Dissertation Cover Page
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Vespasian Augustus: Imperial Power in the First Century CE by Karen Louise Acton A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Greek and Roman History) in the University of Michigan 2011 Doctoral Committee: Professor David S. Potter, Chair Professor Bruce W. Frier Assistant Professor Ian S. Moyer Assistant Professor J. Mira Seo Karen Louise Acton 2011 Acknowledgements Completing this project has been a labor of love on my part, but an exercise in patience, wisdom, sympathy, helpfulness, and humor for a very large number of other people. I know that any attempt to name all the people to whom I owe a debt of gratitude would be impossible, and so I will begin by expressing my heartfelt thanks to all the students, staff, and faculty who comprise the Classics community at the University of Michigan, who have never failed to provide me with intellectual support and daily reminders that the study of the ancient world can be – and should be – fun. Some names stand out, however, and I must take this opportunity to thank my committee, my Chair David Potter, Bruce Frier, Ian Moyer, and Mira Seo, for their insight and suggestions; I am also deeply indebted to the faculty of the Program in Greek and Roman History, especially Sara Forsdyke and Ray Van Dam, and to Ruth Scodel. I must also thank Michelle Biggs, for always being able to solve my problems. I would have made no progress without the humor, advice, and friendship of my fellow students; anyone who has ever attended ancient historians’ lunch has helped me in countless ways. Those who have read or commented on this project at various stages deserve special thanks: Rob Chenault, Nate Andrade, Mike Sampson, Sanjaya Thakur, Jon Arnold, Claudia Arno, Cassie Borges, Richard Persky, Jenn Finn, Jared Secord, Shonda Thom, Evelyn Adkins, and Joe Groves. I have no doubt that I have forgotten more names than I have remembered, and I apologize to all those whom I have left out. ii Finally, I must thank the people without whom I could never have begun this project. David Page has inspired so many with his love of the ancient world, and I am privileged to have learned from him. My family, especially my parents and my brother, have tolerated my ramblings but encouraged my ambitions, for which I am profoundly grateful. My deepest thanks belong to Dan Leon, who deserves my constant praise. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..ii List of Figures……………………………………………………………………….……vi Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..vii Introduction……………………………………………………………………..…………1 Chapter 1. The Flavian Victory Introduction………………………………………………………………20 The Flavian plan …...……………………………………………………21 The plan in motion… ...………………………………………………….33 December to January ………………..…………………………………...38 Vespasian in Alexandria ………………..……………………………….44 Spring and early summer in Rome………….……………………………51 Vespasian’s return………………..………………………………………55 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….60 2. Space and the ideological topography of Rome: the Capitoline, the Palatine, and the Quirinal in 70 CE Introduction………………………………………………………………65 The Capitoline and the Palatine….………………………………………66 The Palatine and the Quirinal..…………………………………………..99 Conclusion……………………………………………………………...107 3. Auctoritas and imperium: the definition, construction, and negotiation of Vespasian’s power Introduction……………………………………………………………..110 Auctoritas and maiestas………………………………………………...112 Vespasian’s legal authority ……………………………………...……..132 Cola di Rienzo and the lex de imperio Vespasiani……………………..167 Conclusion……………………………………………………………...174 4. Vespasian and his dynasty: the Flavian domus Augusta Introduction..……………………………………………………………178 iv The Julio-Claudian domus Augusta…………………………………….180 The Flavian domus Augusta…………………………………………….202 Women in the imperial house: Caenis and Berenice…………………...221 Conclusion……………………………………………………………...232 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..… 237 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………245 v List of Figures Figure 2.1: RPC 1 (Vitellius) 56 ……………………...………..…………………........77 2.2: RIC II2 (Vespasian) 886…………………………..…..…………………….98 3.1: RIC I (Galba) 189……………………………….…………………………127 4.1: RIC I (Tiberius) 47…………………………………………………………182 4.2: RIC I (Nero) 7……………………………………………………………...194 4.3: RIC I (Tiberius) 68…………………………………………………………195 4.4: RIC I (Tiberius) 51…………………………………………………………198 4.5: RIC II2 (Vespasian) 16……………………………………………………..208 4.6: RIC II2 (Vespasian) 152……………………………………………………208 4.7: RIC II2 (Vespasian) 680……………………………………………………212 4.8: RIC II2 (Titus) 262…………………………………………………………219 vi Abstract When civil war broke out in 68 CE, the succession of imperial candidates and the ensuing military chaos forced the people of Rome to confront their system of government and their understanding of imperial power. In order to restore peace, Vespasian had to translate his military victory into stable rule at a point when the concept of the emperor had been under scrutiny. Vespasian’s solution was to construct and maintain an informal personal authority that represented a new model of the imperial office that drew from Julio-Claudian precedents and operated within social and cultural parameters established by his predecessors. However, Vespasian did not seek to present himself as the heir to the Julio-Claudian dynasty, but rather as a new imperial founder, a rival for Augustus; he expressed the difference between himself and his predecessors in his interactions with space in the city of Rome, the religious identity that he adopted, the rustic Italian public persona that he developed, and the way he presented the public image of his family as an imperial dynasty to express Rome’s Flavian future. In creating this model of imperial authority, Vespasian drew from a range of Roman cultural traditions and historical exempla from the Julio-Claudian period and earlier, including narrative topoi, notions of gender and the family, the traditions and memories associated with Roman urban topography, and models of leadership that emerged in military contexts. The early months of Vespasian’s reign, from his acclamation in July 69 to the Flavian triumph of June 71, show how Vespasian’s imperial persona was developed in response to the ideological and political problems that had arisen in the previous century vii of Julio-Claudian rule, and which the intense experience of the civil war had exposed. By focusing on these early months and considering how Vespasian’s imperial persona was formed over time and in response to a variety of factors, including pressure by Rome’s elite, it is possible to discern Vespasian’s unique conception of imperial power, and to explore how Vespasian and his contemporaries perceived the role of the emperor in Roman society. viii Introduction The death of Nero in June 68 brought an end to the Julio-Claudian dynasty after almost exactly a century of imperial rule; this was also the culmination of a series of events in which a group of provincial governors rose up against the emperor and led their legions against other Roman armies. Senatorial commanders and their legionary armies would mobilize against Rome again at least twice over the course of the next few months. However, the civil war of 68-69, also known as the “Year of Four Emperors,” is remarkable for its apparent lack of lasting significance in spite of its intensity and scope: its events encompassed the entire empire and included fierce and bloody battles fought in Italy and even Rome itself; it saw the violent deaths of four emperors in Italy; the provincial governor of North Africa turned renegade, while the Batavian tribes rose up against Roman rule in Gaul and the Roman armies in Judaea ceased to pursue their war against the Jewish rebels. Nevertheless, after the death of Vitellius and the accession of Vespasian the empire seems to have recovered its equilibrium almost immediately; order was restored to the armies, the provinces, and the city. Vespasian’s ability to restore peace made him seem like a new Augustus, and his sons assumed the roles of imperial heirs as members of Rome’s second dynasty. In the end, the civil war had changed the identities of the individuals at the center of Rome’s political and social world, but it does not seem to have changed the imperial office, let alone the Roman state, at all. 1 This overly simple summary of the events of the civil war and its aftermath makes mundane one of the period’s most remarkable features: these events caused the Romans to assess their own system of government after a century of Julio-Claudian rule, and to negotiate the separation of the principate from the persons of its founders, Augustus and his family. The chaotic violence of the civil war constituted a crisis – if not of Rome’s political system, then at least of the empire’s political ideology. The violence that had erupted in the spring of 68 had spread throughout the empire, leading to the creation of a complex web of alliances and rivalries, in which individuals – such as Vespasian himself – could rally their supporters and seek their own advancement. The process of reevaluation, which contributed to the violence and confusion of the war, was essential for the empire to continue in a stable way under the rule of new personnel. Therefore, the civil war presented an opportunity for the Romans to engage in an intense and critical investigation of the nature of the principate, and especially the nature of the imperial office; this investigation was carried out by a series of imperial candidates, their supporters, their opponents, and the military and civilian population of the empire as a whole. For modern historians and scholars of the Roman Empire, the civil war following the death of Nero provides an opportunity to investigate how imperial power was conceived of, constructed, and maintained in this period of transition. But an even more crucial period for the analysis of the nature of power in first- century Rome was the aftermath of the civil war. After the death of Vitellius in December 69, there were no further serious attempts to elevate a new emperor; Tacitus claims that “it was more that war ceased than that peace began.”1 This assessment, and 1 Tac.