–2Google Scholar (trans. Cooley): ‘ My sons, whom fortune took from me when young men, Gaius and Lucius Caesars, the senate and people of Rome appointed as consuls when they were fourteen years old, as a way of honouring me, on the understanding that they should enter upon the magistracy five years later; and the senate decreed that from the day on which they were brought into the forum they should take part in the councils of state.  Moreover the Roman equestrians (equites) all together presented each of them with silver shields and spears and hailed each of them as leader of the youth (princeps iuventutis).‘
68 For an excellent discussion, see Levick, , Augustus (n. 4) 181-3Google Scholar. Richardson, , Augustan Rome (n. 4) 148Google Scholar, emphasises in this connection that Agrippa and Tiberius ‘belonged to different generations’, so that the slight for Tiberius over the succession would have been more obvious and hurtful.
71 Interpretations of the Forum Augustam vary widely and not everyone sees emphasis on the Julian family. Luce, T.J., ‘Livy, Augustus, and the Forum Augustam’, in Raaflaub, and Toher, (eds), Between Republic and Empire (n. 15) 123-38 at 125Google Scholar, concludes that ‘the Forum Augustam was an amalgam of personal and public elements, with pronounced emphasis on the personal.’ Crook, , ‘Power, Authority, Achievement’ (n. 10) 102Google Scholar, however, believes that ‘[the] emphasis [of the Augustan Forum] is, actually, not so much on the ‘divine family’ (and we may be inclined to guess why not) as on victory and the long, successful tale of Roman imperialism.’ Galinsky, , Augustan Culture (n. 1) 197–213Google Scholar, emphasises polysemy and (on 208) ‘a network of associations that relate in various ways to Augustus himself.’ Severy, , Augustus and the Family (n. 5) 167Google Scholar, sees a ‘combination of public and private historical references, rituals, and imagery within this new civic space [which] presented Augustas as the ultimate pater.’ Cf. Levick, , Augustus (n. 4) 217-18Google Scholar; Richardson, , Augustan Rome (n. 4) 154-6Google Scholar.
73 Aug, . RG 35.1Google Scholar (trans. Cooley): ‘When I was holding my thirteenth consulship [2 BC], the senate and equestrian order and people of Rome all together hailed me as father of the fatherland, and decreed that this title should be inscribed in the forecourt of my house and in the Julian senate house and in the Augustan forum under the chariot, which was set up in my honour by senatorial decree.' Cf. Inscr. Ital. 13.2.119, 407 (Fast. Praen.); Ov, . Fast. 2.119-44Google Scholar; Suet, . Aug. 58.1–2Google Scholar; Dio 55.10.10. Augustas' tears: Suet, . Aug. 58.2Google Scholar. On the events of 2 BC, see Dio 55.10.1-16; Crook, , ‘Power, Authority, Achievement’ (n. 10) 101-4Google Scholar; Lacey, , Augustus and the Principate (n. 12) 190–209Google Scholar; Swan, , The Augustan Succession (n. 57) 91–110Google Scholar; Levick, , Augustus (n. 4) 91-2, 185-7Google Scholar; Richardson, , Augustan Rome (n. 4) 153-61Google Scholar.
74 Wardle, A Commentary on Suetonius' Life of Augustus (fortacoming) on Suet, . Aug. 58.2Google Scholar, thinks that although the form domus Augusta is not attested before AD 19, it might arguably be traced back to these words of Messalla; cf. Severy, , Augustus and the Family (n. 5) 213-31Google Scholar.
75 Wardle's commentary (n. 74) reads (on Suet, . Aug. 58.1Google Scholar) in part: ‘Dio states generally (55.10.10) that “previously he was called [Pater Patriae] without a vote“; in 8/7 the Sedunni in the Alps commemorated him as Pater Patriae (CIL 12.136); a milestone from Urgavo in Baetica calls him Pater Patriae in 6/5 (CIL 2.2107); at Pompeii on the temple of Fortuna Augusta (CIL 10.823) and in Pisidian Antioch (CIL 3.6803) he is Parens Patriae.’ I thank David Wardle sincerely for allowing me to read part of his manuscript in draft form.
76 Levick, Augustus (n. 4), expresses the significance of the Pater Patriae title admirably, e.g. 92 (‘[Pater Patriae] came close to implying a supreme auctoritas, virtually emancipating Augustas from the restrictions of the defined powers that had been conferred on him’); 204 (‘Psychologically, without conferring the formal potestas of a father, [Pater Patriae] put Augustus into a parental relationship with all his fellow-citizens no matter how eminent’). Also on the significance of Pater Patriae, see Strothmann, M., Augustus: Vater der Res Publica (Stattgart 2000)Google Scholar, whose treatment is wonderfully comprehensive but somewhat too formulaic and neat in describing evolution through phases governed successively by the ideas of restitutio, saeculum, and pater patriae.
77 For the importance of Julian resources to Augustus, see Severy, , Augustus and the Family (n. 5) esp. 140-57Google Scholar.
80 Suet, . Tib. 11.4–5Google Scholar. For Julia's downfall, see Sen, . Brev. Vit. 4.5Google Scholar; Ben. 6.32.1; Plin, . NH 21.9Google Scholar; Tac, . Ann. 3.24.2Google Scholar; 4.44.3; Suet, . Aug. 65.1–2Google Scholar; Dio 55.10.12-16; Swan, , The Augustan Succession (n. 57) 106-10Google Scholar; Levick, , Augustus (n. 4) 185-9Google Scholar; Richardson, , Augustan Rome (n. 4) 157-9Google Scholar.
81 Vell. Pat. 2.101.1; Dio 55.10.17-21.
82 Aug, . RG 27.2Google Scholar; Vell. Pat. 2.102.2-3; Sen. ad Polyb. 15.4; Dio 55.10a.8-10; Crook, , ‘Power, Authority, Achievement’ (n. 10) 104-5Google Scholar; Swan, , The Augustan Succession (n. 57) 133-7Google Scholar; Richardson, , Augustan Rome (n. 4) 163-4Google Scholar. For the unacceptability of Agrippa Postumus, see Tac, . Ann. 1.4Google Scholar; Dio 55.32; Levick, , Augustus (n. 4) 187-9Google Scholar; Galinsky, , Augustus (n. 45) 135-6Google Scholar.
91 Vell. Pat. 2.123.1-2; Suet., Aug. 98–9Google Scholar; Tac, . Ann. 1.5.3–4Google Scholar; Dio 56.29.2-31.1; Crook, , ‘Power, Authority, Achievement’ (n. 10) 112Google Scholar; Swan, , The Augustan Succession (n. 57) 299–305Google Scholar; Richardson, , Augustan Rome (n. 4) 190-6Google Scholar. Agrippa Postumus was murdered on Augustos' orders: Vell. Pat. 2.112.7; Tac, . Ann. 1.5–6Google Scholar; Suet, . Aug. 65.1, 4Google Scholar; Suet, . Tib. 22Google Scholar; Dio 55.32.1-2; 56.30.2; Richardson, , Augustan Rome (n. 4) 190-1Google Scholar.
92 For the idea of the Principate in AD 14, cf. Kienast, D., Review of E. Ramage, The Nature and Purpose of Augustus' Res Gestae, AJP 110.1 (1989) 177-80 at 179Google Scholar: ‘this new constitution found its definitive form only after Tiberius' accession to the throne; after that it only needed to be developed further.’ Cf. Levick, Tiberius (n. 1) 223Google Scholar: ‘one of the most important events of Tiberius' principate was precisely the death of Augustus and his own accession to sole power; it made the principate a permanency.’ Cowan, E., ‘Tacitus, Tiberius and Augustus’, ClassAnt 28.2 (2009) 179–210 at 207Google Scholar, is more circumspect: ‘proclaiming adherence to Augustas was part of a political strategy aimed at maintaining stability at Rome and throughout the empire by stressing continuity with the past and his own suitability as Augustas' successor-continuator.’
94 I want to express my sincere thanks to Paul Burton and the journal's two anonymous referees for the enormous help they provided in the writing of this paper. Remaining errors or misconceptions are certainly not due to them.
Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.