JACT Teachers’ Notes

AH4 / F394 – Roman History Option 3. Ruling the AD 14-117

Teachers’ notes by Penelope J. Goodman and Zahra Newby

Contents:

1. BOOKS AND RESOURCES General works 2 More specialist volumes 3

2. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOURCES 6 7 LACTOR 8 – Inscriptions of the Roman Empire 9 LACTOR 15 – Dio: the Julio-Claudians 10 LACTOR 18 – The High Tide of Empire 12

3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The empire 14 The emperor and the principate 15

4. THEMATIC NOTES 4.1 MECHANISMS OF GOVERNMENT The emperor and the provinces 20 Provincial taxation 21 Senators in government and administration 22 Equestrians in government and administration 27 Imperial freedmen in government and administration 28 Local government 29 The role of the army 31 Frontier and defence policies 32 4.2 PROVINCIAL RESPONSES TO ROMAN RULE The issue of ‘Romanisation’ 34 Provincial rebellions 37 Displays of loyalty 39 4.3 LIFE IN THE PROVINCES Regional identities 42 Economics 44 The image of the emperor 46 The imperial cult 48

- 1 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

1. BOOKS AND RESOURCES

Only secondary material is covered here – for primary sources, see Introduction to the Sources, below p. 6.

General works:

Garnsey P. & Saller, R. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture (Duckworth, 1987) This is a standard study of the workings of the Roman empire, divided into four sections on administration, the economy, society and religion. It is useful, but the thinking now seems slightly outdated – the authors place more emphasis on the Roman state as a dominant and even coercive power in effecting cultural change in the provinces than most scholars do today. Nonetheless there is some helpful material on the agricultural basis of the empire’s economy, and the workings of social class in the Roman world. This book has an entry on Google books (here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uvcBZUzn82QC), but it does not seem to be possible to read any of it online.

Goodman, M. The Roman World 44BC-AD180 (Routledge, 1997) A good, solid overview of the Roman empire during the core period covered in this module. This book is explicitly aimed at new-comers to the subject, and does a good job of covering the material from the ground up. The emphasis is on the operations of the Roman state and the individuals involved in the government of the empire, so that it will mainly be useful for the fourth bullet-point on the module specification – i.e. the government and administration of the empire, including senators, equestrians and the army. But it also includes useful chapters on the extent to which the empire was politically, economically or culturally unified (chs. 13-15), provincial reactions to Roman rule (ch. 16), case-studies of individual provinces (chs. 20-28) and religion (chs. 29-31). The thinking on cultural issues is not as sophisticated as Woolf 1998, but it is perfectly sound and should equip students to perform strongly on this module. Much of the book is available on Google books here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MZ37ALMZZakC.

Huskinson, J. ed. Experiencing . Culture, Identity and Power in the Roman Empire (Routledge, 2000) This is an excellent and very accessible book aimed at Open University students. It is a multi-authored collection of chapters on themes such as Roman and provincial identities, Romanisation, resistance, religion, urbanism, and elite cultures. The relevance of the themes covered and the level at which they are treated make it a very useful secondary text for this module. Quite a lot of it (including a table of contents) is on Google books, here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6p8H9HUeYrsC. I would particularly recommend chapter 1 by Janet Huskinson for getting to grips with the general issue of how the Roman state interacted with the empire and what sort of cultural

- 2 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

exchanges occurred between them in both directions, and chapter 9 by James Rives for understanding the religious practices of the Roman empire, including the imperial cult.

More specialist volumes: These are likely to be of use primarily to teachers who wish to explore certain aspects of the topic in more depth.

Romanisation and Cultural change:

Hingley, R. Globalizing Roman Culture: unity, diversity and empire (Routledge: and New York, 2005). A fresh, up-to-date and wide-ranging look at issues of cultural change in the Roman empire. Hingley reviews past interpretations of cultural change, spells out their limitations, and draws together current thinking on issues of culture, identity and their expression in the Roman world. He emphasises the flexible, changing nature of both Roman and local identities, and considers how we can make sense of both the uniformity and the diversity visible within the Roman empire. Specific topics addressed include ways of defining and articulating elite culture, education, cities and .

Woolf, G. Becoming Roman. The Origins of Provincial Civilisation in Gaul (Cambridge University Press, 1998) This monograph represents some of the most sophisticated current thinking on the issue of the relationship between Rome and provincial populations, via the specific case- study of Gaul. The opening chapter (‘On Romanisation’) is a particularly helpful account of scholarly debates around the issue of cultural change in the Roman empire, including discussion of what ‘culture’ actually is, whether we can identify a distinctly ‘Roman’ culture, and how we can go about exploring cultural change. As discussions of such issues go, it is fairly clear and accessible, but it may still be hard going for A-level students. Other useful chapters include ‘Urbanising the Gauls’, which discusses the change from the village culture of pre-Roman Gaul to the urbanised culture which developed under Rome; ‘Consuming Rome’, which looks at the adoption of new material goods in Roman Gaul and considers their cultural significance; and ‘Keeping faith?’, which explores changes in religious practices. Early on in the book, pp. 40-47 address the specifically economic impact of Roman rule on the region of Gaul (i.e. material which will be useful for bullet-point 2 on the module specification). Significant parts of this book are on Google books, here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GjNaT7FMohwC

Scott, S. and Webster, J. eds. Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art (Cambridge University Press, 2003) A multi-authored collection of chapters, which together take a very sophisticated approach to the creation of art in the provinces of the Roman empire, and its cultural significance. There is plenty of up-to-date scholarly debate here, but it is pitched at an primarily academic audience, and is likely to be quite difficult for A-level students to get

- 3 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

to grips with. The focus of the volume on art will also mean (as for Macready & Thompson 1987) that, while it can certainly provide added value for this module, it is not a top priority. A table of contents and the opening chapter are available here: http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/05926/sample/9780521805926ws.pdf.

Regional Studies:

Alcock, S. E. ed. The Early Roman Empire in the East (Oxbow, 1997) Like the volume by Blagg and Millett (see below) this is a collection of papers on various aspects of the cultural life of the eastern Roman empire which is likely to be of more use to teachers than students. On issue of ‘Romanisation’ see particularly Woolf’s paper which looks at the extent to which Roman rule affected the development and role of cities in the east, following on from Hellenistic developments, and compares this with the urbanisation of the Western empire under Roman rule. Issues of identity and tacit resistance to Roman rule are explored in the papers by Elsner (on religious identities, esp the role of the Ephesian Artemis) and Braund (on Hellenism in the Black Coast area). Rose’s paper on imperial portraits is useful for exploring the imperial image in the east.

Blagg, T. F. C. & Millett, M. eds. The Early Roman Empire in the West (Oxbow, 1990) This is a multi-authored collection of chapters on the subject of Roman relations with the western part of the empire. Like most such collections, it includes some strong chapters and some weak ones; and also some which are very relevant to this module and some which are not. Most of the material of relevance to this module is aimed very much at established experts, and may thus be difficult for A-level students to follow. In any case, it also tends to represent quite out-of-date thinking – particularly the assumption that there was ever such a thing as a single, static and easily-identifiable ‘Roman’ culture, whose impact can easily be traced in the provinces (see notes below p. 34 on The issue of ‘Romanisation’ for the problems with this). The most useful chapters are probably: 12. ‘Urban munificence and the growth of urban consciousness in Spain’. This discusses the issues involved in using inscriptions as evidence, and focuses on the experiences of provincials living under Roman rule, and their own reasons for adopting the Roman practice of paying for urban public buildings. It will be valuable for countering the common misconception that ‘the Romans’ marched into the provinces and built cities for the grateful inhabitants. 14. ‘For better or worse? Towards an assessment of the economic and social consequences of the Roman conquest of Gaul’. This is one of the few works to focus directly on the social and economic consequences of incorporation into the empire - i.e. the second bullet-point on the module specification. Otherwise, though, the rest of this book is probably best left alone.

- 4 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

Macready S. & Thompson, F. H. Roman Architecture in the Greek World (Society of Antiquaries, London, 1987) A multi-authored collection with plenty of case-studies of the impact which the incorporation of Greece and Minor into the Roman empire had on the architecture of these provinces. Most chapters do provide material relating to the first two bullet-points on the module specification – particularly the relationship between local and ‘Roman’ identities, and the socio-economic effects of incorporation into the empire – with plenty of concrete examples. The specific focus on architecture, though, may mean that this material is too tangential to be of great use.

Mitchell, S. Anatolia. Lands Men and Gods in Asia Minor. Vol 1 (Clarendon Press, 1993) This work, in two volumes, focuses on the history of Asia Minor, modern day Turkey, from the Hellenistic to the Late Roman periods. Please note that it is volume I, rather than volume II, which is of greater use for this topic. This contains section II, entitled ‘The Impact of Roman Rule’. The most useful chapters are probably 7 on new city foundations in Asia Minor, 8 on the Imperial Cult and 12 on civic life.

Price, S. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge University Press, 1984) Another volume which focuses on the imperial province of Asia to explore the development of the imperial cult in the eastern empire (see further below). Price’s work has become the standard reference work for the imperial cult in the East and contains a useful chapter on how the imperial cult developed from Hellenistic ruler cults. He also contains plenty of examples of how the cult was integrated into civic life and architecture.

Aphrodisias webpage: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/aphrodisias/index2.html Aphrodisias is a small town in the imperial province of Caria which flourished under the Julio-Claudian emperors, having been made a free city by Augustus. Excavations at the site are ongoing, under the direction of the Institute of Fine Art, New York University. The website provides information and images on the excavations and history of the site. Particularly useful for this topic is the section on the Sebasteion, an imperial cult complex started during the reign of the emperor Tiberius and completed under . The sculptures decorating the porticoes which led up to the temple include scenes of the emperors and provinces with Greek mythological scenes and show how the city of Aphrodisias represented her place within the Roman world.

- 5 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

2. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOURCES

This constitutes a general introduction to some of the main sources relevant to this module. For detailed treatments of individual sources and passages, see thematic notes in section 4, p. 20 ff.

Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars (aka Lives of the Caesars) Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (born c. AD 69, died after AD 130), was an equestrian who worked as imperial secretary for the emperors (AD 98-117) and (AD 117-138). He was a friend and correspondent of Pliny the Younger, who secured favours for him. Pliny Letters 10.94-95 sees Pliny writing to Trajan to request the ius trium liberorum (rights granted to parents of three children) for him, to which Trajan agreed. By comparison with Pliny, Suetonius was both younger and occupied a lower rung on the political ladder – while Pliny was a senator who rose to the position of consul, Suetonius was merely an equestrian. Pliny is therefore the ‘senior partner’ in their relationship, treating Suetonius as a protégé – but they were both very much members of the educated elite of Rome, and describe each other as friends in their surviving letters. Suetonius may have served on Pliny’s staff while Pliny was governor in , and certainly worked directly for the emperors Trajan and Hadrian in the AD . The posts which he held during this period were secretarial ones, involving him in administrative tasks such as helping to handle the emperor’s correspondence (including the same kind of letters as Pliny had written to Trajan from Bithynia in the previous decade). Perhaps the most important consequence of this position for us is that Suetonius had direct access to the imperial archives, including documents such as personal letters from the time of Julius Caesar and Augustus. He drew on this material as he began working on his Lives of the Caesars, sometimes quoting it directly in his . However, in AD 122, he seems to have been dismissed by Hadrian from the imperial staff for behaving disrespectfully towards Hadrian’s wife, Sabina. He continued to publish his Lives, but had now lost his privileged access to the archives, so that from Nero onwards it is clear that he was restricted to using publicly-available source material. This material (which he also used in the earlier Lives) would include senatorial decrees, narrative already written by earlier authors and oral reports. Suetonius is a member of the same generation as Pliny and , and all three very much share a similar perspective on the principate. As young men, they had lived through the tyrannical reign of (AD 81-96), who had executed large numbers of senators, encouraged people to report one another for treason, and generally made the extent of his power and his willingness to abuse it very clear to the Roman aristocracy. This means that all three authors were very aware of how the institution of the principate could be abused. On the other hand, all were born a century after the end of the Republic. The principate was well-established, and it would not have seemed a realistic or even desirable option to them to dispense with rule by an emperor. Instead, as adults they are keen to encourage and collaborate with Trajan in his efforts to create a better relationship between the emperor and the senators / equestrians, in which the emperor is careful to

- 6 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

show respect for these groups, and to allow them to feel that they are playing a meaningful role in the running of the empire. In Suetonius’ writing (as in Tacitus’), all this translates into two noticeable traits: 1) a tendency to categorise emperors into ‘good’ sorts (like Trajan) and ‘bad’ sorts (like Domitian), and 2) a degree to which he is writing his Lives of previous emperors as a sort of ‘blueprint’ for the current emperor (Trajan) showing how he should and should not behave. The perspective is very much that of the educated elite, so that emperors who held treason trials and executed senators / equestrians (Tiberius, Gaius / , Claudius, Nero and Domitian) are heavily criticised in all areas of their lives, even if other evidence suggests that they were popular with the ordinary people, or managed the provinces successfully. By contrast, those who treated the senatorial and equestrian orders with respect get a much better deal – e.g. Augustus and Vespasian. Because Suetonius, Pliny and Tacitus dominate our written record for the emperors covered on this module, it can be very difficult to escape from their ‘good emperors, bad emperors’ perspective in order to get a more rounded view. In this module, students will need to think about provincial perspectives towards the emperors, and need to be aware that these may have been very different from the attitudes of Suetonius. Some relevant snippets do make their way into Suetonius’ narrative, though, even if they are not the main focus of his interest. For example, the final chapter of his Life of Nero (ch. 57) reports that a Parthian king asked for Nero’s memory to be honoured, and that someone came forth twenty years after Nero’s death claiming to be him (à la Elvis Presley) – something that would only be worth doing if that person thought that some people would be receptive to Nero’s re-appearance. Similarly, Domitian 8 credits Domitian with ensuring exemplary standards of honesty and justice amongst city officials and provincial governors. It is also important to be aware that Suetonius is writing , not history. The structure of the Lives is very broadly chronological, in that Suetonius usually begins with his subject’s early life, and ends with their death. But the bulk of each biography is usually thematic, grouping the emperor’s activity under headings such as building activity, administration of justice, sexual activities, attitudes towards the games etc. In the context of this module, this approach can be useful, since although Suetonius’ main interest is in events in Rome, it does mean that there are often chapters focussing on an emperor’s travels in the provinces, approaches to the imperial cult and military campaigns – all relevant for this topic. Suetonius also places greater emphasis on the private lives and personalities of the emperors than narrative historians like Tacitus and , but often from a very ‘gossipy’ perspective – he is quite happy to draw freely on scurrilous rumours here, especially when it helps to support his portrayal of a ‘bad’ emperor. Suetonius’ Lives are available in Penguin translation by Robert Graves, revised in 1979. An early 20th-century Loeb translation is also available online here: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/home.html

Pliny the Younger, Letters Book 10

- 7 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (born AD 61, died AD 112), was a successful lawyer and politician. His uncle, (see notes under LACTOR 18, below p. 12), was a prominent equestrian and military commander, as well as a prolific author (although only his encyclopedia, the Natural History, now survives). Pliny the Younger spent time with his uncle during his boyhood, and witnessed the eruption of Mount Vesuvius which destroyed Pompeii in AD 79 from the naval base at Misenum, where his uncle was commander. After his uncle’s death in the eruption, Pliny was made his chief heir and adopted posthumously as his son – it was at this time that he took on the name ‘Plinius’ in addition to his own family name of ‘Caecilius’. Pliny practised as a lawyer in Rome, and in his twenties made the step up from the equestrian order (to which his uncle had belonged) into the senatorial order. From this point onwards his political career was wide-ranging and extremely successful. He steadily climbed his way through the offices of the cursus honorum (‘path of honour’, or Roman career ladder), culminating in a consulship in AD 100. His main importance for this module is as the governor of Bithynia-Pontus (a Greek-speaking province at the mouth of the Black Sea), a position which he held from AD 110 until his death in 112. From here, he corresponded regularly with Trajan about local events in his province, reporting on problems and seeking advice on how to handle them. These letters, collected in book 10 of Pliny’s Letters, constitute the best surviving evidence for the day-to-day workings of Roman provincial government available from the imperial period. It is clear that Pliny intended his Letters for publication, since he refers to the process of selecting and publishing them in Letters 1.1 at the beginning of the collection. This means that we are not dealing with a straightforward and un-self-conscious glimpse into Roman elite life here. We must assume that Pliny has selected, arranged and probably also polished the letters in order to paint the best possible portrait of himself as the ideal Roman elite male. As such, the letters provide valuable insights into the attitudes, priorities and concerns of such a person – but only of such a person as a public figure, not as a private individual. Book 10 (the correspondence with Trajan) was presumably compiled and published by a friend, since the letters come to an abrupt halt when Pliny died, still in office, in Bithynia-Pontus in AD 112, and he would not have had the opportunity to publish them himself. Nevertheless, he had already begun publishing his other letters by this time, so was presumably both writing and preserving his letters to Trajan as he went along with the assumption that they, too, would be published eventually. Thus, the impression of Pliny in the letters as a conscientious and fair-minded governor is very much the product of a self-conscious display – though of course that does not mean that it was not also true. Perhaps surprisingly, the collection also includes Trajan’s replies to Pliny, which would have been written either by the emperor himself or with his approval by an imperial secretary (of the same kind as Suetonius – see above p. 6). Trajan must have known that Pliny hoped to publish these, and the publication could only have gone ahead with his agreement – so, again, the impression of Trajan created by the letters is a carefully self-crafted one, designed to portray him as a caring, yet firm, emperor.

- 8 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

Pliny’s Letters are probably best accessed through Betty Radice’s translation for Penguin Classics. They are also available online at http://www.bartleby.com/9/4/ - scroll down to find the correspondence with Trajan.

LACTOR 8: Inscriptions of the Roman Empire Some general notes about dealing with inscriptions are offered here. Issues arising from specific inscriptions within this collection are discussed in the thematic notes below. Uses – inscriptions were used in the Roman empire for a wide variety of purposes and on a wide variety of materials. ‘Permanent’ inscriptions on stone and bronze tended to be used for: recording the texts of decrees, edicts or official letters (both those generated by the local council and those coming from Rome itself); recording religious rituals or laws; honouring the gods; honouring particular individuals; recording the construction of buildings; commemorating the dead; milestones on major roads; recording treaties or other legal arrangements; recording status (e.g. a soldier’s completion of military service). Painted notices were also used – these do not tend to survive as well, but are mentioned in literary texts and were found in large numbers at Pompeii. These might be used for local record-keeping, advertisements, election notices and shop signs. Personal possessions might be stamped with the name of the craftsman or manufacturer during production, and might also then have the name of their own scratched onto them once purchased. Finally, graffiti was also widespread, and again is particularly well-attested at Pompeii. The ‘epigraphic habit’ – the practice of inscribing texts on stone, bronze or other materials – is one which not all cultures share. In Rome, it appears from about the 6th century BC onwards, but really takes off in the late Republican and imperial periods, when there is enough disposable wealth to sustain it and it is being used as a means of displaying and competing for status. It was established in the Greek-speaking eastern part of the empire well before these areas were incorporated into the Roman empire, and was used there in much the same contexts as in Rome. So it is no great surprise to see it continuing to be used in the Greek-speaking provinces under Roman rule: usually, though not always, for texts written in the Greek language. In the west, though, the habit of setting up inscriptions was introduced by the Romans – so western provincials are aligning themselves with Roman practices when they choose to set up inscriptions themselves. This is reflected in the fact that the language of inscriptions in the west is almost always Latin. Practicalities – inscriptions on any material are expensive and time-consuming to create. Therefore, the very fact that someone has taken the trouble to have any given text inscribed instantly alerts us to the fact that it must be of great importance to the person or people who commissioned it – students should think in these terms when interpreting inscriptions. Inscriptions may also be incomplete due to damage. Quite often, missing parts of the text can be reconstructed with reasonable accuracy, because they follow formulas known from other inscriptions – e.g. the full titles of a particular emperor. This

- 9 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

is usually indicated in printed publications by placing [square brackets] around words which have been reconstructed via educated guesswork. Students should be aware that text printed in square brackets is open to interpretation. Design and context – inscriptions are not just words, but physical objects, and the arrangement of the text, the sculptural decoration around it (sometimes including images, especially on religious or funerary inscriptions) and the location where the inscription was originally set up all add to its meaning. E.g. on building inscriptions, honorific inscriptions and funerary inscriptions, the name of the person whose life / actions are being commemorated is usually written in larger letters than the rest of the text for maximum impact (see also issues of literacy, below). Honorific inscriptions often served as ‘labels’ for statues (now usually lost) set up on plinths, so that readers could associate the text with an image of the person; similarly funerary inscriptions were often accompanied by busts of the deceased and sometimes other images reflecting their interests, profession or family relationships. The locations of honorific inscriptions, too, were important – much status was attached to having an honorific inscription in a busy, central location such as the forum or agora. Finally, many inscriptions were actually set up in such a way that they could not easily be read – e.g. a small text high up a wall or in a shadowy location. This relates to issues of literacy and the extent to which it mattered whether inscriptions could be read or not – see below. Ideally, try to track down pictures of inscriptions and information about their original context when using them, in order to gain the maximum understanding of how they were originally intended to be seen. This will not always be possible, though, as many inscriptions have been separated from their original context either by reuse or by early modern scholars who did not think context was important. Often the stone itself has also been lost, so that we only have the text as recorded by those same early modern scholars. Literacy and power – it always needs to be remembered that the majority of people living in the Roman empire could not read inscriptions. Estimates of literacy levels vary – specific levels will have varied in any case between e.g. large cities and rural villages, and in practice there will be a ‘spectrum’ of literacy between the highly- educated elite and e.g. tradesmen who could make out a receipt but not read Virgil. But a ball-park figure of about 10% literacy on average is probably generous. This means that the specific detail of most inscriptions is aimed above all at the educated elite. But it does not mean that it had no significance for more ordinary people. Texts which concerned the whole community, such as imperial edicts, would have been read out by a town official in the forum or agora before being inscribed, so that the inscription would then serve to remind people who could not actually read it of what they had heard orally. Those not present at the original reading might later be prompted by seeing an inscription to ask others what it meant. Thus, the text continued to be transmitted, even to and by those who could not actually read it. Furthermore, the very act of being able to inscribe words in a very permanent form on stone or bronze expresses power and technological sophistication as well. So provincial populations would feel in awe of local notables or Roman officials who had inscribed texts set up in their community, while the permanence of the medium might engender a sense of the strength and stability of the current social and political hierarchy.

- 10 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

LACTOR 15: Dio: the Julio-Claudians Cassius Dio (born c. AD 160s, died after AD 229) lived a century after Suetonius and Pliny. In the context of this module, this means that he was looking back on the core period with hindsight, rather than living through parts of it as they did. His Roman History was originally 80 books long, and traced the history of Rome from its foundation to his own day. The relevant books for this module are 57 (Tiberius) to 69 (Hadrian). They are not completely intact – books 61-69 in particular survive only as epitomes, i.e. shortened ‘Reader’s Digest’-style summaries of Dio’s original text, made by Byzantine scholars in the 11th and 12th centuries. But they preserve a solid, chronologically- structured narrative history of our period. Dio came from a prominent Greek family in the of Bithynia- Pontus (i.e. the same one that Pliny had governed a century before). Although ethnically Greek, he held Roman citizenship, and was thus able to pursue a senatorial career in Rome. He was a successful politician, who held the consulship twice and also served as a provincial governor in Africa, Dalmatia and Upper Pannonia during the AD 220s. Dio appears to have been a careful historian, who read widely amongst the works of earlier historians who do not now survive to us, and used them as the sources for his history. However, he was writing between one and two centuries after our core period, and this sometimes means that he views it anachronistically. For example, he treats the institution of the principate as though it had been introduced wholesale by Augustus in 27 BC in the form in which he knew it during the AD 190s to 220s, and does not really recognise that both Augustus and the Julio-Claudian emperors who succeeded him had to develop and consolidate their powers gradually through a process of negotiation with the senate, army and people. Like Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny, Dio also suffers rather from a ‘good emperors, bad emperors’ perspective. This is partly something he must have picked up from earlier written sources, including Tacitus and Suetonius, but also something that was shaped by his own experience. While Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny had lived through the tyranny of Domitian and into the much more measured reign of Trajan, Dio has similarly lived through the tyranny of Commodus and the Civil Wars which followed it, and into the much more measured reign of Septimius Severus. Again, then, Dio tends to make strong black-and-white judgements of previous emperors based on how well or badly they treated the senatorial aristocracy, and is also writing his Roman History partly with the agenda of creating a blueprint which will help to guide Septimius and his successors towards what Dio sees as desirable imperial behaviour. Dio’s work is also strongly influenced by the fact that he was a trained orator: as for all senators, making polished speeches was an essential element in his career. He frequently inserts speeches into his narrative – for example on important occasions in the senate, or when leaders are addressing their troops before a battle. It is important for students to understand that these are opportunities for Dio to demonstrate his speech- writing skills, not accurate reports of what was actually said by the characters speaking. In many cases, it is highly unlikely to Dio would have had access to the text of any such

- 11 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

speech as originally delivered – this applies, for example, to Boudicca’s speeches to her people in book 62, chapters 3-6 (see notes on Provincial rebellions, below p. 37). Meanwhile, even when he may have been able to read the original text of a speech (e.g. one delivered in the senate at Rome), it is clear that he felt free to rework and embellish it in order to create a highly-polished literary product, reflecting his own attitudes and interests and giving colour to his history. The entirety of the surviving text of the Roman History is available online in an out-of-copyright Loeb translation at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html

LACTOR 18: The High Tide of Empire: Emperors and Empire AD 14 - 117 This source-book is a compilation of a variety of different types of primary evidence arranged by theme, with accompanying commentary. The commentary sets most entries in context, while the notes above on Cassius Dio (p. 10) and the use of inscriptions (p. 9) should provide further guidance. Brief notes on some of the other sources used widely in the book follow below: Dio of Prusa (also known as either Dio Cocceianus or = ‘golden-tongue’) – a Greek orator of the late first / early second century AD (i.e. a contemporary of Suetonius and Pliny the Younger). He originated from Prusa in Bithynia (Pliny’s province), but moved to Rome as a young man. He was then exiled first from Rome and then from Bithynia for criticising Domitian and his family, so travelled through Greek-speaking provinces such as Thrace, Mysia and Scythia. On the accession of Nerva (AD 96), he regained imperial favour, and flourished under Trajan. He then returned home to Prusa, and involved himself in local politics there – this was during Pliny’s time as governor of Bithynia, and indeed Pliny Letters 10.81-82 concern a local dispute about a library and colonnade which Dio had paid for. Dio’s own surviving works are publications of the political and philosophical speeches which he delivered, and provide insight into the world of local politics in the Greek-speaking world. He reveals hotly-contested rivalries, a great deal of pride in local identities, and the need for Greek elites to negotiate a careful path in their relationship with Roman officials. In literary terms, he is considered part of the ‘Second Sophistic’ – a flourishing of Greek rhetorical speaking and writing which peaked in the second century AD, and was used by the educated Greek elite as a means of revisiting and recalling the glories of their Classical past (see notes on Regional identities, below p. 42). Titus Flavius Josephus – a Jewish writer (originally named Joseph ben Matthias) who wrote in Greek. He was a priest from who fought against the Romans in the Jewish rebellion of AD 66-73 (see notes on Provincial rebellions, below p. 37), but was captured by them in 67. In 69 he was released, and then served a role negotiating between the Romans (led by the future emperor Titus) and the Jewish rebels during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. As a reward for his services, he was granted Roman citizenship by Titus in AD 71, took the Roman names ‘Titus Flavius’ in honour of his patron, and moved to Rome where he turned his attention to writing. His two main

- 12 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

surviving works are The Jewish War (written c. AD 75), a history of the Jewish revolt against Rome in which he had fought, and Jewish Antiquities (written c. AD 93/4), a history of the world from a Jewish perspective. The Jewish War in particular constitutes an eye-witness report of a major provincial rebellion – but it also reflects the fact that he had switched allegiance from the rebels to their conquerors by the time he wrote it. Thus he has three distinct agendas: 1) to glorify the role of Roman commanders in the war, and particularly the Flavian emperors who had become his patrons; 2) to counter widespread hostility towards the by blaming the rebellion on a small minority of fanatical and corrupt individuals; 3) to excuse and justify his own surrender to the Romans while his fellow-soldiers had committed suicide in order to avoid it. Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus) – an equestrian from a northern Italian family who enjoyed a successful military career and was a prolific writer. He was the uncle of Pliny the Younger, and adopted him as his son in his will. Between his military duties and later service as a procurator (a provincial official responsible for financial administration) he spent time in Germany, Gaul, Spain and north Africa, but he also spent much time in Rome, particularly under Nero during the AD 60s. In AD 79 he was commander of the naval fleet stationed at Misenum on the Bay of Naples. From there, he witnessed the eruption of Vesuvius which destroyed Herculaneum and Pompeii, and died of asphyxiation after crossing the bay to a friend’s villa at Stabiae and becoming stranded there. His only surviving work is the Natural History, completed c. AD 77. This is a 37- volume encyclopedia, organised by themes (e.g. geography, botany, zoology, pharmacology, mineralogy). The information in it is digested from Pliny’s voracious reading (reported by his nephew in Pliny the Younger, Letters 3.5), sometimes accompanied by authorial comments from Pliny containing his own opinions on the subject-matter at hand. It preserves a wealth of information about the peoples, customs, and natural resources of the provinces.

- 13 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The empire During the period covered by this module, the Roman empire reached its greatest physical extent. Large swathes of new territory had been conquered during the previous century by Republican generals who were keen to outdo one another in the military arena in order to secure political power and support in Rome. This behaviour tailed off once the principate (see below p. 15) was established, but was still going on to some extent throughout the period covered by the module. Key campaigns include Claudius’ conquest of Britain (AD 43, followed by further efforts by Vespasian and Domitian to extend Roman control there) and Trajan’s campaigns in Dacia (modern Rumania, 101-2 and 105-6) and (modern Iran,114-117). This means that the Romans still think of themselves as conquering people during this period, and they certainly still idealise the waging of wars (see further Frontier and defence policies, below p. 32). In practice, though, the empire’s frontiers are gradually stabilising in this era. The most important thing to recognise about the Roman empire in this period is that it was immensely diverse. It was full of communities of people who spoke different languages from one another, worshipped different gods, followed different customs and had been incorporated into the empire at different times. Probably the most significant division was between the Greek-speaking provinces of the east (Greece itself, Thrace, Asia Minor, the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, and Cyrene), and the rather more diverse provinces of the west (Spain, Gaul, Britain, the Alpine and Danubian provinces, Africa and ). The eastern provinces were relatively coherently bound together thanks to a shared history which included Greek colonisation in the 8th to 6th centuries BC, incorporation into the empire founded by Alexander the Great and his successors, and the consequent spread of the Greek language throughout the area. But even so they were not homogeneous – e.g. Egypt, which had only been conquered in 30 BC and which still maintained many customs and practices from the time of the pharaohs, was very different from mainland Greece, which had become part of the Roman empire in 146 BC and had been the homeland of Classical democracy. In general, though, provinces in the eastern part of the empire already boasted sophisticated cities, political structures, literature etc. well before Rome came anywhere near them, and these traditions were for the most part carefully and indeed proudly maintained under Roman rule. In particular, Greek remained the predominant language of this part of the empire throughout the imperial period. The western provinces were much less unified. North Africa and the Mediterranean coast of Spain had been colonised by the Phoenicians. Their most successful foundation had been Carthage, which became Rome’s rival in the Punic wars (‘Punic’ is just another word for ‘Phoenician), but was finally defeated during the BC. The southern coast of Gaul had also seen some Greek colonisation, and was incorporated into the Roman empire late in the 2nd cent BC. But inland Spain, Gaul, Germany and Britain were essentially occupied by tribal peoples before their conquest by Rome. These people sometimes cooperated together, especially when faced with Roman

- 14 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

armies in their territory, but normally operated in small units led by kings or chieftains. Their conquest occurred over the course of the first century BC (inland Spain and Gaul) or during the first century AD (Britain); Germany saw ongoing efforts throughout this period, but always remained a military zone. Despite the colonising efforts of the Phoenicians and Greeks, the western part of the empire lagged far behind the east in terms of urbanisation, with the European tribal peoples still living for the most part in villages and hill-forts at the time of their conquest. Since the institution of the city was essential to Roman methods of government and administration (see Local government, below p. 29), widespread urbanisation was necessary for the western provinces to function effectively within the empire. The impetus for this seems to have arisen from a combination of Roman encouragement and local enthusiasm (see The issue of ‘Romanisation’, below p. 34). The official language of this part of the empire was Latin, but graffiti, personal names etc, show that local languages still persisted. , meanwhile, was not a province. Unlike the rest of the empire, no governor was appointed to govern Italy, and nor were its people expected to pay taxes to Rome. This reflects the much older relationship which the various communities of Italy had with Rome. Its peoples had gradually either been conquered or entered into alliances with Rome over the course of several centuries, until Rome held control of one sort of another over the entire region. The relationship between Rome and the communities of Italy was rationalised in the first century BC, when all Italian peoples were granted Roman citizenship en masse. After this, Italy functioned rather like an extension of Rome itself, enjoying a privileged status at the centre of the empire which the provinces beyond it did not share.

Imperial and Senatorial provinces During the period of the Roman Republic all the provinces were ruled by governors chosen from among the leading men of the senate. However, in 27 BC the first emperor, Augustus, was granted command over the provinces of Spain, Gaul, and Egypt (i.e. those holding the majority of the legions) for 10 years and later (in 23 BC) was given imperium proconsulare maius (power greater than that of a ) which gave him the right to intervene in provinces not formally under his authority. From the time of Augustus onwards (i.e. the entire period covered by this option) the provinces were divided into senatorial (or ‘public’) and imperial provinces. In senatorial provinces the governor was appointed from amongst the ex-consuls or ex- in the senate by lot and ruled as a proconsul (see also Senators in government and administration, below p. 22). In imperial provinces the emperor would directly select a to govern on his behalf. Like the of the other provinces this was a man of senatorial rank, either an ex- or ex-consul, depending on the size of the province. One exception was the province of Egypt which was entrusted instead to a of Equestrian rank, apparently because of the necessity of keeping the province in hands loyal to the emperor, given its importance as Rome’s main source of grain. Both types of province were subject to the laws passed by the senate and they could equally appeal to the emperor, as we see from the imperial edicts issued to both types of

- 15 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

provinces. In general imperial provinces were those where the majority of troops were stationed, giving the emperor more direct control of the army. There were also some differences in the financial regulation of the two types of province. In senatorial provinces a quaestor appointed by lot from the senate was in charge of overseeing the collection of taxes (see further below, p. 21) and payment of the troops. In imperial provinces imperial procurators carried out this role, these were usually men of Equestrian rank or occasionally imperial freedmen.

Client kingdoms The borders of the Roman Empire were not clear cut and in the east in particular some provinces were bordered by areas which were tied to Rome by loyalty but were not directly ruled via governors. These have become known as client kingdoms. Their kings ruled with the support of Rome and were often chosen directly by the emperor. When a client king died a new king could be appointed or the area taken into direct rule by Rome. Sometimes the king was a member of the local ruling dynasty, though a member of a new family, such as Herod in Judaea, could be appointed if he was seen to be more loyal. The main requirement was loyalty to Rome and the man or woman chosen was the direct choice of the emperor. Although many client kingdoms subsequently became part of the Roman Empire, it was also possible for them to become client states again later (e.g. Judaea was ruled by a procurator from 6 to 41 AD but then by Herod’s grandson until AD 44). It is unlikely that client kingdoms paid taxes, but since client kings funded their own armies a major economic burden of directly-ruled provinces was removed. Many of the kings appointed to such thrones had already lived much of the lives at Rome. Allied kings often sent their sons to Rome for education, so that by the time the successor was confirmed by Rome, he had already taken on Roman customs and demonstrated his loyalty. Suetonius Augustus 48 describes Augustus’ treatment of such kingdoms and says that Augustus brought up the children of these kings alongside his own. Of course, such children could also serve as hostages to ensure the continued goodwill of their fathers towards the Roman state. Herod I, King of Judaea during the rule of Augustus sent his sons to Rome for their education and during the reign of Tiberius a number of Parthian princes were apparently resident at Rome: Tiberius sent first Phraates and then Tiridates as candidates for the Parthian throne when the ruling Parthian king began to act against Rome (Cassius Dio, Roman History 58.26.1-4 = LACTOR 18, no. 46). The history of provides a good example of the important role client kingdoms could play in mediating between the Roman empire and powers outside it. Armenia lay between the Roman and Parthian empires and each side sought to exert their authority. Under Nero the Roman general Corbulo was active in the area and had a number of military successes before a member of the Parthian royal family, Tiridates, was proclaimed as king and lavishly enthroned in Rome in AD 66 (Cassius Dio, Roman History 62.19-23 = LACTOR 18, no. 47). A later attempt by the Parthian king to impose his own nominee to the Armenian throne in AD 113 resulted in Roman intervention during Trajan’s Parthian War (Cassius Dio, Roman History 68.17-23 = LACTOR 18,

- 16 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

no. 60). Armenia was briefly made a Roman province, though it was soon relinquished by Hadrian.

The emperor and the principate Useful reading on this topic: Goodman 1997: 87-92 The system of rule by emperor in Rome is usually called the ‘principate’, based on the Latin word princeps which the first emperor, Augustus, selected to describe his unique position in the state. Princeps means ‘leading man’, with the same sort of nuances as our phrase ‘first among equals’, and this reveals a great deal about the characteristics of the position. Although in our period, rule by emperor was firmly established, and not likely to be challenged in itself, individual emperors still had to be careful to show respect for the trappings of the Republican system, with its emphasis on the sharing of power amongst the Roman aristocracy, which they had inherited. Above all, this meant allowing the senators to feel that they were still playing an active role in the government of the Roman empire. Emperors who failed to do this laid themselves open to criticism, and could find that their position in power was challenged. The senate as a body, though, had relatively little power to take direct action against an emperor whom they disliked, as they did not have any collective control over the army. The real basis of the emperors’ power (again going back to Augustus) was his control over the Roman legions, whose members swore an oath of loyalty to the reigning emperor when they entered the army and knew perfectly well that their regular pay and retirement pensions depended on him. Most legions were based in the provinces, and especially along the frontiers, where their job was to ensure the security of the empire, deal with any rebellions which might occur, and also assist the provincial governor in what we would view as ‘civilian’ jobs such as building roads or dealing with criminals. But one particularly important branch of the army was based in Rome – this was the Praetorian Guard, who had special responsibility for protecting the emperor in his role as the ultimate commander of the Roman armies. Challenges to the power of an individual emperor therefore could be mounted by anyone able to get a substantial portion of the army on their side – especially the Praetorian Guard. Such people were typically individual senators who had been given the responsibility of governing a province, and thus had immediate command over the legions stationed within it (though always under the overall command of the emperor). Their method of operating was to get their troops to declare them imperator (which means ‘commander’ and not ‘emperor’ – that is a false friend), and then use armed force to support a bid for power, ideally culminating in their official recognition as princeps by the senate in Rome. But such bids generally only occurred if the challenger perceived that the reigning emperor had already become seriously unpopular with one or more of the key social groups whose support he needed: the army itself, the ordinary people of Rome, the aristocracy of Rome (i.e. the senatorial and equestrian orders) or the population of the provinces. If this had happened, the usurper knew that he had a reasonable chance of winning people over to his cause, and thus acquiring the necessary armed support and recognition from the senate necessary to become princeps. In our period, this happened in

- 17 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

particular at the end of the reign of Nero and several times during the year of Civil Wars which followed it. Emperors who made themselves unpopular could also be challenged closer to home. In our period, Gaius Caligula, Galba and Domitian were all assassinated – the first two by members of the Praetorian Guard, and the last by members of the palace household. In all three cases, this was because they had made themselves widely unpopular, especially with the aristocratic elite who had suffered widespread and often arbitrary executions at their hands. Conversely, the status of the Praetorian Guard as the only armed soldiery in Rome meant that their support could also make emperors – Claudius was appointed by them after the assassination of Gaius Caligula (Suetonius, Claudius 10 and Cassius Dio, Roman History 60.1 = LACTOR 15, C1). A successful emperor therefore needed to work hard at all times to secure the support of the four key groups: army, people, aristocracy and provincials. Methods of doing this included: For the army – ensuring regular pay, adding cash bonuses whenever possible and leading victorious military campaigns (always followed by hand-outs of booty) For the ordinary people – generous provision of games, grain, largesse (handouts of money) and casual labour (mainly in building projects) in Rome. See e.g. Claudius’ measures to improve the grain supply after rioting during a food shortage in Rome – Suetonius, Life of Claudius 18-20. For the Roman aristocracy – treating them with respect, ensuring that they felt included in the work of government, demonstrating popularity with the other key groups, emphasising legitimacy (usually by stressing their connections with previous emperors). For provincial populations – regular travel, preventing corruption in provincial administration, establishing good infrastructures where necessary (e.g. roads, aqueducts), funding building projects in provincial cities.

On the other hand, certain behaviour was bound to cause unpopularity. This included: Appearing to be uninterested in or incapable of leading successful military campaigns. See e.g. Suetonius, Caligula 46 for Gaius’ abortive attempt to lead a conquest of Britain, and the humiliation suffered by his soldiers as a result. Extravagant spending, especially on the emperor’s personal pleasures rather than the needs of the people or the state. See e.g. Suetonius, Nero 31 –for criticism of Nero’s extravagant ‘Golden House’ (Domus Aurea). Showing disdain for the senate, and in particular encouraging an atmosphere of informants and treason trials. See e.g. Suetonius, Tiberius 61 for Tiberius’ treason trials. Behaving like a god also attracted criticism, particularly because it was too reminiscent of eastern-style kings. See e.g. Suetonius, Caligula 22.

- 18 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

Allowing the mistreatment of provincial populations: the rebellions of Boudicca in Britain (AD 60) and the Jewish population in Judaea (AD 66) were major contributors to Nero’s downfall.

The emperors who reigned during our period break down into four distinct groups as follows: The Julio-Claudian emperors (Tiberius, Gaius Caligula, Claudius and Nero). These emperors were all related in some way or other to the first emperor, Augustus – this was the basis of their legitimacy, and also their popularity (at least until they had been around long enough to be judged unworthy of his memory!). The family tree was complex, and the relationships therefore rather convoluted: Tiberius was Augustus’ step- son; Gaius Caligula was his great-grandson; Claudius was his step-grandson and also his great-nephew; and Nero was his great-great-grandson. The Civil War emperors (Galba, , and Vespasian). These are usurpers who took advantage of Nero’s unpopularity to make a series of rival bids for the principacy. Galba and Vitellius were provincial governors, and hence had control of large armies, while Vespasian was a military commander sent to deal with the rebellion which broke out in Judaea in AD 66. These three thus all used their armies to support their bids for power. The odd one out is Otho, a senatorial candidate appointed after Galba had been murdered by the Praetorian Guard. However, he had no real support amongst the army, so did not last long when Vitellius turned up in Rome with troops behind him. The Flavian dynasty (Vespasian, Titus and Domitian). This group consists of the last of the Civil War emperors (Vespasian), and his two sons: the elder, but short-lived Titus and his younger brother Domitian. Vespasian held onto power where his rivals had failed essentially by doing a better job than they had at securing the favour of all the important groups (people, army, provincials, aristocracy) when he came to power. It also helped that he had two sons who were already old enough to be put forward into political life straight away. This meant that Vespasian could present himself as a guarantor of stability, since his two sons would be the obvious legitimate heirs to power after his death, so there would be no need for civil wars to determine who would become emperor after him. The senatorial emperors (Nerva and Trajan). The Flavian dynasty came to an end when Domitian proved himself a tyrant and was assassinated. After this the senate appointed Nerva as their own favoured candidate – unlike Otho in the Civil War, he was accepted by the armies, at least after he had adopted a brilliant young military general, Trajan, as his son and therefore successor. Nerva himself died after two years, allowing Trajan to succeed smoothly, and go on to do a very good job indeed of making himself universally popular with all the key groups in the Roman empire Over the period covered by the module as a whole, a gradual development in the backgrounds of the emperors can also be traced, and reflects the increasing integration of the provincial elites into the process of governing the empire. The Julio-Claudians came from the old Roman aristocracy – i.e. the families who had dominated Roman politics during the Republican period. But they themselves drew new people into the system of power by allowing certain wealthy provincials who had been granted Roman citizenship

- 19 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

to enter into the senate. Claudius took a particularly strong step in this direction by extending the right of senatorial status to Roman citizens from the northern half of Gaul (see LACTOR 8 no. 34 for an inscribed copy of the speech Claudius made proposing this measure, set up in gratitude at Lugdunum (modern Lyon)). Vespasian represents a step away from the old systems of power, as he came from an Italian family with its origins in Reate, so was not part of the old Roman aristocracy. But Trajan was the ultimate result of the increasing inclusiveness of the senate, as his family origins were in Spain.

- 20 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

4. THEMATIC NOTES

4.1. MECHANISMS OF GOVERNMENT

The emperor and the provinces NB See separate section at 4.3 on The image of the emperor, p. 46 for the dissemination of the emperor’s image and provincial responses to the emperor A key difference between Roman emperors and modern politicians is that their approach to government was essentially reactive, rather the proactive. In other words, emperors did not look at the empire and think, “Now, what could I do to make people’s lives better in Gaul?” Rather, they waited for people to bring problems to their attention, and then responded to them. A good text for gaining an insight into the way emperors functioned is Suetonius, Vespasian 21. This is a description of Vespasian’s daily round, which nicely illustrates his essentially reactive approach to government. His time is spent responding to letters, reports, friends who bring business to his attention and members of his household who request favours of him. In other words, his main prompts to action, whether regarding the affairs of the provinces or immediate issues in the city of Rome, come in the form of requests from other people, whether by correspondence or in person. Note also that the passage reveals a very personal style of government, based on direct interaction with individuals, many of whom are also friends or members of the household. Vespasian does not attempt to establish a ‘work-life’ balance – he carries out the business of government while dressing and over dinner, and does not draw sharp distinctions between friends and colleagues. Being emperor is a full-time role, not a job. See also Goodman 1997: 87-92 for the way in which they approached the job of government. The consequence is that most provincial communities would have to approach the emperor themselves if they wanted his intervention in the problems which they were facing. If they did not make such an approach, his default assumption would be that they were getting on perfectly well under the observation of their provincial governor, and did not need his interference. The most effective way for a provincial community to get what they wanted from an emperor would be to send an embassy, since this would mean they could ensure direct person-to-person contact with the emperor – very much the sort of approach that the personal style of rule revealed in the Suetonius passage would favour. A good example of a successful embassy is attested on an inscription at in Mauretania (LACTOR 8, no. 32 part b). This inscription was set up to honour a local citizen, Marcus Valerius Severus, who conducted a successful embassy to the emperor Claudius (‘because of his services to the state and the success of his mission’). This embassy was conducted in the wake of a local rebellion, led by a figure named , during which the inscription also reveals that Severus had commanded auxiliary troops fighting against Aedemon – in other words, he had fought on behalf of Rome to help suppress a rebellion. This, then, was a man to whom the Roman state owed a favour, and he apparently went to Rome to call in that favour on behalf of the people of Volubilis. The inscription lays out the concessions which he secured for the town from Claudius – Roman citizenship, marriage

- 21 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

rights with foreign women (i.e. if those who have just received Roman citizen status marry non-citizens, their children will still be citizens), tax break for ten years, new settlers, and the property of people who had been killed in the rebellion and left no heirs. These are all very valuable benefits which Severus’ fellow townsfolk would indeed have been glad of – as we can tell by the fact that they set up and inscription recording their gratitude. The rulings about tax-breaks and citizenship also represent issues which go beyond the competence of the local provincial governor to decide upon – hence the need to send Severus on an embassy all the way to Rome. Another example is at LACTOR 18, no. 149 – here, Marcus Servilius Draco Albucianus from Gigthis in Africa twice undertook embassies to Rome in order to petition for the greater Latin right for the community. This would mean that all councillors in the city received Roman citizenship (see below p. 21 under Provincial taxation for the benefits of this), and was eventually granted. If a community lacked the resources to send an embassy, the next best thing would be to send a letter to the emperor. For examples of correspondence between provincial communities and the emperor, see LACTOR 18, no. 231 (discussed under Provincial taxation, below p. 21).

Provincial taxation Useful reading on this topic: Goodman 1997: 100-101. Provincials were subject to two main forms of taxation from Rome: the tributum soli (land-tax) and the tributum capitis (head-tax, i.e. poll tax). Roman citizens were exempt from the poll tax – one of the reasons why grants of citizenship were so desirable. State taxes were collected via a ‘filter-up’ system. Local civic councils had responsibility for collecting payments from the individuals under their administrative control, using census records and land-holding records to do so. They then paid the money to tax-collectors working under contract to the Roman state (publicani). These people had ‘bought’ the right to collect the taxes from the provincial procurator – a state official in charge of the finances of the province. The money actually received by Rome was therefore in the form of direct payments from the publicani, who recouped the money (plus a profit for carrying out the work) by collecting the actual taxes from the cities (see e.g. LACTOR 18 no. 117 for some regulations concerning their work at Ephesus). Inevitably, the publicani were unpopular, the main complaints against them being that they were collecting more tax than had been authorised and / or using violent methods to do so (see LACTOR 18 nos. 118 and 132). Corrupt governors might also turn a blind eye to this in return for bribes (for more on corruption, see Senators in government and administration, below p. 22). The levels of state taxation varied from province to province – see e.g. Hyginus at LACTOR 18 no. 114. Hyginus was a land-surveyor, whose job was to divide up land in the territory of cities (a process known as centuriation), e.g. for distribution amongst colonists, and record the size and ownership of the plots (or ‘centuries’). Records of land- holdings produced by the surveyors were then used by the cities as a basis for taxation –

- 22 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

this is why Hyginus is interested in taxation practices and recommends different surveying methods for land which will or will not be subject to taxation. Issues concerning taxation are frequently the subject of correspondence between provincial cities and the emperor – e.g. LACTOR 18 no. 231, a letter from Titus to the local authorities at Munigua (Spain) in response to an appeal made to him by them. The city has clearly requested exemption from paying taxes to Sempronius Pollio, a local publicanus, claiming they are too poor. But Titus points out the former provincial governor, Sempronius Fuscus (who has only just left office), had passed a judgement saying that they should pay these taxes and that their appeal was unjustified. He thus asserts the authority of himself and his governors, but then turns to a more lenient approach – i.e. one which will smooth things over and ensure a good relationship between Munigua and Rome. He lets them off fifty thousand sesterces of the payment and writes to Gallicanus (the new provincial governor) to instruct him to waive the interest on their payment to Pollio. Thus Titus has not actually agreed to Munigua’s appeal, but has found a compromise position. From the fact that they set up his letter on bronze tablets in their town, we can assume that his approach was seen favourably by them. Civic councils could also collect their own taxes. These are not as well- documented as state taxes, since they were a local affair and our sources are focussed mainly on Rome and the concerns of the Roman state. But we do find occasional references to them – e.g. LACTOR 18 no. 99, a letter from Vespasian to the community of Sabora in Spain. Here, Sabora have clearly been granted the right to collect indirect taxes (e.g. customs duties) in the past by Augustus. Vespasian now confirms this right, but says that if they want to levy any other taxes, they will have to take this up with the provincial governor (the proconsul), since Vespasian has not heard any counter-argument against the proposal, and does not know enough about the local region to make a judgement on the basis of what the Saborenses alone have said.

Senators in government and administration Useful reading on this topic: Goodman 1997: 94-98, 101-104 and 107-110. In our period, senators were the wealthy educated male elite of the empire. In AD 14, most senators were drawn from either long-established Roman families or the Italian nobility. They had to own property in excess of 1,000,000 sesterces, and membership of the senate was hereditary – in other words, the sons of senators were expected to become senators themselves, but others were debarred. This system was not effective at maintaining numbers in the senate, though, as the senatorial families did not reproduce reliably enough to fill all gaps left by deaths or retirements. So two other means created to allow people to enter order. 1) Someone who did not belong to the senatorial order given right to wear latus clavus (thick purple stripe denoting senatorial status) by the emperor, which then gave them right to stand for magistracies and enter senate. 2) Adlection: practice of emperor nominating someone who has won his favour to automatic membership of senate, without them needing to hold a magistracy first. These methods might be used to bring members of the equestrian

- 23 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

order (see below p. 27) into the senate, and, increasingly, to bring wealthy provincials into the senate (see LACTOR 8 no. 34 – Claudius’ speech proposing to allow northern Gauls to become senators). By AD 117, the senate contained a reasonable cross-section of members from across the empire. Senators then had to climb a ‘career ladder’ known as the cursus honorum (‘path of honour), which consisted of a series of magistracies that could only be held when previous steps on the ladder had been completed. The stages were as follows:

- 24 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

Post Responsibilities Pre-requisites Age Number of officer- qualification holders p.a. Vigintivir Junior magistrates Must be sons of 18 20 responsible for senators minting coins, executing criminals, judging legal cases and overseeing care of streets Military One of six Optional Usually early 6 per legion (of assistants to the follow-up to 20s which there were commander of a vigintivirate normally 28). legion Quaestor Treasurer – often Follow-up to 24 20 served in vigintivirate. provinces Candidate enters senate proper at this point Aedile In charge of city Optional After 6 maintenance, follow-up to quaestorship markets and quaestorship games in Rome Tribune of In the Republic, a Optional After 10 the plebs defender of the follow-up to quaestorship ordinary people; quaestorship by now largely ceremonial post whose powers had passed to the emperor Praetor Mainly Must have 29 12 under Tiberius; responsible for completed 17 or 18 by time of the administration quaestorship; Trajan of justice ideally also aedileship / tribunate Consul Chief magistrates Must have 42 2 at any one time, of Rome in the completed but 4 per annum Republic; now praetorship (i.e. two pairs) second only to the under Tiberius, emperor rising to 8 or 10 by

- 25 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

the end of the first century AD. For a well-documented example of an actual senatorial career, see LACTOR 8 no. 96 (an honorific inscription commemorating Pliny the Younger). This includes almost all of the posts listed above, along with many other optional offices such as curator of the Tiber and the city sewers which became available once a senator had reached praetorian or consular rank. As with many such inscriptions, the offices are listed in reverse order of how important they were considered to be – i.e. the consulship comes first, because this was still considered the peak of a senatorial career, while the last office listed (before the contents of Pliny’s will) is a minor legal administrative position. In Rome, the senate met once a fortnight, held debates and proposed legislation. Under the emperors, though, the issues they dealt with tended to be those which were unlikely to be controversial: e.g. the construction of roads, aqueducts, religious matters. More important issues, such as taxation, foreign relations, military policy, etc. were now considered chiefly by the imperial court instead – i.e. the emperor, his household and a select group of senators. ‘Good’ emperors made a point of showing interest in the debate and opinions of senators; ‘bad’ emperors did not. The senate also acted as a criminal court for cases of corruption and adultery committed by people within their own social class (see below p. 26 for Pliny’s involvement in provincial corruption cases).

Senators as governors The really important role which senators played within the administration of the empire, though, was the government of provinces. Naturally they served as the governors of the senatorial / public provinces. Those who had reached rank of praetor or consul on the cursus honorum were considered qualified for the post, and were selected from amongst the qualified candidates by lot. All were given the title of ‘proconsuls’, though. This literally means someone who had held the office of consul, so wasn’t really true of those who had only been a praetor; but it helped to lend status to the office. The emperor also delegated the job of governing most of the individual imperial provinces to senators (though see below p. 27 for some exceptions where equestrians were used instead). These governors were again drawn from the pool of individuals who had reached the rank of praetor or consul, but were directly appointed by the emperor. This means that they owed their position to his favour, so is one of many reasons why senators would have been keen to curry this favour in our period. Their title was legatus Augusti propraetore (roughly, ‘pro-praetorian imperial deputy’) – this was applied even if they had reached the rank of a consul, and therefore had the right to be called a ‘proconsul’. When placed beside the actual title of proconsul given to the governors of the senatorial provinces, it conveys the notion that the governors of imperial provinces were of a slightly lower status than the senatorial governors: propraetorian governors rather than proconsular governors, as well as being explicitly described as deputies. All governors would be provided with a small staff. Their most important assistant was their financial officer, known as a procurator in an imperial province, or a quaestor in a senatorial / public province. This person was also a senator, though at an earlier stage in his career than the governor, and would do most of the work involved in

- 26 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

overseeing the collection of taxes in the province. The governor would also be provided with a small number of legati (legates) to whom he would delegate some of the work involved in commanding any legions stationed in the province and carrying out the administration of justice. See LACTOR 18 no. 110 for an inscription honouring a man who served as iuridicus (legate responsible for the administration of the law) on the staff of the governor of Britain. The numbers of official assistants provided was clearly inadequate, however, so most governors made up the shortfall by taking friends along to assist them in their work. Typically, these would be young men at the beginning of their political career who got the position in return for favours which their fathers had done the governor. The opportunity gave them political experience; in return, the more senior governor would expect them to become his life-long supporters in the senate. The governor’s job included: ensuring harmony between his province and Rome, including putting down any rebellions or (if applicable) defending its borders if necessary. ensuring (via his procurator or quaestor) the efficient collection of taxes from the province and their transfer to Rome: see Provincial taxation, above p. 21. overseeing the affairs of the cities in the province and intervening to resolve problems and disputes maintaining internal within the province, e.g. dealing with bandits hearing legal cases, particularly those which could not be resolved satisfactorily at a local level, or which involved Roman citizens.

Pliny in Bithynia The best evidence we have for the activities of a provincial governor is book 10 of Pliny’s Letters, which preserve his correspondence with Trajan from his governorship in Bithynia in AD 110-112 (see above p. 7 for the general source-issues surrounding these letters). The letters report on the state of the province and the problems which, as governor, were brought to Pliny’s attention. These were probably raised largely by the leading citizens of the province (people such as Dio of Prusa – see p. 12 for details), but there are some cases where Pliny appears to have been a bit more pro-active in his approach to governorship (see examples below). Pliny then reports the issues on to Trajan, taking every opportunity to show himself as a capable governor, but also to show deference to Trajan’s status and opinions, while Trajan replies offering a mixture of guidance, help and encouragements for Pliny to solve issues of his own accord. All of this well illustrates the limited resources of the Roman state – neither Trajan nor Pliny are in a position to formulate or enforce policies of provincial government, but rather they rely on local people to report problems, and react accordingly. Enormous mileage can be got out of these letters, but some particularly illuminating examples for this module include: Pliny, Letters 10.17a, 17b and 18 – arrival at Bithynia. Pliny reports details of his journey to his province to Trajan, and informs him that he arrived in time to celebrate the emperor’s birthday – an example of the role of religion in encouraging loyalty to the state, since Pliny presumably led the local population in these celebrations. He then states

- 27 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

that he has begun examining the accounts of the local city of Prusa and follows up by asking for a land surveyor to help prevent corruption and save money in public building works. This shows Pliny taking his job seriously, and working pro-actively to ensure that the local people feel the weight of his authority, but also the benefit of his involvement. Trajan replies supporting this general aim, but refusing the request for a surveyor on the grounds that he does not have enough available – a good example of the limited resources of the Roman administrative system. Pliny, Letters 10.37 and 38 – aqueduct at Nicomedia. This is an example of local affairs attracting the attention of first the governor and then the emperor when they go wrong. The people of Nicomedia have twice tried to build aqueduct. Project has failed both times, lot of money wasted. Pliny has obviously been notified (probably by disgruntled locals). Before writing to Trajan, he has already been to city to have a look at situation, visited spring which could be used as source for water; looked at what was built of previous aqueducts; decided project should be completed. Then writes to emperor to ask for resources – engineer or architect. Trajan replies, agreeing that the aqueduct should be built (this is all part of appearing to be a beneficial ruling power). But feels there is more Pliny could do as governor in response to the problem – wants P to investigate the finances at Nicomedia and find out what’s going on and whether there’s corruption behind it. Pliny, Letters 77 and 78 – garrison at Byzantium. Pliny, noting Trajan’s decision to send a small garrison to Byzantium to help preserve order there, asks for a similar service to be extended to another city, Juliopolis. This reflects the lack of proper policing services in the Roman empire, and the need to use soldiers on occasion to fill the gap. Trajan’s refusal to grant the request again indicates the limitations of the state’s resources – he does not have enough soldiers at his disposal to do this for every city, so does not wish to establish a precedent. Pliny, Letters 81 and 82 – the case of Dio of Prusa. Pliny is asked to intervene in a rather heated legal affair in Prusa. Dio (see notes for LACTOR 18, p. 12) is accused by Claudius Eumolpus of possible corruption and erecting a statue of Trajan in the same building where the bodies of his wife and son are buried (i.e. showing disrespect for the emperor). It is clear from letter 81 that the case has arisen largely out of spite against Dio – Pliny seems to think that there is little substance to it, and the accuser, Eumolpus, does not seem to be putting together a very effective case. Pliny takes it seriously, though, as another means of demonstrating his authority as governor. Trajan in his reply is keen to quash the accusation of disrespect, as previous emperors had attracted hostility for abusing their power through treason trials, and, like Pliny, is quite ready to acquit Dio if he can produce accounts showing that his accounting has not been corrupt.

Corruption Corruption on the part of the governors was clearly a problem from time to time, and usually involved governors extorting money from their provinces. This was done by accepting bribes from local individuals in return for illegal actions on the part of the governor – e.g. turning a blind eye to the corruption of tax-collectors, passing pre- ordained legal judgements (a good way for people to rid themselves of their enemies),

- 28 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

putting particular individuals into positions of power, etc. (see LACTOR 18 no. 124 for a general view). Provinces could complain about ill-treatment from their governors, and in the imperial era their complaints were generally taken seriously by emperors who knew that the stability of their own position could be threatened if there was sufficient unrest in the provinces. Cases were handled in the senate, and two letters of Pliny the Younger provide a detailed account his own role in prosecuting corrupt governors: Pliny the Younger, Letters 2.11. This reports Pliny’s role in prosecuting the governor of Africa, Marius Priscus, who was accused of taking bribes in return for sentencing innocent people, sometimes to death. The case here seems to have involved a lot of circling around legal technicalities, such as whether the senate had the right to pursue the prosecution, and whether Priscus could be condemned if one of the people accused of bribing him (Flavius Marcianus) was present in court but Priscus was not. Priscus’ guilt does not seem to have been in doubt, however, and the case ended with Priscus being compelled to pay the sums he had extorted into the state treasury and to go into exile (i.e. the proposal of the consul-elect, Cornutus Tertullus, was carried). Note that Pliny was assisted in his role as prosecutor in this case by Cornelius Tacitus, author of the and the Histories. Pliny the Younger, Letters 3.9. This reports Pliny’s role in prosecuting the governor of Hispania Baetica (southern Spain), Caecilius Classicus, for corruption on behalf of the province. The basis of the case rests on letters in Classicus’ handwriting referring to bribes which he has received in connection with business transactions and legal cases to the tune of 4,000,000 sestertii. The outcome was that the property owned by Classicus before his extortion in Baetica was handed over to his daughter, and the rest returned to his victims. Classicus himself escaped penalty by dying before the trial began.

Equestrians in government and administration Useful reading on this topic: Goodman 1997: 172-4. The equestrian order (ordo equester) is very much part of the ruling elite of the empire, but is distinct from and slightly less prestigious than the senatorial order. It has its roots in the Republic, when equestrians were essentially wealthy citizens who were not politically active. They were not members of the senate, and tended to involve themselves in trade and tax collection instead. They were also closely involved in the army – initially they had literally been ‘knights’ in the sense of cavalry, but by the late Republic were serving instead as army officers. Six military of equestrian status were appointed to each legion every year, where their role was to assist the commander of the legion as a whole (a senator). From the Augustan period onwards, their role in both military and civilian administration increased. They were used to command the ‘lesser’ branches of the – particularly auxiliary troops made up of provincials who did not possess Roman citizenship, including the navy and cavalry. A series of administrative positions known as prefectures and procuratorships were created for them. Broadly, the prefectures involve commanding troops of men (e.g. Prefect of the Praetorian Guard, Prefect of the

- 29 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

Night Watch (vigiles)), while procuratorships involve financial administration (e.g. a provincial procurator, who has responsibility for tax collection in a province). Some equestrians functioned as the actual governors of minor provinces, such as Judaea, but generally governors themselves were drawn from the senatorial order. The major exception is Egypt, which was governed by an equestrian Prefect. Equestrians were distinguished from the senatorial order partly by wealth – the property qualification to be an equestrian was 400,000 sestertii, as compared to 1 million for a senator. Even if they acquired the necessary wealth, they could not enter the senatorial order without special dispensation from the emperor, as senatorial status was hereditary – i.e. you could only become a senator if your father had been one. Entry into the equestrian order was much more open, though – all that was needed was the 400,000 sestertii and ‘good morals’, i.e. adherence to the Roman state and its values. This meant that members of local civic elites in Italy and the provinces could readily achieve equestrian status. Membership carried with it visible privileges (as for the senatorial order) – e.g. the angustus clavus (narrow purple stripe on the tunic and toga) and seats in the front rows in the theatre and amphitheatre. In the period covered by this module, all emperors came from the senatorial order – so another important distinction between senators and equestrians is that senators could potentially set themselves up as rivals to the reigning emperors, but equestrians could not. As for senators, there was a distinct career ladder for equestrians to climb – generally they tended to hold procuratorships first and then move on prefectures, but individuals varied, with plenty clearly choosing to specialise in military posts only. Typical careers are preserved by honorific and funerary inscriptions – examples can be seen at LACTOR 8, nos. 21-23 (Tiberian period), 37 (Nero’s Praetorian Prefect, Burrus) 70 (Flavian period) and 82-83 (Trajanic period). Reasons for the increasing use of equestrians during the imperial period are debated. Some argue that emperors preferred to entrust sensitive positions (e.g. the command of the Praetorian Guard or the governorship of Egypt, which supplied much of Rome’s grain), to them because senators appointed to these positions might potentially use them as leverage in order to mount a challenge to the emperor’s power. But this isn’t entirely consistent – senators also commanded the legions and governed most of the provinces, and could (and did) usurp power on the basis of the military control which this gave them. The alternative argument is that equestrians were used because the emperors simply needed a) the political support of the order and b) their military and financial experience to help them in the vast task of governing the empire.

Imperial freedmen in government and administration Useful reading on this topic: Goodman 1997: 87-92. Despite the availability of senators and equestrians to help with the running of the empire, most emperors also made use of more personal assistants, including members of their family and their own slaves and freedmen. This seems to have been largely because these people’s support was simply necessary due to the scale of the task, but some emperors also appear to have used freedmen for official business because their

- 30 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

relationship with the senate was weak and they could trust their freedmen not to try to undermine or oppose them. Since the authors of our sources are usually male senators and equestrians, they are generally hostile towards the political role played by freedmen and / or female relatives, and tend to emphasise their use as a characteristic of ‘bad’ emperors. We know that Augustus, the first emperor, made use of slaves and freedmen in his administration. He left names of those familiar with the distribution of the armies and financial resources at his death (see Suetonius, Augustus 101.4 – the very last sentence of this Life), and one freedman named Gaius Julius Gelos was honoured by the civic council of the Italian city of Veii for the help which he had given them (see LACTOR 8 no. 24). But Claudius, who had been raised to power by the Praetorian Guard against the will of the senate, is the classic example of really widespread use of freedmen. An overview of his use of them, with typical elite hostility, is at Suetonius Claudius 28-29. Pliny the Younger, Letters 7.29 and 8.6 also reports, again with great hostility, on the tombstone of one of Claudius’ most prominent freedmen, Pallas, and the honours and privileges which he had received. Typical roles played by freedmen included handling the emperor’s correspondence, managing his archives, writing speeches, and managing his finances. However, they also occur in other roles. Nero caused offence in the aftermath of Boudicca’s revolt in Britain (see Provincial rebellions, below p. 37) by sending a freedman, Polyclitus, to deal with disagreements between the provincial governor who had defeated her, Suetonius Paulinus, and his recently-appointed procurator, Julius Classicianus (Tacitus Annals 14.38-9).

Local government Though the Roman state and its agents (senators, equestrians, etc.) oversaw the government of the provinces, the day to day administration of ordinary people’s lives was very much left to the local provincial elites. Rome simply did not have the manpower to intervene in the fine details of provincial life, so preferred to establish profitable relationships with the established local nobility, encouraging them to continue in their roles as leaders of the community in exchange for Roman support and favour. With the exception of the militarised frontier zones and some large imperial estates, the entire territory of the Roman empire was divided up into civic communities, each consisting of a group of people located within a particular unit of territory, whose lives centred around a dominant city somewhere within that territory. From the point of view of Rome, communities of this type offered an ideal mechanism of indirect rule, since as long as the Roman state had established a mutually-supportive relationship with the leaders of these communities, they could then leave the leaders to carry out everyday local administration on their behalf. In some parts of the empire (e.g. Italy and the Greek east), civic communities had already existed in a developed form before they came under Roman domination. In others (e.g. Spain, Gaul, Britain, Africa), tribal communities with their chieftains were an embryonic version of the same thing. The Roman state simply encouraged their leaders to

- 31 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

develop a more formalised urban centre within their tribal territory, to use as a centre for local administration. The precise status of the civic communities varied according to which part of the empire they were located in, and the circumstances under which they had been established. The main types were as follows: Polis – a civic community in the Greek world which had been absorbed into the Roman empire Municipium – a civic community in Italy which had come under Roman control; later an honorific title given to some western cities Colonia – a civic community established on conquered land by the Roman state, and usually settled in the first instance by veteran soldiers. Also became an honorific title for some cities in the western provinces. Civitas – a civic community established by locals in the western provinces under Roman encouragement; usually the continuation of a pre-Roman tribal community but now with a city at its centre

For each type of community, the territory which it occupied was its main means of economic support, while the dominant city within the territory functioned as a centre for communal activities such as religious worship, markets and local government. The relationship was rather like a cell (the territory) with a nucleus (the city) to control it. The local elite formed the basis of a civic council based in the city. They were directly answerable to the provincial governor, and would report any problems in their community to him (see letters to Pliny the Younger concerning affairs at Nicomedia, Byzantium and Prusa in Bithynia in the section Senators in government and administration, above p. 22, for examples). Meanwhile, they oversaw matters such as tax collection, the administration of justice, the construction and maintenance of public buildings and the religious activities of their local community. Thus, the administrative hierarchy of the empire as a whole may be envisaged as follows:

Emperor / senators

Provincial governor Provincial governor Provincial governor

Local civic councils Local civic councils

Individuals Individuals Individuals Individuals

- 32 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

The manner by which each community governed itself varied from place to place, reflecting the enormous social diversity of the empire as a whole. But speaking in general terms, the civic council tended to consist of about 100 wealthy adult males. They were not paid for service on the council, but had to support themselves, much like senators in Rome. Membership of the council was usually determined by the existing council members – when one member died, they would work together to select a replacement. Usually this person would come from the same social class as the existing councillors (i.e. be a member of the wealthy local elite), and have prior experience of serving as a magistrate in the city. See e.g. LACTOR 18 no. 247 for an inscription from Ostia honouring Gnaeus Sentius Felix, who was ‘co-opted’ onto the local council, apparently at the same time as he began his first magisterial office as quaestor of the city treasury. Magistrates were usually elected by the members of the local community. In western cities, they included duoviri (‘two men’, the local equivalents of consuls), aediles and quaestors, much on the model of magistracies in Rome. In eastern cities, they included figures such as archontes and strategoi, types of magistrates which had already existed in the pre-Roman period. From some municipia and coloniae, surviving charters of local law survive, giving some insight into how the local community was organised. Examples include: LACTOR 8 no. 67 – extract from the charter of the municipium of Salpensa in Spain, recording who will be eligible to receive Roman citizenship within the community, what they need to do to get it, what rights it will convey and what oaths are to be sworn by the local magistrates. LACTOR 8 no. 68 – extract from the charter of the municipium of Malaca in Spain, recording procedures for the nomination of candidates for local office, their eligibility, the voting procedure and measures for the protection of the urban fabric. LACTOR 18 no. 107 – extract from the charter of the municipium of Irni (or Irnium) in Spain, which describes how local people may obtain Roman citizenship. LACTOR 18 no. 150 – a longer selection of extracts from the same charter, outlining the duties of magistrates, measures for the maintenance of the urban fabric, restrictions on illegal gatherings, measures to prevent profiteering, the duties of local citizens, and the requirements for compliance with Roman law. These charters were all granted to the communities concerned by Rome, but we must assume that similar local collections of laws would also be found in poleis in the Greek east and civitates in the west. Although none survive, it is most likely that civic communities were able to apply and enforce whatever local laws they saw fit, subject to the scrutiny and approval of the provincial governor.

The role of the army Useful reading on this topic: Goodman 1997: 81-86 and 113-122 (includes quite a lot of useful / relevant primary material). The Roman army consisted of two main branches – legionary soldiers, who held Roman citizenship, and auxiliary soldiers who did not. Augustus had established regular terms of pay and conditions for both groups, and in so doing created for the first time a

- 33 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

standing state army. Soldiers swore loyalty to the emperor, and the army was the main basis of his power – see LACTOR 18 no. 84 for an anecdote which makes it clear that the power of the armies was a reason for deferring to the emperor. One method of challenging that power was to win over the support of a portion of the army, e.g. the Praetorian Guard or the legions stationed in a particular province (see The emperor and the principate, above p. 15). The legions were regarded as more prestigious than the auxiliary cohorts. Each legion consisted of c. 5000 men, who generally fought on foot – this was considered more noble than fighting on horseback. Ordinary soldiers could rise through the ranks to become e.g. a centurion (leader of a ‘century’ of c. 100 men within the legion) or a primus pilus (the most senior of the 60 centurions in each legion). See LACTOR 18 no. 77 for the stellar military career of Gaius Arrius Clemens – the positions and honours held by this man appear to be listed in chronological order, and take him from being an ordinary member of the Praetorian Guard to an assistant to the military tribune and then leading centurion (primus pilus) in a legion, after which he retired into civilian life at Matilica in north Italy, and became one of the leading men of the town. Legionaries received a substantial cash pension or grant of land after completing their service (20 years at the start of our period, raised to 25 by the Flavian emperors). Auxiliary soldiers served in smaller units known as cohorts, each consisting of 500 or (after the Neronian period) 1000 men. Some of these were infantry troops, like the legions, but auxiliary cohorts also provided the army with cavalry, archers and a navy. Once an auxiliary soldier had completed 25 years’ service, he was granted Roman citizenship and the right to marry and bear citizen children. These rights were guaranteed by their certificate of discharge, which usually took the form of a pair of bronze tablets bearing a decree from the emperor stating that they had completed their term of service and granting them the rights which came with it, along with the names of witnesses. An example is at LACTOR 18 no. 80. This system meant that the auxiliary units of the Roman army played a major role in drawing provincial populations into the cultural world of Rome. Provincials who signed up to join auxiliary cohorts would swear an oath to the emperor, and spend the next 25 years functioning within an institutional setting which was shaped by the needs of the Roman state. They spoke and wrote Latin, fought on behalf of the state, participated in Roman religious festivals and, particularly from the Flavian period onwards, were usually stationed in parts of the empire other than the one where they had grown up. See LACTOR 18 no. 79 and 131 for military report produced by an auxiliary unit stationed at on Hadrian’s wall, both originally written in Latin on wooden tablets and typical of the organised, literate milieu of the army. By the end of this process, auxiliary soldiers must have become very cosmopolitan in outlook, with the award of Roman citizenship constituting the final confirmation of their membership of an empire-wide community. Military life could potentially include actual combat, especially during times of civil wars or provincial uprisings. But in practice legionary soldiers in particular spent relatively little time on active service. Instead, they were kept busy with tasks such as building and maintaining their own camps, routine patrolling, providing labour for large-

- 34 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

scale works such as road-building (e.g. LACTOR 18 no. 74) and helping to keep order in the provinces where they were stationed. During the course of all this they usually came into contact with local provincial populations on quite an extensive scale, providing another context in which Roman and local cultures came face to face with and influenced one another. Soldiers were not allowed to marry, but it was clearly common practice to forge unofficial marriages and raise children with local women – these are often mentioned in military discharge certificates, e.g. LACTOR 18 no. 80. These women and children, along with traders keen to take advantage of the spending power which soldiers derived from their regular pay, frequently lived in civilian settlements immediately outside permanent army camps. These are usually known as vici (roughly ‘village’) outside auxiliary fortress and canabae (‘huts’) outside legionary fortresses.

Frontier and defence policies Useful reading on this topic: Goodman 1997: 104-107. Warfare was very much at the centre of the Roman mentality. They knew that it was through warfare that they had acquired such a vast empire, and were keen to perpetuate their success by instilling values of bravery and military virtue into each subsequent generation. Arguably this was one of the functions of gladiatorial games; it certainly lay behind the advanced system of triumphs and decorations with which military achievements were rewarded, and behind the religious cult paid to war-deities such as Mars, Minerva, Bellona and Victoria. For an example of the award of military decorations, see LACTOR 18 no. 34 – an honorific inscription to an equestrian who was awarded the untipped lance, banner and mural crown in Trajan’s Dacian wars. For an example of a triumph, see LACTOR 15 no. C.11, pp. 98-99 (= Dio 60.23.1-6) – Claudius’ triumphal procession and festival to celebrate the conquest of Britain. Actual frontier policy was fairly ad hoc, though, and usually shaped by the individual needs of particular emperors. One important factor shaping military policy may simply have been the need to keep the soldiers busy once a permanent army had been established (see above p. 31, The role of the army). Augustus left a document to Tiberius on his death which laid out the current state of the military units, and supposedly advised Tiberius not to attempt to expand the empire any further (Tacitus Annals 1.11 – not in any of the recommended module reading, but available here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/tacitus/TacitusAnnals01.html). This may or may not have been real advice, since the document was produced and read out by Tiberius himself, so he could have altered the contents. But in practice military activity was indeed limited to defence and the putting down of unrest from AD 14 until the campaigns of Claudius in Britain in AD 43 (see LACTOR 15 no. C.11). Claudius’ campaign is an excellent example of the influence of individuals on imperial policy. Britain was an obvious choice for expansion – there had been increasing contact between this region and Rome since Caesar’s exploratory campaigns there in the 50s BC (see Goodman 1997: 208-211) and the island was considered likely to yield revenues in taxes and minerals. A pretext for action was also provided by the expulsion of a local chieftain called Bericus from the island, who came to Claudius for help in

- 35 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

seeking redress (LACTOR 15 no. C.11, p. 96). However, the launching of the campaign only 2 years after Claudius’ succession makes it fairly obvious that the real reason for the conquest was his need to establish a glorious military reputation in order to consolidate his rather weak political position. He had been side-lined by the imperial family for most of his life and then brought to power by the Praetorian Guard, against the will of the senate (see LACTOR 15 no. C1 and Suetonius, Life of Claudius 1-10), so his legitimacy as emperor was more readily open to question than that of his predecessors. The conquest of Britain allowed him to boast of completing something which Julius Caesar had only managed to begin, and to return to Rome in glorious triumph, greatly stabilising his political position. Nero satisfied himself with minor campaigns in Armenia, and the Flavian emperors were kept busy suppressing rebellion in Judaea and expanding Roman holdings in Britain. The next major aggressive foreign campaigns were those of Trajan in Dacia (modern Rumania, 101-2 and 105-6; see Goodman 1997: 226-9) and Parthia (modern Iran,114-117; see Goodman 1997: 244-6). Again, these should probably be seen as having been undertaken chiefly for the sake of prestige and popularity, rather than being guided by any overall intention of establishing new spheres of economic influence or strategically defensible frontiers for the empire.

- 36 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

4.2 PROVINCIAL RESPONSES TO ROMAN RULE

The issue of 'Romanisation' Useful reading on this issue – Goodman 1997: 149-56; Woolf 1998; Huskinson 2000 – chapter 1 by Huskinson; Scott and Webster 2003; Hingley 2005. The character of the cultural interaction between Rome and the provinces has been much debated. It is certainly true that in all the regions which were incorporated into the Roman empire, we can detect signs of a shared, empire-wide culture: components include common architectural forms (e.g. temples), art-forms (e.g. mosaics), language (Latin / Greek), pottery (e.g. terra sigillata – see Economics, below p. 44) or religion (e.g. worshipping the emperor). Yet at the same time, the culture of each province, and indeed of different regions within each province, was also distinctly localised. For example, the people of Roman Egypt continued to mummify their dead under Roman rule, just as they had done before their incorporation into the empire, though now using painted portraits instead of masks to represent the dead (see Goodman 1997: 153 for an example). Similarly, the people of Britain and Gaul continued to worship gods with distinctly Celtic names, and in temples of a design not encountered elsewhere in the empire (see p. 34, Regional identities – The western provinces, for further details). Some of the questions raised by this situation include: Did the Roman state actively encourage its subjects to adopt an identifiably ‘Roman’ culture? Why / why not? Did provincials have their own reasons for wanting to adopt what they perceived as Roman culture? If so, what were they? Does the persistence of local traditions represent resistance to Roman rule and / or Roman culture? The traditional view of the issue, formulated in the early 20th century and distinctly shaped by British ideas about their own imperialism, is that Rome actively encouraged cultural homogenisation, and did so partly in order to make provincial populations easier to control, but also in response to a ‘beneficial ideology’ – i.e. a belief that it was their duty to improve the lot of ‘backwards’ provincial peoples by introducing them to the benefits of Roman culture. The traditional perspective assumes that cultural change occurred above all as a result of conscious, deliberate efforts on the part of the Roman state and its official agents. The term usually used by proponents of this theory to describe the process of cultural change is ‘Romanisation’. Note that the etymology of this term implies that the main type of change at stake is a process whereby cultures which had previously not been ‘Roman’ became more closely aligned to Roman culture (see below for whether this was really all that was going on within the Roman empire). A key text cited in support of the ‘Romanisation’ view is Tacitus 21 (LACTOR 18 no. 102), describing the activities of Tacitus’ father-in-law, , governor of Britain in the Flavian period. Tacitus appears to be outlining a process whereby Agricola went about actively encouraging the brutish Britons to adopt the trappings of Roman culture – temples, togas, Latin, etc. The Agricola as a whole seeks to show what an excellent and honourable man Agricola was, so the tone of the passage is above all one of praise for his approach to governance. T’s Roman readers

- 37 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

were supposed to recognise and admire Agricola’s behaviour as typical of a ‘good’ governor (whether he actually behaved like this or it is simply part of Tacitus’ flattering portrayal of him is another question). A note of cynicism is present in the last line – T recognises that for all the apparent benefits of the changes described, they also functioned as a tool for ensuring British submission to Roman control. In other words, educated Romans such as Tacitus were capable of seeing their behaviour towards provincial populations from more than one angle – essentially beneficial, but at the price of local autonomy. Even the Tacitus passage, though, is open to more than one interpretation. It suggests that the British people are not merely passively acquiescent in the process of cultural change, but are actively eager to participate – see especially the comment that they ‘were spurred on by rivalry for marks of his esteem’. This opens up a new way of understanding the process of cultural change – that it may not all have been a one-way process emanating from Rome, but may also have involved local elites (in particular) actively choosing to adopt Roman culture for their own reasons. Indeed, stepping beyond the Tacitus passage there is remarkably little evidence for any other agents of the Roman state besides Agricola actively setting out to ‘Romanise’ provincial populations. It would be hard, in fact, to understand why they might consider it worthwhile to do so, given the lack of manpower and resources available to them – especially in places where the local population had in any case already peacefully submitted to Roman rule (see 4.1 MECHANISMS OF GOVERNMENT, p. 20 ff. on this). By contrast, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that local provincial elites did choose to put their own time and money into adopting customs and practices which they perceived as ‘Roman’. Participation in the imperial cult is an obvious example of this, and in the majority of cases the initiative for this appears to have come from provincial peoples, not the emperors – see The imperial cult, below, p. 48 for more. Building activity is another. Building inscriptions from across the empire attest that members of local wealthy elites across the empire chose to pay for the construction of buildings similar to those found in Rome and Italy. Indeed, even the practice of commemorating their activity by setting up an inscription may be seen as a local adoption of a Roman practice, since in the western empire in particular building inscriptions were not used before these areas had been conquered by Rome. For reading and examples, see: Goodman 1997: 150-152 – general discussion of the issue, including an inscription commemorating extensive gifts and construction work paid for by Lucius Iulius Agrippa at Apamea in Syria. Goodman 1997: 282-3 – honorific inscription recording the acts of Gaius Flavius Pudens in Sabratha, North Africa, which include the construction of an aqueduct, fountains and statues, as well as the funding of gladiatorial games. LACTOR 8 no. 25 – inscription commemorating the paving of the forum and construction of arches, temples and altars at Thugga, North Africa, by Lucius Postumius Chius and his sons. Blagg and Millett 1990: chapter 12 by Mackie – discussion of inscriptions commemorating benefactions of public buildings in Spain.

- 38 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

These examples raise the question of what was in it for the benefactors? Going back to the Tacitus passage, the implicit explanation here would simply be that the Britons recognised Roman culture as ‘better’ than their own, and were thus eager to adopt it. This may well have been part of the issue, but it is still a view shaped by notions of cultural superiority (again associated with the experience of British imperialism), and does not leave much room for the possibility that local people were perfectly happy with their own culture. Other explanations have been sought in the status which could be acquired by being seen to cooperate with a dominant ruling power. Those people whose names appear in building inscriptions, for example, have usually also managed to acquire Roman citizenship (hence their very Roman-looking names), and tend to hold prominent positions within their local community such as priesthoods and magistracies. This has usually been interpreted as a sign that they were able to flourish personally and politically under Roman rule as a result of the loyalty which they displayed towards the Roman state, and the rewards which Roman officials (e.g. provincial governors) conferred on them in return – i.e. their motivation for adopting markers of Roman culture was a pragmatic one. Provincials may have had their own part to play in cultural change, then – but we are still looking primarily at the adoption of ‘Roman’ culture by non-Roman peoples, even if we no longer need to assume that the process was driven entirely by Rome. More recently, increasing numbers of scholars have pointed out that this picture is still overly simplistic. The main problems are as follows: 1. ‘Roman’ culture was not in itself a static and unchanging entity. It had been changing and developing for centuries, and by our period had become extremely cosmopolitan. The obvious example of this is the impact of Greek culture, which had had a profound influence on the literature, art, architecture, philosophy and religion of Rome. But other provinces made contributions to the culture of the empire’s capital as well. For example, the Celtic horse-goddess, Epona (see http://www.epona.net/ for more information), was originally worshipped in NE Gaul. Once this region was conquered by Rome, however, her worship spread to other provinces like Dacia, Macedonia and Spain, while a calendar from Guidizzolo, N Italy, shows that she had an official festival on 18th December in the imperial period. See also the final paragraph of LACTOR 18 no. 73 (Arrian), which describes the way in which military practices in particular have been absorbed by the Romans and even come to be called ‘Roman’, despite the fact that they actually originated in other cultures. 2. We do not really know how provincials perceived the new customs and practices which they adopted under Roman rule. How did people in Macedonia see Epona, for example? Did they think of her as Roman? Or Celtic? Or simply part of a new empire-wide culture which had been forged from elements of both (plus many others)? And did they see themselves as identifying with either of those cultures when they worshipped her – or were they simply concerned with her ability to protect their horses? In other words, we should be wary of assuming that e.g. speaking Latin automatically meant that the person doing so was seeking to establish or project a ‘Roman’ cultural identity – any more than a person drinking a can of Coke today is necessarily seeking to identify themselves with American culture.

- 39 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

Scholarly thinking today, therefore, aims to adopt a much more nuanced and flexible understanding of the many forms of cultural change observable within the Roman empire than the old imperialising paradigm of ‘Romanisation’. Indeed, that term is now largely eschewed, and other terms for describing cultural change such as ‘globalisation’ or ‘cultural fusion’ are being formulated. Up-to-date thinking on the issue is available in Woolf 1998, Huskinson 2000, Scott and Webster 2003 and Hingley 2005.

Provincial rebellions General reading on this issue – Goodman 1997: 211-2; Huskinson 2000 – chapter 10 by James. The most obviously negative form of response to Roman rule was violent rebellion. But we should be wary of assuming that the main cause of rebellion was always necessarily cultural resistance to the Romans. Often the details make it clear that financial issues and personal grudges or ambitions were the real catalyst, so that it is arguable that the rebellions really constitute resistance to bad government, rather than specifically to Roman government.

Britain Boudicca’s rebellion in Britain in AD 60-1 was sparked off by financial difficulties and the bad treatment of Boudicca herself. After her husband, Prasutagus, died she expected to succeed him as queen of the , but instead Roman administrators seized the kingdom, recalled loans made to the leading tribesmen, flogged Boudicca and raped her daughters. This event appears to have brought existing resentment about taxation, unfair treatment by creditors and the construction of a large and expensive temple to Claudius at () to a head, so that not only the Iceni but also the neighbouring tribe of the Trinobantes rebelled. They sacked the cities of Camulodunum (Colchester), Verulamium (St. Alban’s) and (London) and imposed heavy losses on the Romans before being brought under control by the provincial governor, . The events of the rebellion are reported in detail by Cassius Dio (LACTOR 18 no. 130) as well as in Tacitus, Annals 14.29-39 (not in any of the recommended module reading, but available here: http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/tacitus.html). The difficulty with these sources is that they give only the Roman perspective – we cannot know for sure what the motivations or aims of the rebels were, since we cannot hear their own account of what they were doing. We also do not know how much of a role Boudicca herself really played. She is portrayed here very much as a stereotype of a wild, barbarian woman, and in particular as a sort of ‘noble savage’ who can be contrasted with the decadence of the Roman emperor at the time, Nero. Thus her character and role may both have been largely invented by the Roman historians in order to emphasise the shame involved in Nero’s inability to keep his subjects under control. We should be particularly suspicious of the speeches which Tacitus and Dio both put into the mouth of Boudicca. Even if she made any speech of encouragement to her supporters, it is highly unlikely

- 40 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

that anyone wrote it down, or would have passed it on to Roman writers if they had. So these speeches in fact represent Dio and Tacitus’ ideas about what such a person might have said in such circumstances – i.e. they are a piece of creative literary craftsmanship, not accurate accounts of Boudicca’s views.

Judaea Judaea was an area that switched back and forth between direct Roman rule and control via a client king and saw a number of episodes of unrest before the Jewish Rebellion of AD 66-73. From 37-4 BC it was ruled by Herod I (Herod the Great), who owed his position to Roman support and showed considerable loyalty to the Romans. He also embellished his kingdom with a variety of building projects, including rebuilding the Great Temple in Jerusalem. However, Herod was not a native of Judaea and seems to have been unpopular with many Jews. He did not come from a priestly family and therefore could not act as High Priest, choosing instead to nominate men from insignificant families to this position, which would have made him unpopular with some of the religious elite. After his death in 4 BC, governance of Judaea was divided by Augustus between his sons, and later, in AD 6, put into the direct rule of a praefectus of equestrian rank (Pontius Pilate held this rank between AD 26-c. 36). There was another brief period of rule by a client king, Herod’s descendent Agrippa I, in AD 41-44 before the province was returned to rule by a (now with the title procurator). There seem to have been a number of minor disturbances in the first part of the first century AD. In particular, the unrest which greeted Caligula’s desire to have his statue set up inside the Temple at Jerusalem (LACTOR 18, No. 169) shows the need for a sensitive accommodation of Jewish religious beliefs within Roman expectations of signs of provincial loyalty. However, the great revolt of AD 66-73 was on a much larger scale. Much of our evidence for the war comes from the Jewish writer Josephus (see Introduction to the Sources, p. 12) who was captured by the Romans in AD 67 and subsequently acted as a mediator for the Roman general (and later emperor) Titus. His account therefore needs to be handled with caution but does provide a great deal of detail. The revolt began in the Temple with the cessation of the sacrifices on behalf of the emperor (a traditional sign of Judaea’s loyalty to the emperor) and the burning of the debt records in Jerusalem. The causes behind the revolt are complex. Josephus clearly lays the blame with lower class Jews, especially the so-called ‘sicarii’ (knife-carriers) [thus excusing his own class] and incompetent and extortionate Roman governors. In Jewish War 2.277-9 (LACTOR 18, No. 137) he especially blames the procurator Gessius Florus for his overzealous collection of taxes. Florus had apparently seized unpaid tribute directly from the Temple treasury, an act of sacrilege. Josephus’ suggestion that the poor were the primary agents may have some truth in it, though some members of the ruling class (indeed, Josephus himself at first) were clearly involved, probably because of a lack of support and respect from the Roman procurator who seems to have held them responsible for disturbances among the lower classes. Indeed, Josephus (Jewish War 2.301-8) tells us that Florus even crucified a number of equites among the Jerusalem elite, for failing to hand over trouble-makers among the population. There also seem to have been elements of class tension between

- 41 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

different sectors of Jewish society, and between different religious groups, with factional in-fighting taking place (LACTOR 18, No. 138). The independent Jewish state lasted for four years and was centred on the Great Temple in Jerusalem, minting its own coinage. The city was finally recaptured by the Romans in AD 70, when the Temple was destroyed by fire (see Josephus, Jewish War 6.249-53 = LACTOR 18, No. 139, noting how his account distances his patron Titus from responsibility for the firing of the Temple). This was celebrated as the end of the war, commemorated by the triumph held in Rome in AD 71 during which the treasures of the Temple were paraded though the streets of Rome. The scene was vividly repeated on the Arch of Titus, set up by his brother Domitian after Titus’s death in AD81. The interior passageway of the arch shows scenes of the triumph, including Jewish treasures such as the menorah being carried through the streets of Rome (close ups can be seen at http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/titus/titus.html). The Temple was never rebuilt, and a was stationed in Jerusalem. While Jerusalem was recaptured in 70, the last pocket of Jewish resistance was not defeated until AD 73 (or 74) when the fortress of Masada finally fell to the Romans with an episode of mass suicide, the defenders preferring death at their own hands to capture (and later death or enslavement) by Rome. The history of the Jewish revolt shows the implacability of the Romans when a challenge was made to their authority. After a later rebellion in AD 132-135 the province of Judaea was renamed Syria Palestine, and Jews forbidden to live in the area of Jerusalem, which became a Roman colony. In contrast to the usual Roman tolerance of native religious customs (and their acceptance of Judaism in other communities around the empire) this suggests that in some cases religion and religious sites could serve as focal points for resistance or insurrection. Yet in common with Britain, we also see that a common spur to revolt was excessive or extortionate taxation and a lack of respect for the provincial elites, who expected their traditional loyalty to Rome to be recognised and respected by governors.

Displays of loyalty At the most basic level provincial loyalty to Rome can be seen in the absence of active resistance or revolt. However, there were also a range of areas in which more active loyalty could be expressed by particular communities or groups. While these often appear on a civic or provincial level, they were instigated and carried out by local magistrates, i.e. the elite. They should be considered alongside other elite expressions of identification with Roman power, such as the gradual extension of Roman citizenship to provincial elites, and their adoption of Roman customs and growing involvement in politics at Rome as well as in their home communities.

The Eastern Provinces One of the key examples of loyalty to Rome and the emperor was the Imperial cult, discussed further below (p. 48). In the East this developed out of Hellenistic ruler cult, in which cities made sense of their relationship with distant kings through religious honours. Many of the other expressions of provincial loyalty which we find in the eastern

- 42 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

provinces also develop from the practices of the Hellenistic period, with Roman emperors taking the place of Hellenistic monarchs. In general, the imperial family came to be omni-present in provincial life, in the physical form of statues or inscriptions featuring their names and titles; in the celebration of their birthdays and anniversaries in local calendars and in the celebration of events at Rome in monuments set up in the provinces. Here I will give just a few examples of each type:

Honorific Statues etc. One of the commonest forms of expressing loyalty to the emperor was through the erection of a statue in public, funded by a city or a rich individual. These statue dedications can be seen as one half of a relationship with the emperor, which was balanced on the other side by imperial benefactions to a particular city or community (see further below p. 47). Many inscriptions come from statue bases, though the statues themselves have usually been lost. A related trend was the commissioning of buildings or institution of festivals named in honour of the emperor. Pliny, Letters 10.75 deals with a case where a rich citizen left a will requesting that his estate be used either to erect public buildings dedicated in honour of the emperor or to fund a festival to be called after Trajan. In either case the benefactions would benefit the man’s chosen cities (Heraclea and Tium) through the provision of entertainment or amenities, at the same time as it celebrated his loyalty to the emperor and memorialised his own wealth and generosity.

Celebration of Imperial Anniversaries, etc: Pliny, Letters 10.52-3 (celebrating date of Trajan’s accession) LACTOR 8, No. 5: dedication of statue and temple to ‘Tiberius the God’ on 16th anniversary (presumably of his accession) – see also Imperial Cult, below p. 48. Pliny, Letters 10.43-4 refers to an annual embassy sent by Byzantium to pay their respects to Trajan, which Pliny reduces to a written letter in order to save them the cost of the embassy – this reveals the potential cost of expressions of loyalty, and suggests some ambivalence from the authorities. There are also examples of local coinage minted to celebrate visits of an emperor.

Celebration of Imperial achievements One of the most interesting examples of the ways that provinces and communities saw their place in the empire is in the celebration of military achievements elsewhere around the empire. This suggests that these communities were keen to align themselves with the ruling power, with little sympathy for the conquered province. LACTOR 18, No. 38: A triumphal arch set up at Cyzicus in Asia Minor celebrating Claudius’ conquering of Britain See also the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias in Caria, discussed below p. 50.

The Western Provinces The western provinces did not have the same background as the eastern ones of having been ruled before their incorporation into the Roman empire by Hellenistic kings.

- 43 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

This means that western communities did not have an established tradition of ruler- worship, or experience of deferring to the authority of a remote individual. Nevertheless, the western elites appear to have been quick in recognising the benefits of establishing a good relationship with Rome, and in particular the emperor as representative of Rome. Some examples of explicit displays of loyalty from the western provinces are as follows:

Oaths of loyalty LACTOR 8 no. 26 = LACTOR 18 no. 182 – bronze tablet recording an oath of loyalty sworn to the new emperor (Gaius Caesar Germanicus, i.e. Caligula) in AD 37 by the people of Aritium, a community in Lusitania (modern Portugal). Such oaths had been introduced initially by Augustus, who had strongly encouraged the entire populations of both Italy and the western provinces to swear an oath of loyalty to him while preparing to face Antony at the battle of Actium. They were then renewed when a new emperor took power, apparently on a community-by-community basis – in other words, the inscription records an oath taken communally by the entire people of Aritium, not by each individual within that community. The text as printed in LACTOR 18 includes a preamble stating that the oath- taking at Aritium occurred under the legatus propraetore (i.e. provincial governor of Lusitania), suggesting that he had initiated the process. But the names of those described as ‘officers in charge’ at the bottom of the inscription (Vegethus son of Tallicus and […]ibius son of […]arionus) suggest local people who did not possess Roman citizenship. This indicates that some provincials at least were willing to become actively involved in leading this display of loyalty.

Lending military support to Rome LACTOR 8, no. 32 part b – this inscribed tablet honours a citizen of Volubilis in Mauretania, Marcus Valerius Severus, who had commanded auxiliary troops on behalf of Rome during a local rebellion led by a figure named Aedemon. Such loyalty was typically recognised and rewarded by Rome – see under The emperor and the provinces, p. 20 for the embassy to Claudius which Severus conducted later on, and which resulted in the benefits recorded in the same text. Part a in the same section of the LACTOR is a separate tablet set up to thank Claudius for the benefits and concessions granted as a result of Severus’ embassy.

Dedicating benefactions in the name of the emperor LACTOR 18 no. 99, a letter from Vespasian to the community of Sabora in Spain. This community have clearly asked Vespasian for the right to build and dedicate a town centre (i.e. a forum) in his name. This forum will benefit the community in itself by providing facilities for local government and communal activities such as markets and religious ceremonies, but the dedication to Vespasian will ensure that it also attracts imperial favour. See under Provincial taxation, above p. 21, for Vesp’s comments in the same letter about how the money for the forum will be raised from local taxation. LACTOR 8 no. 25 – inscription commemorating the paving of the forum and construction of arches, temples and altars at Thugga, North Africa, by Lucius Postumius

- 44 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

Chius and his sons. This work can be seen as a display of loyalty in its own right, since it constitutes an active attempt by a wealthy local citizen to embellish the city of Thugga with buildings, roads and temples that were in keeping with Roman architectural models and practices (see notes on The issue of 'Romanisation', above p. 34). But the expression of loyalty to Rome which this entails is underlined by dedicating the entire project to the reigning emperor, Tiberius.

- 45 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

4.3 LIFE IN THE PROVINCES

Regional identities

Huskinson ed. 2000, ch. 1 provides useful discussion on this. See also Alcock 1997, Scott and Webster 2003, Blagg and Millett 1990 for specific examples. While the advent of Roman rule brought a number of significant changes to provincial life (as explored above p. 34 in The issue of ‘Romanisation’), there is also evidence of the importance of preserving, or even creating new regional identities. Investigation of senses of identity can be complex. Any one elite individual could have a range of identities based for example on their ethnic background, their possession of Roman citizenship, and their public life – perhaps as a serving magistrate in their own city as well as having a senatorial or equestrian career at Rome. Cities too could proudly assert their involvement in the imperial cult while at the same time asserting the antiquity of their local religious practices.

The Eastern Provinces: In the Eastern provinces exploration of Roman and local identities also needs to be looked at alongside the diffusion of Greek culture which had occurred here since the Hellenistic period. This meant that Greek was the common language of the East, replacing Latin here as the language of government, though some inscriptions in honour of Roman emperors or governors could be set up in both Greek and Latin. From the Republican period elite Romans were thoroughly educated in Greek language and literature and Greek culture was highly regarded. Some even undertook periods of education in cultural centres such as . Roman attitudes towards the Greek- speaking provinces, and particularly mainland Greece, were thus influenced by their respect for Greek traditions. This was particularly true of the philhellenic emperors Nero and Hadrian and was manifested in acts such as Nero’s ‘Freeing of Greece’, whereby the province of Achaea was remitted from taxation, though Vespasian soon renounced the measure due to financial constraints (LACTOR 8, No. 46; see also LACTOR 18, section 5.2). At the same time, the later first century and second centuries AD witnessed the cultural phenomenon known as the ‘Second Sophistic’. This manifested itself primarily in the explosion of performance oratory and literature in perfect Attic Greek (a form no longer commonly spoken in the period of the roman empire) on themes taken from the periods of Greece’s heyday in the fifth and fourth centuries BC, such as the Persian wars, or campaigns of Alexander. Some scholars have seen this tendency as a response to empire – a desire to escape the reality of Greece’s subjugation in the present by dwelling on her past greatness. Yet cities could also use their achievements in the past as a means to achieve power and prestige in the present, as we see in the arguments used by cities in Asia seeking the prestige of erecting the provincial Temple of the Imperial Cult (Tacitus Annals 4.55-56, cited and discussed in The Imperial Cult below p. 48). When these claims were used as factors in inter-city rivalries, however, there was also the potential

- 46 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

for disturbances, something that both Dio of Prusa and caution against (LACTOR 18, nos. 155, 157-8) While for some writers, elements of Roman culture such as the gladiatorial games celebrated as part of the imperial cult were at odds with traditional Greek culture (LACTOR 18, no. 104, the philosopher Apollonius of Tyana’s rejection of gladiatorial games at Athens), they seem to have been in the minority. In general, Roman imports such as gladiatorial games or the culture of the public baths were added onto, rather than replacing, traditional Greek culture. Local and international festivals (such as the Olympic Games) continued to thrive, and Roman bathing culture was accommodated alongside the traditional activities of the Greek gymnasium. It also seems clear that most cities and individuals did not see a tension between respect for their own traditions and membership in the Roman empire. This can be seen especially in civic religious life. Inscriptions commonly dedicate buildings to the local deity and the imperial family, and emperors were incorporated into existing festival culture either by the renaming of festivals to honour the imperial family, or through their presence in statue form in processions and civic imagery. Some religious practices from the provinces could also be exported around the empire. Statues of the goddess Artemis of Ephesus have been found around the Roman world, suggesting that the cult was replicated away from her home city (see Elsner in Alcock 1997). Religions such as the worship of Isis, Mithraism and Christianity are also examples of cults which spread from their original contexts in the East throughout the entirety of the Roman world (for some examples see LACTOR 18, section 5.3).

The western provinces – religious practices Useful reading: Woolf 1998 chapter 8, Blagg and Millett 1990 chapter 15 by King, and Scott and Webster chapter 8 by Woolf. Huskinson ed. 2000 ch. 9 by Rives is also useful for a general framework, but discusses religion across the empire generally rather than just in the west. In the western provinces, one area often discussed in the context of local identities is religious activity. The names of the gods worshipped in Gaul and Britain, the temples built for them and the religious images used to represent them were often recognisably different from those found in Rome. This appears to reflect the persistence of local names, iconography and temple architecture, but we should still be wary of talking in terms of simple ‘continuity’ from the pre-Roman period in these areas. For example, the practice of representing gods in visual form at all (e.g. in clay statuettes or relief sculpture) was almost unknown in Gaul and Britain before these regions became part of the Roman empire. So representing these gods in a localised form constitutes a fusion of the Roman practice of creating religious images and local ideas about what the gods should look like. Meanwhile, in spite of these differences, much of the religious practice which is attested in Britain and Gaul appears to have been very similar to that known at Rome. Activities include building temples, conducting religious processions and animal sacrifices, making and fulfilling vows to the gods, making small offerings (e.g. statuettes, jewellery, coins) and setting up altars and other permanent monuments to commemorate

- 47 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

religious devotion. Examples include LACTOR 8 no. 45, a Jupiter column set up by civilians at Mainz (Moguntiacum), a military fortress on the Rhine frontier in Germany, and LACTOR 18 no. 176, a temple to Neptune and Minerva set up Cogidubnus, a British client king (see further under The imperial cult – Local initiative in the west, p. 52 for the way in which both examples link in with emperor worship). In addition to gods known by indigenous names, gods with Roman names and gods with joint, ‘hybrid’ names are widely attested in Britain and Gaul. This suggests that people in these provinces were drawing from a wide cultural pool when expressing their religious beliefs. A good example is the temple complex at Bath (Aquae Sulis) in Britain, dedicated to the worship of a ‘hybrid’ goddess known as Sul (or Sulis) Minerva. This would appear to represent a fusion of a local goddess already connected with the hot spring which emerges naturally at Bath, and the Roman goddess Minerva who was associated with healing. We do not know whose initiative lay behind the decision to ‘merge’ the two goddesses, but in the absence of any direct evidence for the involvement of the Roman state, we must assume that the complex was developed largely at local initiative. Certainly, there is plenty of evidence for indigenous people using the temple complex and leaving behind either lead ‘curse tablets’ (prayers for the aid of the goddess thrown into the spring) or stone altars. There is a good range of information about this site available at http://www.romanbaths.co.uk/ and http://www.roman- britain.org/places/aquae_sulis.htm In general, neither Romans nor provincials in the west appear to have felt any significant sense of tension between their religious systems or practices. Although Gallo- Roman and Romano-British religion was recognisably different from that encountered in Rome, the differences do not appear to have been made into a focus of resistance or opposition to Rome. It was in any case normal in the ancient world for religious practices to appear highly localised in character – throughout the Mediterranean, every civic community had its own favoured local deities, which were often either entirely unique to the area or localised variants on deities found elsewhere (see e.g. comments above p. 42 under ‘The Eastern Provinces’ on the localised version of Artemis worshipped at Ephesus). This meant that there was a great deal of flexibility of practice around religion in the Roman world, and the attitude of the Roman state appears to have been to assume that local peoples would continue with their established practices, while at the same time introducing them to Roman gods which were often enthusiastically adopted by provincials. The major exception to all this in the west is the suppression of the in Gaul and Britain which was initiated by Claudius (Suetonius, Claudius 25.5). This, however, appears to have been done primarily because they were fomenting political resistance to Rome, rather than for straightforwardly religious reasons.

Economics Useful reading on this topic – Goodman 1997: 142-148; Garnsey and Saller 1987: chapters 3-5; Blagg and Millett, eds. 1990: chapter by Drinkwater; Huskinson, ed. 2000: chapter 7 by Perkins.

- 48 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

The ancient economy rested above all on agricultural production. The majority of ordinary individuals supported themselves by farming at little more than subsistence level, either on small family-owned plots or as dependent tenants. But even these farmers were capable of generating a small surplus, which when collected together at local markets could add up to a sufficient level of production to support long-distance trading. The Roman elite considered agriculture to be the only sound and honourable basis for the wealth necessary to support their educated and sophisticated lifestyle, and owned large slave-run estates for the purpose (see Garnsey and Saller 1987: 66-71 and Perkins in Huskinson 2000: 186-193). These could generate substantial quantities of goods such as grain, wine and olive oil, which were again traded for profit. Large-scale investment industry of the type we are familiar with today did not exist, but small-scale craftsmen flourished in cities, small towns and villages, sometimes on a substantial scale. Like most farmers, they probably worked above all simply to support themselves by selling to local consumers, but in some places they found themselves able to supply longer-distance markets, and some clearly became wealthy enough to afford fine funerary monuments – see e.g. LACTOR 18 no. 241 for an inscription commemorating a glass-blower and Perkins in Huskinson 2000: 206-7 for illustrations of tomb reliefs illustrating economic activity. Mechanisms for the trading of both agricultural and manufactured goods included local markets, which took place in cities and small towns on a rotational basis. These were linked by the road network and by shipping routes along rivers and around the Mediterranean. See LACTOR 18 no. 242 for Trajan’s improvements to the roads in Italy, and no. 244 for an inscription honouring a shipper who had been active on the Rhône in Gaul (France). Since both the construction of an empire-wide road network (see e.g. LACTOR 8 no. 64) and the control of piracy in the Mediterranean were policies pursued actively and consciously by the Roman state, there is a fairly strong argument here for saying that one of the consequences of integration into the Roman empire for provincial populations was access to a better trading infrastructure. Other factors such as standardised coinage and the spread of Latin and Greek should also have made trading easier. A significant proportion of large-scale, long-distance trade, particularly in staple foods, was driven by the needs of the state. The city of Rome had outgrown the ability of its immediate hinterland to support the food needs of its population in the Republican era. The shortfall was made up by asking provinces such as Sicily, Africa and Egypt to pay their taxes to Rome in the form of grain; part of this was then made available to Roman citizens in the form of a grain dole (the annona; see Perkins in Huskinson 2000: 197- 99). Emperors knew that the support of the ordinary people in Rome was essential to their position in power, and that they would quickly lose that support when famine threatened. Therefore, in addition to asking for some taxes to be paid in kind, they also put a great deal of effort into stimulating the free-market grain trade – see e.g. Suetonius, Claudius 18-20, and also below on Ostia. Similarly, they were also careful to ensure good supply lines to areas where legions were permanently stationed, especially the Rhine frontier in Germany. These state-led activities appear to have stimulated economic growth and the development of trade routes across the empire in general.

- 49 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

Literary sources tend to focus on state-driven trade and imports of exotic high- value goods prized by the elite – see e.g. LACTOR 18 no. 245 (Pliny the Elder on imports from Arabia, and China). But long-distance trade resulting from private enterprise can also be ‘seen’ archaeologically by looking at the find-spots of ceramics, since these survive well in the archaeological record and in some cases can be traced to particular places of production (see Perkins in Huskinson 2000: 198-9 and 201-204). Amphorae (large jars used mainly for wine and olive oil) and terra sigillata (aka both ‘Samian ware’ and ‘Arretine ware’, a shiny red pottery used as good tableware) are good examples. The scale and organisation of the terra sigillata industry, which was based mainly in Gaul in our period, is attested by lists scratched onto plates which appear to record how many pots and of which types had been placed into communal kilns by individual potters – see LACTOR 18 no. 243 for an example. The find-spots of this pottery show that its manufacturers were reaching consumers across a large portion of the western Roman empire, and sometimes parts of the eastern empire too (see Woolf 1998: 187-205). Some port towns clearly became busy and flourishing centres thanks to trading activity. One of the best-documented examples is Ostia, which lay at the mouth of the Tiber, and thus handled most of the sea-borne trade destined for Rome, 15 miles inland. Its facilities were improved by first Claudius (see LACTOR 15 no. C.7 = Cassius Dio 60 11.1-5) and then Trajan (see LACTOR 18 no. 246, a commemorative inscription), who built harbour-basins about a mile NW of Ostia, mainly with an eye to improving the reliability of the grain trade which fed the ordinary people of Rome. But grain was far from being the only product traded through Ostia. LACTOR 18 no. 247 gives a good insight into the range of activities which went on there. It honours a local figure, Gnaeus Sentius Felix, who has become a member of the civic council, but was also involved with a long list of different merchants, traders, dealers and producers active in the city. Note that most of these people are grouped into associations or corporations, of which Gnaeus Sentius Felix has served as a patron. Such groups helped to link together large numbers of small traders or artisans, enabling them to cooperate with one another on economic pursuits, and helping them to build effective relationships with the wealthy elite. But they also had a strong social and religious aspect – for these reasons they are not quite the equivalents of medieval guilds, which were more directly focussed on economic issues.

The Image of the Emperor For the provincials, the centre of the empire was not Rome so much as the emperor himself. It was to him that embassies were sent requesting various concessions (sometimes filtered via the governor, as we see in Pliny’s letters), and for his safety that prayers were directed. The figure of the emperor embodied the power of the Roman empire, and loyalty to him also translated into loyalty to Rome. For this reason it was vital that people in the provinces should be able to envisage the emperor, and have access to him (whether through letters and embassies, or in the form of divine honours), to make his presence felt even when he was physically absent.

- 50 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

Travel One of the most obvious ways that the emperor could communicate with his subjects was via travel in the provinces. However, most emperors (at least until Trajan’s successor Hadrian, who spent much of his reign travelling) spent the majority of their time in Rome, and when they did travel it was primarily for military purposes (e.g. Claudius’ invasion of Britain). There were good reasons for an emperor not to spent too long away from Rome – in his absence plots might be formed, and the senate and people begin to feel bereft of strong leadership (as in the emperor Tiberius’ long absences in Capreae in the last decade of his rule – see Tacitus, Annals 4.67). But emperors did travel abroad, and seem to have been warmly welcomed by the provincials they encountered. One of the best examples is Nero who travelled to Greece in AD 67, visiting cultural sites and attending the Panhellenic festivals (the Olympic Games were deliberately rescheduled to allow him to perform). Reaction to this in the Roman literary sources is hostile, seeing his activities as a waste of time (see Suetonius, Nero 18-19, 22- 24), but the response to him in Greece, especially after he freed Achaea from tribute, seems to have been warm (LACTOR 8, No. 46). The ‘false Nero’ who appeared decades after Nero’s death also gained a particular following in the East (Suetonius, Nero 57). Junior members of the imperial family could be warmly received by provincials, as we see in the reception of Germanicus in (LACTOR 18, No. 167). However, the hype surrounding imperial visits could provide opportunities for abuse, as shown in LACTOR 8, no. 7 where Germanicus reacts against the requisitioning of boats, animals and lodgings, allegedly on his behalf. The extent to which visits by members of the imperial family were welcomed can be seen through the fact that they were often commemorated on provincial coinage.

Benefactions Emperors could also make their presence felt in the provinces through various benefactions. Tiberius responded to pleas by the cities of Asia after the earthquake of AD 17 and gave money to rebuild the cities, an act of generosity recorded on a Roman sestertius (LACTOR 8, no. 10). The freeing of provinces or individual cities from taxation, as recognition of their past services or cultural prestige (as in Nero’s ‘liberation’ of Greece) was another form of benefaction. Other acts of benefaction included the institution of festivals and construction of public buildings. It is not always easy to tell whether a particular festival or building was paid for by an emperor or simply bore his name (see Pliny, Letters 10.75). However there is clear evidence that a concern for adequate public amenities was a proper concern of the emperor – as we see in Trajan’s responses to Pliny regarding the need for an aqueduct at Nicomedia (Pliny, Letters 10.37-8). Acts of benefaction left a physical record in the form of inscriptions – letters and edicts of the emperors granting particular benefits to a city were proudly inscribed in the public spaces of the city and buildings were inscribed with the emperor’s name.

- 51 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

Portraiture and coinage Perhaps the most dominant form in which the emperor’s image spread throughout the empire was in the form of his portrait on coins and in statues. Statues were set up to the emperor by cities and individuals. They were displayed in public spaces such as theatres, libraries and baths, as well as in temples and shrines. There was hardly any area of public life in which the emperor was not physically present through his statue, and images of the imperial family have even been found in private homes. These statues were the result of dedications by individuals or cities, rather than being imposed from above, though they do usually follow portrait types which were first created at Rome and presumably represented the emperor in his chosen form. However, in dress and attributes, portraits from the provinces could give the emperor a more local spin. Naked statues of emperors are rare in the west but more common in the east, where Hellenistic rulers had traditionally been shown in heroic nudity, conversely images of the emperor as a citizen wearing the Roman toga are less common in the east. Thus statues represented the emperor as these particular subjects wished to imagine him. For the significance attributed to statues of the emperor by local people, see Pliny, Letters 10.74, in which he reports that a man named Callidromus had taken refuge at a statue of Trajan after being forcibly detained by his employers, two bakers called Maximus and Dionysius. This reveals that the statue stood symbolically for the system of justice in the empire – indeed, it literally granted Callidromus access to that system, since his actions caused his case to be brought to the attention of a soldier named Appuleius, who then reported it to Pliny and subsequently to Trajan himself. Portraits of the emperor also appeared on coinage, both that issued by the mint at Rome, and on local provincial coins (mainly issued by poleis in the Greek-speaking east). Both circulated throughout the empire, particularly in trade and the payment of the military. While coins minted at Rome could assert aspects of imperial policy and ideology, civic coinages often featured the emperor’s image on the obverse and something of local resonance on the reverse, such as a wreath naming a local festival; the image of a civic god or a legendary founder.

The Imperial Cult For a useful discussion, see M. Beard, J. North & S. Price, Religions of Rome (Cambridge, 1998) I: 348-363. ‘The imperial cult’ is a modern term given to a whole range of religious rituals and practices focussed on the person of the emperor. It was practised differently in the Eastern and Western provinces of the empire, and could encompass both the worship of the current emperor with divine honours, and also the deification of deceased emperors. The honours offered to emperors included temples and alters, prayers, sacrifices and festivals, such as those offered to the gods; however, the terminology used also suggests subtle distinctions between the emperor and the gods, as when prayers of sacrifices are offered ‘on behalf of the emperor’ as opposed to ‘to the emperor’. It may be tempting to see the imperial cult as a cynical means of control by the emperor or a sign of Roman domination. The literary texts sometime support this view by their reference to the desire of ‘bad’ emperors like Caligula and Domitian to be seen as

- 52 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

gods and to insist on their own worship (see LACTOR 18, Nos. 169-70). However, these comments should be seen in the context of the writers’ own agendas. There is certainly evidence of the top-down introduction of the imperial cult into recently conquered provinces, particularly in the west where the tradition of ruler cult did not exist as it had in the east. Sometimes this could form a focal point for resistance as in the burning of the Temple of Claudius at Camulodunum in the Boudiccan revolt (Tacitus, Annals 14.31: ‘The Temple erected to the divine Claudius was a blatant stronghold of alien rule’. See further discussion below p. 52). However, more often the impetus seems to have come from provincial elites themselves, as a way of aligning themselves with the central power. The worship of the emperor with divine honours can be seen as a way of conceptualising the new power structures of the empire. It should also be noted that for the vast majority of the empire’s population, to whom the emperor was omnipresent in statues and inscriptions but rarely seen in person, he must have seemed very close to a god.

The Imperial cult in the East The key modern discussion of this is Price 1984, focussed on the province of Asia. Since Alexander the Great, cities in the Greek east had been used to worshipping rulers and kings as if they were divine and continued this tradition into their relationships with Rome. As Roman influence spread into the Eastern Mediterranean in the third and second centuries BC, we begin to find temples and festivals dedicated to the goddess Roma (e.g. in Smyrna, mentioned in Tacitus, Annals 4.55, cited below), and later divine honours offered to Roman generals or governors (e.g. the Roman general Titus Flaminius after his ‘liberation’ of Greece in 196 BC). After the defeat of Antony at Actium in 31 BC many cities in Greece and Asia (most of which had been aligned with Antony) now wished to assert their loyalty to the new victor Octavian (later Augustus). Cult offered a means of doing so and we find a number of references to Temples of Augustus or Roma and Augustus. In addition to individual cities setting up temples or festivals to the emperor, the imperial cult was also run on a province-wide basis with a central temple and festival to which all the member cities sent representatives. Because of the prestige which accrued to the city hosting the cult, and to its priests, the emperors (and sometimes the senate, as below) were heavily involved in granting permission for the cult and in choosing the city to host it. Cassius Dio (Roman History 51.20.6 = LACTOR 18, no. 174) tells us that Augustus permitted the institution of province-wide cults to himself at Pergamum in Asia and Nicomedia in Bithynia. Under Tiberius we find the Province of Asia requesting permission to set up another cult temple, this time to Tiberius, his mother Livia, and the senate. Tacitus (Annals 4.15) suggests that they were motivated by gratitude to Tiberius for his support in allowing the prosecution of the imperial procurator Lucilius Capito for extortion. Tacitus gives a long account of the senatorial hearing in which the city which was to host the temple was chosen (Annals 4.55-56). The arguments made by the eleven competing cities show the importance of the variety of factors, including the antiquity and prestige of the city and a tradition of loyalty to Rome, but also the desire of the

- 53 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

emperor and senate to preserve the balance of power among the leading cities of the province. The full text can be found on-line, abbreviated here (trans. A. J. Church & W. J. Brodribb, available via www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper):

Tiberius … gave an audience of several days to embassies from Asia on a disputed question as to the city in which the temple before mentioned should be erected. Eleven cities were rivals for the honour, of which they were all equally ambitious, though they differed widely in resources. With little variation they dwelt on antiquity of race and loyalty to Rome throughout her wars with Perseus, Aristonicus, and other kings. But the people of Hypæpa, Tralles, Laodicæa, and Magnesia were passed over as too insignificant; even Ilium, though it boasted that Troy was the cradle of Rome, was strong only in the glory of its antiquity. There was a little hesitation about Halicarnassus, as its inhabitants affirmed that for twelve hundred years their homes had not been shaken by an earthquake and that the foundations of their temple were on the living rock. Pergamon, it was thought, had been sufficiently honoured by having a temple of Augustus in the city, on which very fact they relied. The Ephesians and Milesians had, it seemed, wholly devoted their respective towns to the worships of Apollo and Diana. And so the question lay between Sardis and Smyrna. The envoys from Sardis read a decree of the Etrurians, with whom they claimed kindred…They spoke too of letters from Roman generals, of treaties concluded with us during the Macedonian war, and of their copious rivers, of their climate, and the rich countries round them. The envoys from Smyrna, after tracing their city's antiquity back to such founders as either Tantalus, the son of Jupiter, or Theseus, also of divine origin, or one of the Amazons, passed on to that on which they chiefly relied, their services to the , whom they had helped with naval armaments, not only in wars abroad, but in those under which we struggled in Italy. They had also been the first, they said, to build a temple in honour of Roma, during the consulship of Marcus Porcius Cato…They appealed too to the testimony of Lucius Sulla, whose army was once in terrible jeopardy from a severe winter and want of clothing, and this having been announced at Smyrna in a public assembly, all who were present stripped their clothes off their backs and sent them to our legions. And so the Senate, when the question was put, gave the preference to Smyrna

While we see here the emperor and the senate regulating the provincial imperial cult, the impetus seems to come from the provincials themselves, who were keen to gain the honour of an imperial temple. The permission to build a provincial cult temple was a particular honour for a city, and was proudly acclaimed on coins and inscriptions. Divine honours were also offered by individual cities. Much of the inscriptional evidence concerns honours voted by particular cities, and the response of the emperor. A good example is the city of Gytheum in Sparta (LACTOR 8, No. 3 = LACTOR 18. no. 166) where Tiberius writes in response to limit the honours granted to himself, though approving those to his deified father Augustus (for another example of honours to ‘Tiberius the god’ at , see LACTOR 8, No. 5). For these cities the imperial cult was a tangible way of proving their loyalty to Rome and the emperor. In addition to temples dedicated solely to a particular emperor, the imperial family was also accommodated and worshipped alongside the civic gods. Sometimes existing temples were adapted to accommodate cult images of the emperors, at other times statues of the imperial family were set up in public basilicas and stoas. The provincial imperial cult involved festivals in which Roman-style gladiatorial games were held, but the emperors could also be incorporated into traditional civic festivals, which were sometimes renamed in their honour. It is not possible, then, to distinguish clearly

- 54 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

between ‘the imperial cult’ and the widespread incorporation of the imperial family into all areas of civic life (see above). A whole range of activities from prayers, vows, and sacrifices (see Pliny, Letters 10.35-6) to temples and dedicated festivals make up part of what we call ‘the imperial cult’.

The Sebasteion at Aphrodisias in Caria (c. AD 20-60) The key publications are two articles by R. R. R. Smith in Journal of Roman Studies 77 (1987) and 78 (1988). See also http://www.nyu.edu/projects/aphrodisias/index2.html A good example of the ways that the imperial cult, expressions of loyalty to the imperial family and statements of imperial, regional and civic identities could all be intermingled is provided by the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias in Caria. Aphrodisias was a small city with a long tradition of loyalty to Rome, based partly on the identification of its patron goddess Aphrodite with Venus Genetrix, the ancestress, through her son Aeneas and his son Iulus, of the Julian race (including Julius Caesar and Augustus). The Sebasteion (which means a building dedicated to the emperors (sebastoi in Greek)) was dedicated by two leading families of Aphrodisias to the Julio-Claudian imperial family. It was begun in the reign of Tiberius, and completed under Nero. It comprised of a Roman-style Corinthian temple linked by two parallel porticoes to a propylon (gate). The Temple was dedicated jointly to the civic deity Aphrodisias and the imperial family. The gate was decorated with a series of imperial statues, including relatively minor members of the Julio-Claudian family, as well as statues of Aphrodite and Aeneas. The porticoes which linked the gate to the temple were decorated with a series of relief panels. These included personifications of the peoples and provinces conquered by Augustus. This suggests that Aphrodisias was clearly situating herself alongside Roman power, sharing in the glory of conquest. There were also a series of reliefs showing various emperors, including scenes of Nero subjugating Armenia, and Claudius conquering Britain (click on the ‘Sebasteion Sculpture’ link on the website for an image). While these reliefs suggest Aphrodisias was proud to identify herself as part of the Roman empire, and aligned herself with Roman military might, another series of reliefs showed Greek mythological scenes (featuring gods and heroes such as Heracles, Achilles and Apollo), stressing their Greek cultural credentials. Overall the decoration of the complex suggests that both Greek and Roman identities were important to the families who commissioned this monument, as well as the city’s long tradition of loyalty to Rome. As the decoration of a religious monument, the imperial panels also act like a hymn in stone, praising the emperors’ achievements.

The Imperial cult in the west The western provinces did not have the same established tradition of ruler- worship as those in the east, so that provincial populations in the west did not feel the same impetus to transfer their existing religious allegiances to the representatives of the Roman state. If the emperors of Rome had been strongly committed to the idea of using the imperial cult as a method of fostering loyalty and exercising control over their

- 55 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

empire, we might expect that they would have made wholesale efforts to establish its practice in the west, in order to match the situation in the east. In practice, though, state encouragement for the imperial cult was patchy even in the west, and appears to have occurred only on an ad hoc basis in response to particular local circumstances. The bulk of the impetus for emperor worship in the west in fact appears to have come from local elites, just as it did in the east.

State initiatives in the west An early example of state initiative for the establishment of emperor-worship in the west concerns the altar of Roma (i.e. the goddess who personified Rome) and Augustus at Lyon (Lugdunum) in Gaul. This appears to have been established by Augustus’ step-son (and Claudius’ father) Drusus in 12 BC, when he was serving as governor of the province (Cassius Dio 54.32; Suetonius, Claudius 2). The context here is one of unrest in Gaul following a census and the introduction of taxation, and Dio states explicitly that Drusus sought to calm the unrest by calling the leading citizens of the tribes concerned to Lyon in order to participate in the worship of the emperor at the new altar. The cult itself, though, was quickly embraced by the Gallic elite. Throughout our period, the civic communities of the three northerly Gallic provinces (Aquitania, Belgica and Lugdunensis) sent representatives to participate in annual ceremonies conducted at the altar in Lyon, while the position of the high priest who led these representatives became one of the most coveted in the province. Surviving regulations concerning the high priest of a similar cult established at Narbonne (Narbo), the provincial capital of the southern Gallic province of Narbonensis, are at LACTOR 18 no. 175. These show the prestige attached to the office, and thus presumably part of the attraction of holding it. While in office, the high priest had his own attendants, enjoyed special prominence at the provincial council and public games, and also attracted special privileges for his wife. Afterwards, he was allowed to set up a statue of himself in a precinct next to the temple of the imperial cult at Narbonne, and continued to enjoy special prominence in his own local civic council and the provincial council based at Narbonne. Within our period, the temple of Claudius at Colchester (Camulodunum) also appears to have been established at state initiative. This is not stated explicitly by any of our sources, but the fact that it was built in a colonia populated by veteran Roman soldiers, and on land which had previously formed part of an annex to a legionary fort, makes it highly likely that the initiative behind its construction came from the state – perhaps specifically from the provincial governor. In this case, the construction appears to have prompted some resentment from indigenous locals. Tacitus, Annals 14.31 (available at http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/tacitus.html) includes the temple and its associated expenses amongst causes for the Boudiccan revolt in AD 60: “The temple built in honour of Claudius was another cause of discontent. In the eye of the Britons it seemed the citadel of eternal slavery. The priests, appointed to officiate at the altars, with a pretended zeal for religion, devoured the whole substance of the country.”

- 56 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

The difficulty with this statement, though, is that it was written by a Roman author, not by one of the people who participated in the rebellion. While Tacitus may be correct that the temple had caused resentment and helped to spur the rebellion, then, we cannot be certain that it really ‘seemed the citadel of eternal slavery’ from a British perspective. Tacitus may in fact be projecting elite Roman suspicion of emperors who encouraged religious devotion onto the Britons.

Local initiative in the west Other examples clearly attest provincial initiatives for the establishment of emperor-worship. Dedications directly to emperors, either living or dead, are fairly rare, but dedications of altars or temples to other deities on behalf of the emperor(s) attest a desire to incorporate the imperial household into local religious activities. Some examples include: LACTOR 8 no. 45 – civilians at Mainz (Moguntiacum), a military fortress on the Rhine frontier in Germany set up a column in honour of Jupiter, and dedicated it ‘for the safety of Nero’. (Note that after Nero’s disgrace and suicide a few years later, his name was erased from the inscription. This is an example of damnatio memoriae or ‘condemnation of memory’, under which the images and records of a disgraced emperor were literally wiped out. The official order for such condemnation was usually given out by the senate under the subsequent regime, so the erasure of the name represents the attempts of the civilians at Mainz to keep up with changes at the centre of the empire.) LACTOR 18 no. 176 – an inscription set up Cogidubnus, a client king who was allowed to rule over parts of south-western Britain during the first few decades after the conquest in AD 43. The inscription commemorates the establishment of a temple to Neptune and Minerva ‘for the welfare of the Divine House (domus divina)’ – i.e. the reigning emperor (Claudius) as well as his living relatives and deified ancestors. Where such dedications were made by individuals or communities, it is clear that the state not only did not desire to interfere, but probably could not have done so even if it had wanted to. Allowing such activity was an important way of ensuring loyalty and stability in the provinces, while the state lacked the resources to police it – either to ensure that it was evenly distributed amongst provincial communities or to control its character. Thus the extent of emperor-worship in the west must always have been heavily dependent on the interests of individual local communities.

Cults established on behalf of an entire province (as at Lyon and Narbonne in Gaul – see above p. 51, ‘State initiatives in the west’) appears to have been more carefully scrutinised. As explained above, in some cases province-wide cults were established at the initiative of the state, as at Lyon. Elsewhere, provincials knew that they needed to seek imperial permission before establishing province-wide worship on their own initiative. The eagerness of the people of Baetica (southern Spain) to do this in the reign of Tiberius after observing the example of Asia (see ‘The Imperial cult in the East’, above p. 49) stands in contrast with the attitude to Tiberius, who refused their request:

Tacitus, Annals 4.37-8 (AD 25) – About the same time Further Spain sent a deputation to the Senate, with a request to be allowed, after the example of Asia, to erect a temple to Tiberius and his

- 57 -

JACT Teachers’ Notes

mother. On this occasion, the emperor, who had generally a strong contempt for honours, and now thought it right to reply to the rumour which reproached him with having yielded to vanity, delivered the following speech: “I am aware, Senators, that many deplore my want of firmness in not having opposed a similar recent petition from the cities of Asia. I will therefore both explain the grounds of my previous silence and my intentions for the future. Inasmuch as the Divine Augustus did not forbid the founding of a temple at Pergamos to himself and to the city of Rome, I who respect as law all his actions and sayings, have the more readily followed a precedent once approved, seeing that with the worship of myself was linked an expression of reverence towards the Senate. But though it may be pardonable to have allowed this once, it would be a vain and arrogant thing to receive the sacred honour of images representing the divine throughout all the provinces, and the homage paid to Augustus will disappear if it is vulgarised by indiscriminate flattery. “For myself, Senators, I am mortal and limited to the functions of humanity, content if I can adequately fill the highest place; of this I solemnly assure you, and would have posterity remember it. They will more than sufficiently honour my memory by believing me to have been worthy of my ancestry, watchful over your interests, courageous in danger, fearless of enmity, when the State required it. These sentiments of your hearts are my temples, these my most glorious and abiding monuments. Those built of stone are despised as mere tombs, if the judgment of posterity passes into hatred. And therefore this is my prayer to our allies, our citizens, and to heaven itself; to the last, that, to my life’s close, it grant me a tranquil mind, which can discern alike human and divine claims; to the first, that, when I die, they honour my career and the reputation of my name with praise and kindly remembrance.”

Here, Tiberius’ motive for refusing the dedication of the temple appears to have been a desire to show himself to the as moderate and restrained. The opening sentences of his speech suggest that he had received criticism for allowing the construction of a temple in his honour in Asia, and wished to be seen to oppose a further example of the same behaviour. He excuses the original decision on the grounds that he was following the precedent of Augustus – always a sound political move, since Augustus had been widely popular. It also seems to have made a difference that the cult in Asia was to celebrate Tiberius, Livia and the senate, whereas the proposed temple in Spain would honour only Tiberius and Livia, and thus might provoke senatorial resentment at being sidelined in favour of the imperial household. In making his decision, Tiberius was presumably aware that he risked arousing resentment in Baetica, where he might be seen as displaying ingratitude in the face of the provincials’ desire to display their loyalty to him. His decision to accept this risk must reflect a sense of priority between his various sources of power – it was more important to ensure the continuing support of the senate than that of a province, and particularly one which was long-pacified, unlikely to rebel, and had no armies stationed within it.

- 58 -