Augustus' Moral Reforms and the Senate

Augustus’ Moral Reforms and the Senate: An Analysis

Date: 30.06.16.

Supervisor: Dr. Jaap-Jan Flinterman Degree: Classics and Ancient Civilizations: Ancient History Word Count: 22, 910.

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student ------who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Graduate School of Humanities is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

Contents Page

Introduction ...... 3 Chapter One: Outline of the Laws ...... 6 Methodological Issues ...... 6 Content of the laws ...... 12 Chapter Two: Historiographic Interpretations ...... 19 Demographic ...... 19 Economic ...... 24 Ideological...... 27 Chapter Three: The function of Augustus’ moral reforms ...... 31 The Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and the Lex Papia Poppaea ...... 32 Ideological ...... 33 Practical...... 41 The Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis ...... 47 Ideological ...... 48 Practical...... 52 Conclusion ...... 60 Bibliography ...... 63 Translated Primary Sources ...... 63 Secondary Sources ...... 64

Introduction

Oh, that I had never married and died without children!1

Augustus apparently made this plea after the adultery of his daughter Julia, and it is indicative of the problems marriage and childbearing caused him both in public and in private. During his reign, Augustus oversaw the transition from Roman Republic to Principate, and made fundamental changes to the social and political structure. One of Augustus’ key innovations was his legislative programme of moral reforms which encouraged marriage and childbearing, and criminalized adultery. The function of these laws is essential for understanding Augustus’ reign, and the nature of his relationship with the senate and wider elite. By analysing the legislation, it is possible to determine the interaction of social and political, public and private, Princeps and senate that characterized the new phase of Roman history.

However, despite their importance, the implications of the legislation have not been fully examined. The historiographic debate has reached something of an impasse, and this must be addressed. In the Res Gestae, Augustus states:

By new statutes passed on my initiative I restored many good examples of our forbearers that were disappearing from the current age, and I personally handed on to posterity examples of many things for them to imitate.2

This statement is a direct reference to the moral reforms that he introduced. In The Cambridge Ancient History, Crook argues that the Res Gestae illustrates the ‘simple truth about what [Augustus] conceived his legislation to have been for.’3 This is indicative of the debate concerning the function of the legislation, which has come full circle to conclude that Augustus should be taken at his word. Instead of attempting a comprehensive analysis of their overall social and political function, ancient historians have increasingly focused their attentions on individual effects of the laws. As such, there is a methodological gap for a new analysis which considers how the complex motivations and aims of each of the laws were part of a single, wider strategy to enhance Augustus’ position.

1 Suet. Aug. 65. 2 Res. Gest. 8: Cooley 2009, 35 highlights that the biographic inscription of Augustus’ achievement was ‘clearly a political document; this is not the place to look for an objective account of Augustus’ career’. 3 Crook 1996b, 133.

This thesis will, therefore, correct the oversight in the debate, examine the function of the moral reforms which Augustus passed, and place them in the wider context of his power as Princeps. As a precise definition is a prerequisite for further study, Chapter One will outline the contents of the legislation that will be referred to as ‘Augustus’ moral reforms.’ The laws are not extant, and so the chapter will examine the methodological issues with attempting to reconstruct them from a variety of sources, and the implications that this has for our ability to interpret the laws. After the legislation has been outlined, Chapter Two will analyse the existing historiographic debate and interpretation of why the legislation was introduced. The aims of the laws are not immediately apparent, and so this has led to vastly disparate conclusions. Split into sub sections concerning demographic, economic and ideological interpretations, the chapter will examine the oversights in the existing debate. Chapter Three, and the remainder of the thesis, will then present my new analysis of the practical and ideological functions of the legislation. The laws will be examined individually to illustrate how they interacted to shape Augustus’ relationship with the senatorial elite. Indeed, the rhetoric in the primary source material will be cross referenced with the evidence of their effects, to indicate how they had specific ideological and practical functions. Whilst the primary narrative sources provide several case studies of how the laws were applied, these have been thus far neglected by ancient historians. Therefore, by analysing these examples, it will be possible to accurately determine the precise functions of the laws. As the conclusion shall illustrate, the moral reforms were designed to have a dual purpose to strengthen the collective position of the senate and elite, but undermine the individual influence of senators. This conclusion has significant implications for our understanding of the nature of Augustus’ power and the survival of the Principate into the third century.

However, the group that will be referred to as the Senate, and senatorial elite, is not self-evident, and so the term must first be defined. Hopkins and Burton offer a succinct outline of the distinction between the senate and the senatorial order.4 In the Republican period, the two were interchangeable, but Augustus’ moral reforms were among the first to indicative a specific ordo which included the immediate family of men that were in the senate. As such, whilst the term ‘senate’ shall be used to refer to the traditional administrative body, the ‘senatorial elite’ shall be used to refer to this emerging ordo, comprising of the immediate family of senators. The wider term elite also encompasses the equestrian ordo, who were themselves potential future senators, and influential members of Roman upper

4 Hopkins and Burton 1983a, 193.

class society. Indeed, the equestrians must be included in the analysis of the senate as a social and political body, as they exhibited the same behavioural patterns, and had an increasing role in the practical governance of the Principate.5 That is not to say, however, that the remainder of the Roman population will not feature in this analysis, but they shall be considered through their relationship with the elite bodies. The parameters of this study follow the period of Augustus’ sole rule from the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE to his death in 14 CE. However, the legislation cannot be analysed in isolation, and so it will be necessary to consider the conditions of the Roman civil war and end of the Republic, as well as the reign of Augustus’ adopted son and successor Tiberius. Many of the case studies that will be examined occurred during Tiberius’ 14-37 CE reign, but they can nonetheless be used to determine how the legislation was designed to function both in the long and the short term. Whilst any consideration of the Principate must cover its geographic limits, the nature of this subject necessitates a disproportionate focus on Italy, and Rome itself. For example, the senatorial group whose relationship with the legislation shall be examined, resided at least in part in the capital. Within these parameters, the exact legislation which comprised Augustus’ moral reforms shall next be outlined in Chapter One.

5 Eder 1990, 114 explains how equestrians increasingly had roles in the administration.

Chapter One: Outline of the Laws

Before analysing how Augustus’ moral reforms affected his relationship with the senate and elite, one must first have an accurate understanding of the legislation itself. As such, this chapter will present an overview of the laws, and primary source material which is most relevant to the study. The beginning of the Roman Empire is an unusually well documented period of history, and so poetry and artistic works can be added to build a complex picture of both the underlying aims, and effects of the legislation. This chapter will first present the methodological problems of legal, narrative, and poetic texts. As there is such a wide variety of literary texts, this chapter, and indeed thesis, will focus on the artistic works contemporary to Augustus which reflect the context in which the laws were enacted. Using later narrative histories and legislative records is, unfortunately, unavoidable and so the unique challenged which this presents will be detailed. However, as they include both direct outlines of the legislation, and particular case studies of their implementation, the histories provide us with an essential overview of how the moral reforms functioned. After this analysis, the provisions of the three laws that comprised the moral legislation; the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and the Lex Papia Poppaea will be reconstructed from these sources. As the legislation is complex, and not extant, the sub-section will focus on outlining the main tenets, and the sanctions and rewards used to enforce them.

Methodological Issues The reconstruction of the laws must begin with Justinian’s Digest, which is the only official legal record of Augustan legislation. The work was begun in 530 CE, and is a compilation of over 3 million lines of earlier legal discourses on laws from the republic.6 Within the text, the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea have mainly been preserved through the analyses of Ulpian, who worked in the early third century.7 Alongside Paul, and the other authors, Ulpian was a highly skilled jurist and so the work is both technical and informative. Logistically, the Digest is divided into 50 books, which are subdivided into titles, and then individual pronouncements. References to

6 Humfrees 2005, 167. 7 Harries 2004, 7.

Augustus’ moral legislation can be found in a variety of these books, as the compilers attempted to place references to the laws, including revisions, in chronological order. For the purposes of this study, the most useful section is Book 48, which included eight titles entirely devoted to the laws passed by the deified Augustus.’8 Within this, Title 5 deals directly with the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis. The reconstructions occasionally include direct quotes that reflect the third century interpretation of the laws, but the Digest is, as Harries says ‘a net full of holes.’9 The dating of the legal discourses used, and the compilation of the Digest itself, is problematic, and so the precise content of Augustus’ laws is irrecoverable. The jurists present multiple practical examples to indicate how the legislation was later interpreted, but this does not necessarily reflect the original intention or tone.10 Nonetheless, the Digest is an invaluable text for reconstructing the legislation, as the material can be cross referenced with earlier sources to provide an outline of at least the main provisions.

The legal record of the Digest can best be supplemented by histories written during Augustus’ reign, but there was an apparent decline in the practise during this period. Indeed, Toher argues that the decline in narrative history writing was a significant one. Rather than being the result of a deliberate policy of repression, Toher suggests that this is indicative of the inextricable link between the practice of history writing, and events contemporary to the authors.11 Narrative histories had previously been a method of documenting, and achieving political prestige in the senate. The changes which Augustus made to the method of governance, and the position of senate, undermined this practise, and so narrative histories markedly declined.12

History writing was revived as the new regime became entrenched, and so Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio provide us with slightly later works which discuss Augustus’ reign. Whilst these are not the only ancient histories which discuss Augustus, they are unique in directly discussing the moral legislation, as well as particular examples of its application.13 However, the perception of morality, and its political associations, plays a key function in the

8 Dig. 48.5.1. 9 Harries 2004, 25 argues that the extensive editing and lack of context has affected our ability to recover specific details about any of the laws. 10 For example, in Dig. 48.5.16(15) Ulpian explains that ‘Pomponius also thinks that it should be stated that so long as the husband is holding the magistracy, the father’s right to bring an accusation should also be held up, to prevent the husband’s right…being taken away from him.’ 11 Toher 1990, 142. 12 Miles 1995, 224 explicitly links this decline to the ‘complexities of the Augustan programme.’ 13 For example, Velleius Paterculus’ Compedium provides a contemporary account of the life of a senator during the reign of Augustus and Tiberius. However, he focuses primarily on the military campaigns which he was involved in, and so is not immediately useful for examining the moral reforms, which he does not refer to.

narrative of these text. Roman narratives were by nature moralistic, with the moral character and behaviour of figures presented as reflections of their success or failure. For example, an apparently ‘just’ moral leader, such as Augustus, is presented as a competent emperor, whereas an immoral one, such as Nero, is an archetypally poor ruler. 14 This framework was not only a literary device, but was a reflection of contemporary political ideas. Up until the later empire, Augustus’ reign was heralded as a ‘golden age’ of literature, culture, morality and political harmony, and these categories are often conflated.15 Augustus’ moral reforms played a key part in this characterisation, both in the collective memory and literature, and so this complicates the recovery of a historical truth about Augustus’ reforms. This does not, however, render historical narratives useless, but means that their pronouncements must be carefully analysed.

Tacitus’ Annals is a key example of this phenomenon, and begins with the reign of Tiberius, Augustus’ successor. In the opening of his history, Tacitus laments how ‘the rising tide of flattery exercised a deterrent effect’ on those who wished to write a narrative of the Augustan Age.16 The author was a senator writing in the mid-second century, and so offers a unique perspective on the effect of the legislation on subsequent generations. A key theme in the history is the senate’s relationship with imperial rulers, and Augustus’ legislation is presented as a key part of this.17 Whilst his narrative begins with the death of Augustus, Tacitus nevertheless includes frequent digressions, such as on the origin of the Lex Papia Poppaea to provide context for Tiberius’ actions.18 Cowen argues that Tiberius’ relationship with Augustus is a key theme in the Annals, and the Princeps is used throughout the narrative as the basic model to compare Tiberius to.19 Augustus’ behaviour is not idealized, but it is depicted as the paradigm for a successful Princeps. As such, Tacitus’ criticism of the moral legislation is indicative of their reception, even amongst those who supported Augustus. Tacitus is a famously scathing historian, and he emphasises the treason trials which Tiberius apparently conducted. Many of these trials include sexual misconduct as a theme, and so they indirectly illustrate the effect of the moral legislation only a short time after Augustus’ death. Within this context, Tacitus also emphasised the rise of informers, delatores who benefitted from the sanctions imposed by the moral legislation, and this detail is absent from other

14 Suet. Aug. 21.2. 15 Burgersdijk 2016, presents a good overview of this phenomenon. 16 Tac. Ann. 1.1. 17 Tac.Ann.1.2. characterises Augustus’ reign as one of ‘slavish obedience’ from the upper class. 18 Tac. Ann. 3.25. 19 Cowen 2009, 179.

sources. 20 As such, Tacitus’ history, although not explicitly focussed on the reign of Augustus, is a key source for both the origin and wider effects of the Augustus’ moral reforms.

The legislation was also indirectly discussed by ancient narrative sources, and Suetonius’ biography of Augustus provides a key example of this approach. His Lives of the Caesars, is a collection of imperial biographies from Julius Caesar to Domitian which include a variety of historical details. Tacitus and Suetonius were contemporaries, and so their accounts of the same period reflect a particular perception of Augustus’ reforms. However, during the second century, Suetonius worked as keeper of the imperial archives, and so his writings were based upon invaluable primary source material.21 He presents information thematically rather than chronologically, and so it is at times imprecise. Nonetheless, when the work is cross referenced against other narratives, and the legal sources, it is possible to reconstruct the wider tone of the reform programme. Suetonius was a childless member of the equestrian class and so was granted an exemption from the provisions of the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea which penalised childlessness. 22 As such, Suetonius personally experienced the evolution and application of Augustus’ moral reforms, and this is reflected in the attention which he pays them in the biography. The text itself focusses on Augustus’ personal character and public leadership, but the moral legislation is presented as a direct reflection of both of these aspects. 23 Suetonius discusses the implementation of the reforms, their effects and reception, in detail, and so his biography yields important insights.

In contrast, Cassius Dio published his Roman History in the third century, and so his narrative provides a different perspective. 24 Whilst not all are extant, the original text had 80 books, from Rome’s Trojan origins, to Dio’s own career under Severus Alexander. Of these, twelve were dedicated to the 57 year reign of Augustus, and Kemezis argues that this suggests a deliberate focus on his reign. The moral legislation plays a key role, and Kemezis

20 Tac. Ann. 3.25. is particularly vexed by this effect of the laws and the alarming rise of delatores, so this shapes his depiction of the laws. It is a consideration of this aspect which ‘prompts [him] to go into some detail about the origins of the laws’ and so this frames the entire discussion. 21 Whilst the exact dating is unclear, Wallace-Hadrill 1983, 1 suggests that the books were published within a decade of Hadrian’s accession in 117 CE. 22 Wallace-Hadrill 1983, 11. 23Suet. Aug. 24.1.For example, the fact that ‘[Augustus] revised old laws and in some cases enacted new ones’ is used as an example of Augustus’ competence as a ruler, and implicitly refers to the moral legislation, which was presented as a mixture of old and new laws. 24 The exact date of publication is unclear, but Swan 2004, 3 suggests that a first edition was circulated in around 222 CE, and a revised one in 230 CE.

argues that it was used to construct Augustus as a paradigmic ruler, in contrast to the Severan dynasty under which Cassius Dio lived.25 Dio’s opinion on the Severans can be discerned from a fictitious speech by Agrippa which features in the beginning of the account of Augustus’ reign. In it, the ideal character traits of a ruler are outlined, and the advice to ‘supervise the lives of your subjects’ foreshadows the later focus on Augustus’ moral reforms.26 Yet, Agrippa’s ‘fear [that] history may repeat itself’ can instead be interpreted as a reference to the third century crisis, which the Severans oversaw.27 A crucial part of Dio’s narrative on Augustus’ moral reforms, is a long speech which Augustus apparently gave in 9 CE to the equestrian men when they protested his legislation on marriage.28 This speech too, must be analysed with a focus on events contemporary to its author, and the way that these interact with the depiction of Augustus. Whilst it is unlikely to have reflected an actual event, Csillig suggests that the incident is a key indicator of what Augustus’ perceived motivations were some two hundred years later.29 Cassius Dio was a married senator, and so the provisions of the law had a direct effect on both his public and private life.30

These narrative sources can be supplemented with poetic works, from which one can infer much about the contemporary context and tone of the legislation. Horace is the most obvious example of this phenomenon, as he was commissioned to write poetry in favour of the Princeps. Despite having fought against Augustus at the Battle of Philippi, Horace’s poetry ardently supported the victorious Augustus.31 Whilst Horace cannot be regarded as a government spokesperson, his pronouncements nonetheless form part of the image that Augustus attempted to project to his contemporaries. For example, the Carmen Saeculare praises Augustus and the return of ‘Modesty and Virtue’ along with ‘Good Faith, Peace and Honour’.32 This illustrates the components that Augustus himself wanted to promote, as well as how integral moral considerations were to his characterisation as a successful ruler. Indeed, Zanker explicitly links the content of the poem to Augustus’ moral laws, and so it is essential for understanding the nature of the programme.33 The Odes are also filled with direct, and indirect, references to Augustus and the reforms of his reign, and these can be

25 Kemezis 2007, 273. 26 Cass. Dio.52.34.4. 27 Cass. Dio 52.20.3. 28 Cass. Dio. 56.1-11. 29 Csillig 1976, 35. 30 Millar 1964, 13 highlights the effects of Dio’s own personal circumstances on the composition of this speech. 31 Nisbet 2007, 7. 32 Hor. Carm. Saec. 25. 33 Zanker 1990, 176.

analysed to discern his ideological aims.34 For example, Ode 3.24, has been translated as ‘The Need for Moral Restraint’, and can be interpreted as implicit promotion of Augustus’ moral legislation. Within in it, Horace laments the need for a ruler to ‘curb lawless licence’ and moral disgrace.35 When considered alongside the legal texts and narrative sources, such literature is invaluable in highlighting the prevailing moods in first century Rome, and the specific ideology promoted by the Princeps.

In contrast, Ovid had a more antagonistic relationship with Augustus, both as a poet and a roman citizen. The tone of Ovid’s work is indicative of contemporary opposition to the legislation, as he mocked Augustus’ reforms. For example, Elegy XIX in Book II of his Amors, explains that ‘He’s only stealing sand from the empty beach, the man who makes love to the wife of a fool’ in a direct allusion to adultery forbidden by the law.36 However, this theme was dangerous, as the Ars Amatoria’s discussion of ‘safe love-making and permitted secrecy’, was apparently interpreted as a handbook for practicing adultery which contravened the new laws.37 The work has been linked to Ovid’s infamous 8 CE exile on ‘the charge that by an obscene poem I have taught foul adultery.’38 It has now been established that this charge must have been a pretext for another offence, perhaps linked to Julia’s exile in the same year.39 However, the fact that such an accusation was permissible highlights the increasing links between perceptions of personal immorality and political dissent.

The importance of a variety of source material is evident from Propertius’ Elegies, which provides key information to help date the legislation. Within 2.7, ‘A Threat Removed’, he refers to the ‘repeal of the law, whose erstwhile issuance caused us to weep for many hours in case it parted us!’40 The piece is dedicated to Propertius’ mistress, and apparently refers to their escape from a law which would force them to marry. Badian argues that this allusion is evidence that in 28 BCE, when the poem was written, Augustus made a failed attempt to implement moral reforms. Fantham questions this dating, and suggests that Propertius was reacting to a rumour, rather than any serious attempt to legislate.41 However,

34 See, for example Hor. Carm 3.14, ‘The Return of Augustus’, which celebrates his triumphant return from Spain. 35 Hor. Carm. 3.24.25-30. 36 Ov. Am.2.19.45. 37 Ov. Ars am. 1.34: Volk 2010, 103 suggests that with this Ovid was mocking the moral legislation. 38 Ov. Pont. 2.243-50. 39 Volk 2010, 31 is but one of many historians who have highlighted this link, and the implausibility of the charge Ovid mentions. 40 Prop. 2.7.12. 41 Fantham 2006, 37.

this debate concerning the dating distracts from the real significance of the Elegies. The poem strongly suggests that that a proposal for a law promoting marriage law was rejected shortly after the Battle of Actium.42 As such, it is possible to infer that the legislative programme was either a pressing personal concern for Augustus, or directly linked to contemporary events. This dating has different implications for any understanding of Augustus’ aims, and suggests that the programme may have been linked to the specific events of that year. Propertius highlights how a short line can have huge implications for our understanding of the content, aims and effects of Augustus moral reforms.

Content of the laws If the legal, narrative and poetic sources are combined together, it is possible to reconstruct the main provisions of Augustus’ moral reforms introduced. Fundamentally, the laws were the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus and the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis of 18 BCE, and the Lex Papia Poppaea of 9 CE. However, the similarity of their subject matter means that they have been conflated as the Lex Julia et Papia in both the contemporary and later literature.43 The Lex Papia Poppaea was explicitly an update of the previous Lex Julia de maritandis, and this similarity makes analysing the individual laws difficult.44 The issue is compounded by the fact that Augustus himself simply refers to the ‘passage of new laws’ in the Res Gestae, which unhelpfully conflates his entire legislative programme.45 Suetonius adopted a similar strategy, and explicitly referred to laws on ‘excessive expenditure, adultery, chastity, electoral improprieties and the regulation of marriages’ which he sporadically elaborated on.46 However, in order to analyse the precise aims and effects of the legislation it is necessary to, as far as is possible, consider them individually.

The Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus formed the crux of the legislative programme, and encouraged Roman citizens to marry and have children. To ensure clarity, the provisions relating to marriage will first be outlined, along with the rewards and sanctions imposed, and then those associated with having legitimate children within these unions. The law was

42 Badian 1985, 82-98 analyses this argument in detail, and the fact that the law is not mentioned in any other contemporary source material, indicates that it was merely a proposal rather than a complete law. Augustus was known to moot suggestions before legislating. 43 Crawford 1996, 802 comments on this phenomenon. For example, Dig.1.9.5 is the first mention of the legislation, and refers to the ‘Lex Julia et Papia. Historians such as Csillig 1976, 77 refer to the ‘objectives of the Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea’ More recently, Harries 2004, 13 refers to the ‘restrictions imposed on the childless by the Lex Julia et Papia’. 44 Tac. Ann. 3.25. and Cass. Dio. 56.10.3 45 Res Gestae 8. 46 Suet. Aug. 34.

originally thirty- five chapters long and made marriage the legal duty of all adult Roman citizens.47 Citizens who remained unmarried were defined as caelibes, and penalised by the law. Alongside this were guidelines which restricted the types of marriages which senators could make. Paul discusses this aspect in the Digest, and directly quotes a substantial part of the text which was extant in the third century.

A senator, or his son, or his grandson, or his great-grandson by his son, or grandson shall not knowingly or fraudulently become betrothed to, or marry a freedwoman, or a woman who is or has been an actor, or whose father or mother are have been actors. Nor shall the daughter of a senator, or a granddaughter by his son, or a great-granddaughter by his grandson become betrothed to or marry, knowingly or fraudulently, a freedman, or a man who is or has been an actor or whose father or mother is or has been an actor.48

Senators were also forbidden to marry any woman ‘convicted of a criminal offence.’49 Prohibited marriages were not annulled, but ignored, and the participants treated as if they remained unmarried. This was itself contrary to the law, and so the couple were subject to the penalties which were imposed on the unmarried.50

The benefits of obeying the law were both social and political, and affected all areas of society. The exact nature of these rewards are ambiguous, but they were reflected in the seating arrangements at the arena. Suetonius explains that Augustus ‘assigned their own rows’ in the arena to ‘married men of the common people’ which was a mark of their elevated status.51 Cassius Dio indicates that unmarried men and women were banned from ‘watch[ing] public shows and attending banquets’, as this was temporarily lifted for the Secular Games.52 Whilst neither of these are explicitly linked to the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus, it is apparent that the marital legislation infringed on the ability of Roman citizens to fully participate in society.53 The benefits also affected politics, as married men were regarded as senior to bachelors. This is implied by Cassius Dio, as he points out that, when he promoted Gaius, Augustus ‘gave him a wife so that he might enjoy the additional dignity

47 Treggiari 1993, 61: The details of this provision have not survived, but it can be implied from the chapters which are extant. The Lex Papia Poppaea amends the ages at which this was mandatory, and so makes clear that this was a central point of the Lex Julia. 48 Dig. 23.2.44 49 Dig. 23.2.43.10. 50 Treggiari 1993, 63. 51 Suet. Aug. 44. 52 Cass. Dio 54.30.5. 53 Hopkins 1983, 1-30 discusses the importance of the games to society.

possessed by a married man.’54 Suetonius also highlights an incident at the beginning of Tiberius’ reign, where he removed a man who had ‘married a woman on the day before the distribution of posts and divorced her the day afterwards.’ This is a point which will be expanded upon in Chapter Three, and implies that marriage improved one’s eligibility for a position.55 Both references, though vague, explicitly link the benefits to being married, and so it is reasonable to trace the rewards to the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus.56

In contrast, the sanctions which caelibes faced predominantly related to their inheritance rights. It was apparently common for unmarried men to routinely increase their wealth through bequests in the wills of wealthy childless men, and so the prohibitions targeted these ‘legacy-hunters’. As such, caelibes were forbidden to be named in wills where they were outside of the sixth degree of family relations to the deceased.57 Alongside this, Augustus weakened the power of directives in wills that made inheritance conditional on, for example, the recipient remaining unmarried.58

Within legitimate marriage, the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus also encouraged childbearing by sanctioning those who did not have children, orbi, and awarding privileges to families with many. The clearest direct evidence of these rewards is from Paul’s exposition on the benefits for married freedmen, which increased incrementally with each child. For example, fathering a single legitimate child ‘of the age of five years’ was enough to release a freedman ‘from the obligation of performing services’ to his former patron.59 ‘A freedman who shall have two or more male of female children in his power’ was exempt from rendering his patron ‘any services.’ This was on the condition that the children had not ‘hired out his services fight with wild beasts’, and so had retained their social status. The rewards were extensive, and the freedmen was also excused from ‘perform[ing] any work by way of

54 Cass. Dio 55.10.18. 55 Suet. Tib. 43. 56 Treggiari 1993, 66 does so emphatically. 57 Treggiari 1993, 72 argues that this can be inferred from Gaius 2.111, but it is difficult to specifically relate it to the Lex Julia rather than the Lex Papia. 58 Dig. 35.1.64: ‘Where a legacy is bequeathed under the following condition, "If she should not marry Lucius Titius," Julianus says that the law will not apply.’ 59 Dig.38.1.37: There is some ambiguity concerning the age at which children would earn their parent’s rewards, and the Digest here refers to the age of five years. Treggiari 1993, 68 is explicit that, in general, the children actually had to ‘survive’ until maturity, although there is some debate over whether men killed in warfare counted as being alive for the purposes of the legislation. The Lex Irnitana V. 56: although not directly linked to the Augustan legislation, provides more precise evidence of how children were legally regarded. For example, precedent is given to a man ‘provided that two children lost after the giving of the name or one child over puberty lost.’ The name day, in the weeks after the birth, and puberty were thus points at which children generally could earn their parents legal advantages.

gift or service or anything else which he has sworn, promised or bound himself to do…. In return for his freedom.’60

Direct evidence for the rewards which the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus offered the upper classes to encourage childbearing is scarcer, but Treggiari has done much to reconstruct them from a variety of more obscure sources. It is clear that they increased in line with the social position of those affected, and so the legislation supported the traditional hierarchies of the state. For the elite, the benefits were public as well as private, as their social status was a reflection of their political role. The law apparently allowed men to subtract one year from the minimum age of office for every child that they had, and designated that the senior consul was the one with the most children.61 Significantly, the law also offered benefits to women who had multiple children, rather than just to their husbands. For freeborn women, three children granted freedom from guardianship, whilst freedwomen were required to have four.62 Wallace-Hadrill highlights that the legislation promoted three children as the ideal number to get the maximum benefits in Rome.63 This is supported by a reference by Cassius Dio to the fact that Livia had her name ‘inscribed upon the list of mothers who had borne three children.’ As such, it can be assumed that this was the optimum number.64 Rome had a very high child mortality rate, and so aiming for three surviving children, was an attempt to create a substantial increase in the birth-rate.

The Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, also implemented in 18 BCE, was the first Roman law to make adultery a criminal offence.65 Fundamentally, the legislation criminalised the extramarital affairs of women, and the men with whom they had sexual relations.66 It outlined the method of accusing and prosecuting the parties involved, the penalties for those who assisted them, and the rights of the fathers and husbands of the offending woman. In his discussion, the jurist Modestinus highlights that the original law did not directly distinguish between intercourse undertaken with a widow; stuprum, or married women; adulterium. As

60 Dig.38.1.37. 61 Treggiari, 1993, 66. 62 Treggiari 1993, 69, convincingly infers as much from Gaius 1.145. 63 Wallace-Hadrill, 2009, 255 notes that inside Rome, the number was 3, but this increased to 5 in the rest of Italy, and possibly reflects the difficult living conditions of the capital. 64 Cass. Dio. 55.2.6. 65 Crawford 1996, 781 convincingly dates it to 18 BCE: Richlin 1986, 226 highlights the lack of a precedent. 66 Edwards 1993, 38 makes this point explicit.

such, the scope of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis was much wider than the title implies.67

The law also outlines the exact procedure for accusing any citizens of adultery. As Rome was without a state police force, accusations could be brought by any private individual, although minors under twenty-five years of age were too young to become state informants.68 Husbands were obliged to divorce their wives as soon as they became aware of the adultery, and then had sixty days to make a formal accusation, in which time fathers also had the right to report it. After this, any citizen could report the crime, and had four months to make an accusation. 69 Romans could be accused of adultery up to five years after the event if sufficient proof was provided.70 These formal accusations had to specify the place of the crime, the persons committing it, and, if not the precise date, at least the month when it had occurred.71 Cases were then tried in the quaestio de adulteriis, although, as will be discussed in Chapter Three, a small number appeared before the senate.72

If accusations against the man and the woman involved were successful, the punishments were severe. The first book of the Digest highlights that, men of ‘honourable’ upper class rank faced the ‘penalty of confiscation of half their property.’ In contrast men of ‘inferior station’ were subject to ‘corporal punishment in addition to banishment.’73 Women of all ranks were apparently given the status of infamia even if an accusation against them was rescinded.74 Paul suggests that convicted adulteresses were exiled to an island, and so many ancient historians argue that this was the original sanction.75 However, as will be elaborated on it Chapter Three, Cohen has convincingly argued that the exile ad insulum was only used after Augustus exiled his daughter Julia, and so had no basis in the laws.76 The Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus also forbade senators to marry women accused of a criminal offence, and so adulteresses could not remarry within the upper classes.

67 Dig. 50.16.101. 68 Dig. 48.5.16(15).6. 69 Dig. 48.5.4.1. ‘The power to accuse is granted [only] after the husband and the father; for after the sixty-day period, four months are allowed to third parties.’ 48.5.31(30).1 states that ‘sixty days are computed from the time of divorce.’ 70 Dig. 48.5.12(11).4; 48.5.32(31) clarifies that ‘the term of five years should be reckoned continuously.’ 71 Dig. 48.2.3. 72 Garnsey 1967, 56-60 traces the role of these courts until the Severan Age. 73 Dig. 4.18.4. 74 Dig. 23.2.43.12 Ulpian extends this provision to mean that women were given this status, even if the accusation was unfounded. 75 Cohen 2008, 213-214; Edwards, 1993, 40 lists this as a punishment. 76 Cohen 2008, 217 suggests that this punishment was the result of his authority as her father, rather than as Princeps.

However, these public sanctions were accompanied by private ones, and the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis details the precise circumstances in which it was permitted to kill a couple caught committing adultery. The original text has been preserved, and says that any father that bears witness may ‘kill his daughter without delay.’ Ulpian interpreted this to mean that he should immediately ‘kill both of them with one blow and one attack.’77 The same right was not completely extended to the husband, who did not have the unconditional right to ‘kill the woman and any adulterer.’78 Whilst such provisions appear severe, Cohen explains that the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis actually reduced the ability of men to kill the perpetrators, by reducing the circumstances in which it was permitted.79 Augustus transformed adultery from an issue that would be dealt with in the private family home, to one that had to be dealt with in a public according to the rule of law.

The law also included punishments for those who so were accomplices to the crime. For example, Tacitus notes that Titius Labeo was almost prosecuted for failing to ‘enforce the statutory penalty’ when he knew about his wife’s adultery, and this crime was known as ‘pandering.’ Labeo was released as he was technically still within the first sixty days, but it was a serious offence.80 Ulpian carefully analyses this aspect of the legislation, and defines the offender as ‘a husband who acquires anything from the adultery of his wife and also for one who keeps her after she has been caught in adultery.’81 Also targeted were people who directly facilitated the crime by, for example, providing a property for the act or its planning.82

However, there was significant opposition to, and evasion of, the marital legislation, and so Augustus was forced to use the 9 CE Lex Papia Poppaea to update both the sanctions and rewards. Cassius Dio and Tacitus both highlight that it was an amendment to the previous Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus.83 Dio’s Augustus announced in his speech to the Roman equestrians that those who cooperated would be rewarded with ‘other honours and offices’,

77 Dig.48.5.24(23).4; Canterella 1991, 233 argues that the reason for this distinction was to eliminate the possibility that adultery accusations be used as an excuse for political murders. By limiting the unconditional right to fathers, the opportunity to do so was significantly reduced. 78 Dig. 48.5.23(22).4. 79 Cohen 1991, 124. 80 Tac. Ann. 2.84. 81 Dig. 48.5.2.2 Edwards 1993, 57 argues that pandering was a key social fear, and reflects how attacks of female immorality actually directed at male family members and their weakness in being unable to control the behavior of their wives and daughters. 82 Dig. 48.5.10(9) (such as fields, baths or houses). 83 Cass. Dio 56.6.5; Tac. Ann. 3.25.

whilst there would be ‘increased the penalties for the disobedient.’84 As aforementioned, the speech did not reflect a real event, but the increase in both rewards and penalties can be corroborated with other source material. It is difficult to ascertain the specific provisions of the Lex Papia Poppaea, as it is so often conflated with the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus. Nevertheless, it is possible to infer that the main changes that the Lex Papia Poppaea made was to the parameters of who the legislation applies to. For example, the ages at which citizens were obliged to be married were altered to the between 20-50 for women, and 25-60 for men.85 After the end of one marriage, women were given a longer grace period of three years before they were obliged to remarry.86 The rewards for having children within legitimate marriages were also increased, although only a small part of this aspect can be reconstructed. Treggiari also argues that Augustus eased restrictions on spouses inheriting from one another. A single child qualified a woman to inherit her husband’s property on his death, and this was a significant relaxation.87

The legislation also tightened the sanctions in other areas. For example, the maximum length for engagements was also reduced to two years, in response to evasion of the law with extremely long betrothals.88The sanctions which restricted the inheritance rights of the caelibes, were extended to punish orbi. The key change, was that orbi forfeited their property to the ‘state as universal parent’ upon their death, and so could not leave bequests to friends.89 Of bequests that others made to them, half were forfeited to the state, or forcibly given to other, related descendants within the third degree.90 For freedmen, the law was stricter, and stipulated that, unless a freedman had three children or descendants, his patron was able to claim a third of his estate.91 Tacitus highlights that these penalties boosted the treasury, but also led to a rise in the practise of informing. For example, delatores, were entitled to a percentage of the forfeited estate if they reported any people who violated the laws.92 After the Lex Papia Poppaea, this practise became increasingly onerous, and so acted as an indirect deterrent to potential lawbreakers.93

84 Cass. Dio 56.6.5. 85 Treggiari 1993, 66. 86 Suet. Aug. 34. 87 Treggiari 1993, 70 links this to the frequency of younger women being married to older men. 88 Cass. Dio 54.16.7. 89 Tac. Ann. 3.28. 90 Treggiari 1993, 72. 91 Treggiari 1993, 74 highlights that this aspect was frequently cited by later jurists i.e. in Gaius 3.42 ff. 92 Tac. Ann. 3.25. 93 Tac. Ann. 3.28.

Chapter Two: Historiographic Interpretations

The Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea were a complex set of laws, and so their purpose was equally complicated. The aims of Augustus’ moral reforms reflect how he constructed his authority as Princeps over the Roman state and senate. As such, this chapter will present a close analysis of the existing historiography, and highlight the clear oversights, which will be addressed in Chapter Three. Ancient historians continue to debate how they should be interpreted, but there is no general consensus. The chapter will loosely split the existing interpretations into demographic, economic and ideological approaches, and these will be examined in turn. Indeed, the fact that the interpretations of the Lex Julia et Papia, as most of the following historians refer to them, can be split into three distinct sections, is indicative of the failure of ancient historians to present an inclusive analysis. The first part of the chapter will be the longest, and examine the traditional explanations of the laws. These primarily focus on the potential practical reasons for their implementation. As such, I will begin with the historians who argue that the legislation was designed to increase the size of the Roman population, and the extent to which this is supported by the primary source material. The next section will analyse the main economic interpretations of the aims of the laws which can be split into two distinct approaches. As such, I will first examine the argument that the laws were designed to increase the wealth of the state, and then that they were designed to impact the familial wealth of the elite. Lastly, the third section of this chapter will examine whether the laws had an ideological purpose. This is also a complex argument, and so will loosely be split into three sub sections according to the groups which historians suggest that the ideology was attempting to support. Such an analysis will illustrate the oversights in the existing debate which this thesis will address.

Demographic The simplest explanation for the Lex Julia et Papia is that it was a practical response to a demographic problem within the Roman population. This is a complex hypothesis, and so

this section will present a break down the arguments of the ancient historians who support it. First I will examine the debate regarding whether the laws were designed to increase the size of the entire population, or just that of the senate. The rhetoric of the primary source material, will then be cross referenced with the content of the laws and evidence of their effects to determine the validity of this approach.

Perhaps the earliest historian to offer a demographic explanation was James Field in his 1945 ‘The Purpose of the Lex Iulia et Papia Poppaea.’ Using language that is now outdated, Field argues that the legislation was ‘purely eugenic and demographic in its conception’ and designed to simply increase the size of all layers of the Roman population.94 Nevertheless, this interpretation has remained influential and Brunt provides an updated version of it in his Italian Manpower. Brunt conducts a precise quantitative analysis of the census figures from Augustus’ reign, and concludes that Augustus’ motivation was ‘purely demographic.’95 For example, the figures given in the Res Gestae were the first to count women and children, rather than just adult males. This change, Brunt argues, is indicative of a concern with the precise size and structure of the entire population, which was mainly comprised of the lower classes, and how this impacted on the number of potential army recruits.96 The civil wars and upheaval of the end of the republic resulted in a period of unusually high mortality amongst the entire population. Whilst the servile population may have kept the overall figures equal, there was a concerning drop in the traditional Roman citizen body.97 Brunt attributed this relative decline, at least in part, to the unusually high levels of caelibes and orbi.98 Thus, a decline in traditional moral behaviours had undermined the army recruitment from the lower classes, and so it was imperative that the entire population of the Principate be increased.99

Hin directly addresses Brunt’s argument, and her aim is to ‘undermine the view that this period was characterised by a substantial decline in fertility.’ For example, Brunt argues that economic necessity led lower class workers to postpone marriage until they were financially able to support a family. This resulted in lower marriage and childbearing rates

94 Field 1945, 399 makes explicit the link between expanding the population of the lower classes, and the eventual increase in the numbers of the upper class through recruitment. 95 Brunt 1971, 114. 96 Brunt 1971,113 cites Augustus Res Gestae 2 BCE 4,063,000, 8 BCE 4,233,000 and 14 CE 4,937,000. 97 Brunt 1971, 388. 98 Brunt 1971, 9. 99 Brunt, 1971 114.

amongst the traditional lower classes.100 Despite the economic pressures of the upper classes, Hin argues that a reduction in the fertility of the lower class according to this model would not have had any effect on behaviour of the elite.101 Thus, it is inaccurate to suggest that the Lex Julia et Papia were designed to reverse a decline in the size of the Roman population, as there was no pattern between the moral behaviours of upper and lower classes.

Indeed, the demographic argument has been increasingly criticised. Hopkins suggests that Brunt relies too heavily on the perceptions of the narrative literary sources for his conclusions, which reflect those implied by, for example, Cassius Dio.102 Cassius Dio’s 9 CE reflects the Princeps’ perceived motivations and aims. Dio’s Augustus emphasises the necessity of demographic expansion to allow Rome to continue to ‘surpass the rest of the world not only in manly virtue of [her] citizens, but also in the size of [her] population.’103 This dimension is repeated as Augustus declares he will ‘never cease [his] efforts to encourage you to increase our population.’104 The desire to increase the population is closely linked to Roman virtue and so it is clear that, by the third century, the laws were perceived to have had specific demographic aims. Brunt’s hypothesis is similar to the argument presented by Dio, as he argues that the legislation was designed to increase the size of the entire population.

However, this is a misinterpretation of the speech, as Dio clearly states that it was given to the minority equestrian class. Augustus acknowledges that this group were ‘few…in all compared with the great mass of the city’s population.’ 105 The context of the speech will be further analysed in Chapter Three, but this audience undermines the rhetorical focus on demographic expansion. As such, Galinsky argues that the Augustus’ motive cannot have been to increase the size of the entire Roman population. This aim is incompatible with the legislation’s clear concern with the birth-rate of the minority upper class.106 The rewards for marriage and childbearing, as Chapter One, outlined, clearly favoured the elite. Thus, there is a significant discrepancy between the perceptions of contemporaries such as Dio whom Brunt relies upon, and the actual focus of the legislation.

100 Brunt 1971, 138. 101 Hin 2013, 174-175. 102 Hopkins 1972, 193. 103 Cass. Dio 56.1.2. 104 Cass. Dio 56.1.4. 105 Cass. Dio 56.1.2 highlights Augustus’ 9 CE speech, which was directly addressed to the equestrian class. 106 Galinsky 1981, 129.

This is a point which Treggiari makes explicit with her analysis of the exact content of the laws. The minor provisions of the moral reforms, she argues, highlight how the laws had a different function than that presented in the contemporary rhetoric. For example, Treggiari explains that the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus prohibited serving soldiers from marrying. This is not compatible with the desire to increase the size of the population, or the number of men joining the army. Treggiari also argues that the restrictions which were placed on whom senators could marry, were designed to make it more difficult for the elite to find suitable partners, or to have children.107 She concludes that the apparent inconsistency between Augustus’ desire to increase the entire population size, and the content of the legislation, does not in fact suggest that this interpretation of his aims is incorrect. Whilst it is true that ancient law is not always coherent, this conclusion is tenuous and Treggiari neglects to properly analyse the differences which she has identified. These discrepancies indicate that the moral reforms had a different function which Treggiari has not considered and so can be used to discern the actual purpose of the legislation. Indeed, it is clear that that the aim of the purpose of Augustus’ moral reforms was not to increase the size of the Roman population.

Moreover, even Brunt highlighted that the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus only applied to freedmen, or equestrians worth over 100,000 sesterces. This figure was traditionally the threshold for serving on an Italian municipal council, and so reflects a preoccupation with the birth-rate of the economic, political and social elite.108 Hopkins and Burton expand on this point, and argue that the population decline that Augustus was concerned with was limited to the upper classes.109 Crucially, they make the distinction between problems with biological renewal which ensured that the population remained stable, and social renewal which determined whether elite families could maintain the same positions. Hopkins and Burton suggest that the demographic crisis which Augustus was concerned with was in fact social. During the Principate, the upper classes were increasingly unable to ensure that their descendants retained the same social and political positions.110 Indeed, Hopkins and Burton argue that the very existence of the moral reforms provide direct evidence of a declining aristocratic birth rate, as they were a direct and explicit attempt to reverse it.111 However, they concede that they ‘they cannot prove’ that there was a decline and this undermines the

107 Treggiari 1971, 64. 108 Brunt 1971, 565. 109 Hopkins and Burton 1983a, 73. 110 Hopkins, and Burton 1983b, 194. 111 Hopkins, and Burton 1983a, 95.

credibility of their other arguments.112 Hahn and Leunissen have also challenged the statistical basis of their interpretation.113 Whilst they agree that Hopkins and Burton’s overall arguments are persuasive, Hahn and Leunissen are scathing of the data which they use to illustrate the apparent ‘non-inheritability of the consulate.’114 Instead, Hahn and Leunissen argue, the issue of social inheritance should be analysed through the connections and careers of individual families, rather than on a quantitative basis.115 Whilst a holistic approach is of course preferable, they are overzealous in suggesting that the statistical method should be entirely abandoned. Indeed, it is vital for attempting to discern the actual effect of the legislation on the Roman state, and population.

Hin adopts a different methodological approach to expand upon this, and analyses the actual effects of the Lex Julia et Papia on the marriage and birth-rates. Whilst Brunt excludes illegitimate birth-rate from his analysis, Hin considers how it interacted with the moral reforms.116 She argues that the fertility of the upper classes broadly matched that of the wider population. However, their legitimate birth-rate was lower than the total figure, and this impacted the social status of the children born.117 Elite men and women, Hin argues, had less legitimate children within their marriages compared to the lower classes. Instead, affairs with concubines and slaves led to only a percentage of their children being socially or legally recognised as the offspring of the elite.118 These bastards could not inherit the family name, or social position, or be counted on census figures.119 Hin argues that it was this decline which accounted for the perceived fertility problems amongst the upper classes which Dio refers to. Thus, Augustus’ moral reforms can be interpreted as an attempt to reverse the decline in the legitimate birth rate of the elite. Whilst this argument is but a small section of Hin’s demographic study, it deserves a lot more attention. Whereas other historians have simply focussed on the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus and the promotion of marriage, this interpretation also considers the role of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis. For example, the prohibition of adultery would have directly contributed to an increase in the legitimate birth and marriage rate.

112 Hopkins, and Burton, 1983a, 78. 113 Hahn and Leunissen 1990, 81. 114 Hahn and Leunissen 1990, 62. 115 Hahn and Leunissen 1990, 72. 116 Brunt 1971, 136. 117 See Hin 2013, 206. 118 McGinn 1991, 338 argues that the moral legislation actually increased the use of concubines, but children born as a result of such unions were not regarded as legitimate. 119 Hin 2013, 206.

This concern with the legitimate birth-rate of the elite is evident from a closer reading of Cassius Dio’s 9 CE speech.120 Augustus scathingly challenges the assembled equestrians that ‘there is none among you who either sleeps or eats alone’ and this is a clear reference to the prevalence of illicit relationships.121 The men also ‘refuse[d] to beget children even in lawful wedlock’ and this implies that they all had fathered illegitimate children.122 Thus, the speech indicates that Dio was aware of the legislation’s focus on the problem of children born outside of equestrian marriages. Although the scale of the problem is unclear, it was clearly a matter of concern for contemporaries. For example, in Ode 4.5, Horace celebrates ‘mothers having similar children.’123 The piece was composed during Augustus’ reign, and illustrates that this effect was perceived as one of the most significant benefits of the Augustus’ rule, and the moral reforms.

Economic The difficulty in determining accurate statistics concerning the Roman population, means that many historians remain unconvinced of the validity of the demographic argument. As such, it has instead been argued that the Lex Julia et Papia was designed to have a specific economic effect. This section will consider the main economic interpretations, and these can be split into two distinct sub-sections. Tacitus explicitly states that the legislation was motivated by the need to boost the income of the treasury, and so the validity of this argument will be examined first. The second half of this section will then consider the argument that the laws were designed to have a specific economic effect on the elite whom they targeted. Indeed, Wallace- Hadrill argues that the sanctions and rewards in the Lex Julia et Papia overwhelmingly related to inheritance rights, and this suggests that they were part of a wider policy to control who met the economic threshold for membership of the elite. Traditionally, ancient historians have been scathing of any economic interpretation of the legislation. For example, Field argued that economic interpretations were driven by the fact that ‘a suit over a bequest is always more interesting than a rising birth rate.’124 However, this ignores the real merits of such an approach.

120 Hin 2013, 207 argues that, whilst the speech which he attributes to Augustus cannot be considered as a verbatim account, it nonetheless represented key contemporary beliefs. 121 Cass. Dio 56.7.1. 122 Cass. Dio 56.5.5. 123 Hor. Carm. 4.5.11. 124 Field 1945, 415.

The ancient commentators emphasise the economic motivations of moral reforms, and so this is a claim that must be seriously examined. Tacitus is typically cynical of the purpose of the Lex Papia Poppaea:

This had been organised by Augustus in his later years, as a supplement to the Julia legislation, to tighten the sanctions against celibacy, and to increase revenue. 125

The Lex Papia Poppaea strengthened both the sanctions and rewards of the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus and the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, and the potential increase in revenue was perceived as a key motive. According to Tacitus, this had serious consequences during Augustus’ reign:

There were spies, encouraged by inducements from the Papian-Poppaean law, under which failure to earn the advantages of parenthood meant loss of property to the State as universal parent. 126

This is a direct attack on the delatores, whom Tacitus regarded as an abhorrent side effect of the legislation. He highlights the substantial revenue which they produced by alerting the state to violators of the laws. The very fact that so many were menaced by informers suggests that there were a large number of citizens who were in danger of having to forfeit their property. Wallace-Hadrill expands upon this, and is ‘confident’ that the state increased its revenue as a direct result of the Lex Julia et Papia.127

Hopkins and Burton have expanded upon this point, and link the moral reforms to the 5% tax on bequests which Augustus introduced in 6 CE. Whilst this did not officially form part of the Lex Julia et Papia, the tax only applied to bequests to persons unrelated to the deceased, and this reflects the sanctions on inheritances which the moral reforms imposed. As such, the moral reforms can be interpreted as part of Augustus’ wider economic strategy.128 By taxing inheritances, Augustus betrayed his interest in them as an important source of imperial revenue. These taxes and penalties were the most damaging to senators such as Tacitus who had significant wealth to lose. As such, his interpretation of the moral reforms reflects his personal perception and concerns. One must be careful not to overstate these economic motives, as it is impossible to quantify the money raised. Indeed, the control of

125 Tac. Ann. 3.25. 126 Tac. Ann. 3.28. 127 Wallace-Hadrill 2009, 270. 128 Hopkins 1983, 243.

property and increase in imperial revenue cannot be regarded as the sole aim of the laws, but rather a desirable by product of a complex legislative programme.

Wallace-Hadrill also analyses the rise of informers, but argues that they indicate that the legislation had a different economic purpose. Delatores could receive a proportion of the property that the state gained from their information, and so the wealthy elite were the most attractive targets.129 Whilst Tacitus and Wallace-Hadrill both suggest that the laws had an economic purpose, Wallace-Hadrill argues that they were designed to regulate the finances of elite families, rather than the state treasury. The complex system of economic rewards and sanctions clearly illustrates that the laws were aimed at the propertied upper classes, whom they could most affect.130As Chapter One highlighted, the sanctions restricted the inheritance rights of Romans according to the amount of children they had. Wallace-Hadrill argues that the moral reforms were introduced to stabilise the transmission of status and property amongst the upper class, and so reinforce the elite social order.131 Crucially, he suggests that encouraging marriage and childbearing ensured that property was inherited in a predictable manner, and so stabilised the relative status of elite families.

Moreover, Wallace-Hadrill precisely analyses the content of the legislation, and suggests that the promotion of three as the ideal number of children for senators was specifically designed to ensure that they had a single heir to inherit. Within Roman Italy, it was common practise for inheritances to be divided equally amongst remaining children, and so this increased the risk of splitting estates.132 He argues that there was, statistically, a 1/3 chance that any child would die, and so three children gave the best chance of a single one surviving. Despite having similar mortality rates, freedmen were required to have more children before they gained any benefits, as anything less than three children meant that they would forfeit some of their estate. Wallace-Hadrill argues that the number was calculated to make it difficult for the children of freedmen to inherit enough wealth to qualify for entrance to the equestrian or senatorial orders.133 Thus, the moral reforms were designed to ensure the stability of the traditional elite members, and prevent freedmen from joining. In their earlier work, Hopkins and Burton suggested that an average of five or six children births per family were required to ensure population stability, and this corroborates Wallace-Hadrill’s

129 Wallace-Hadrill 2009, 253. 130 Wallace-Hadrill 2009, 250. 131 Wallace-Hadrill 2009, 253 132 Hopkins, and Burton, 1983a, 43. 133 Wallace-Hadrill 2009, 256.

suggestion that three would result in their being only one heir. Indeed, these statistics further undermine the argument that Augustus was attempting to enact any real increase in the size of the Roman population.134 Nevertheless, Brunt argues that figure was actually ‘discouragingly high’ target, and so these figures were contentious.135

Whilst Wallace-Hadrill’s hypothesis offers an invaluable perspective on Augustus’ reforms, his argument is undermined by its reliance on such tenuous data. The statistical data required to determine the exact mortality rate of the Roman Republic and Principate simply does not exist, and so it is difficult to establish whether the figure was higher or lower than average. Indeed, the claim that Roman legislation was enacted on the basis of an analysis of child mortality statistics is unconvincing as they did not exist. Wallace-Hadrill credits Augustus with a level of precision planning which was not characteristic of Roman law. Indeed, Treggiari illustrates the fundamental inconsistencies within the legislation, and cannot be reconciled with Wallace-Hadrill’s argument. He does concede that the legislation may not have been the result of any ‘cool calculation’ but this is not a strong enough refutation.136 Nevertheless, Wallace- Hadrill’s interpretation illustrates the necessity of integrating an economic perspective into the analysis of the legislation. Whilst the legislation is too complex to have been solely aimed at economic manipulation or gains, Wallace-Hadrill demonstrates the importance of applying an analysis that is not solely based on the interpretations of the contemporary narrative sources.

Ideological As it has been proven that the demographic and economic motives are not sufficient to explain the purpose of the legislation, ancient historians have increasingly argued that their purpose was ideological. However, there is a debate concerning the focus of this ideology, and so this section will be loosely split into three. The first to be examined is the argument that the laws were designed to support the ideology of Augustus as Princeps, and his rule of the wider Roman population. Next, the section will analyse the suggestion that the ideology promoted by the legislation was designed to enhance the perception of the entire Roman state, and directed at the territories which they conquered. Lastly, the section will consider the suggestion that the ideology was in fact aimed at the supporting the Roman class structure, and the supremacy of the senate as the social and political elite.

134 Hopkins, and Burton, 1983a, 95. 135 Brunt 1971, 563. 136 Wallace-Hadrill 2009, 269.

For example, in Frank’s consideration of ‘Augustus’ Legislation on Marriage and Children’ he is clear that the Lex Julia et Papia were designed to promote a new ideology in the Principate, rather than by practical demographic or economic issues. Frank explicitly builds upon the hypotheses of Ronald Syme, and unequivocally argues that ‘we are dealing…with elements of political ideology.’137 The Principate marked a distinct change from the republican system of governance, and so Augustus’ new regime needed a strong ideological basis to enable him to secure the hegemony. Indeed, the legislation played an integral role Augustus legitimising his position by characterising him as a strong leader who restored moral values. In the Res Gestae, Augustus stated:

By new laws passed with my sponsorship, I restored many traditions of the ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later generations.138

The Res Gestae was a biographical inscription listing Augustus’ achievements, and so reflects the official ideology which he promoted. Thus, the emphasis on traditional behaviour is a direct reference to the moral reforms. Frank argues that this link, and the reforms themselves, were solely aimed at securing the support of the conservative rural elite who were concerned about the behaviour of the senate in Rome, and so ‘to affirm the traditions of the gentry.’139 The rewards and sanctions offered by the laws were designed to align marriage with rank and status.140 As outlined in Chapter One, marriage was increasingly promoted as a qualification for political power, and this favoured Augustus’ conservative supporters. Nevertheless, Frank fails to fully appreciate how the ideological purpose of the legislation interacted with its practical effects. The rewards that the legislation offered did indeed align marriage with status, but the practical implications of this on how the Principate was governed, and on the status of other citizens, have not been sufficiently analysed. Indeed, Frank’s argument is too simplistic, and he ignores the difference in the ideological functions of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea. As such, Frank’s interpretation must be significantly expanded to accurately determine the aims and effects of Augustus’ moral legislation.

137 Frank 1975, 48. 138 Res.Ges. 8. 139 Frank 1975, 50. 140 Frank 1975, 45.

Like Frank, Galinsky suggests that the legislation was motivated by ideological concerns, but was designed to target a different group. The aim, he argues, was to support the imperial domination of Rome over different territories, rather than the political domination of Augustus over the Roman population.141 Galinsky is not convinced by Augustus’ archaising rhetoric, and argues that his claims to be restoring traditional moral behaviours were purely ideological. Fundamentally, Galinsky argues that Rome’s perceived moral superiority, based upon the promotion of the moral reforms, was an essential part of its successful imperial expansion. The Lex Julia et Papia, reinforced the perception that Roman citizens, and the ruling elite, were morally superior to other territories. This perceived superiority was used by contemporaries to justify Rome’s aggressive conquest of surrounding nations.142 Galinksy suggests that this supposition of ‘moral superiority was hollow.’143 His argument is compelling, and supported by a wide range of primary source material. For example, Galinsky argues that the alignment of moral and territorial decline is a ‘leitmotif’ in Livy’s history.144 Livy’s history of Rome does not cover the period of Augustus, he was a contemporary to the Princeps, and so witnessed ideological effect of the moral legislation.145 He begins with:

Then let him note how, with the gradual relaxation of discipline, morals first gave way, as it were, then sank lower and lower, and finally began the downward plunge which has brought us to the present time, when we can endure neither our vices nor their cure.146

The perceived decline is indeed a key theme and Galinsky is unique in integrating this perspective into the debate. However, like Brunt, he relies too heavily on the rhetoric of the ancient source material. Livy’s association of the two themes was a reflection of his literary style, and so should not be treated as an unbiased narrative of events.

Indeed, this point is highlighted by Edwards, whose 1993 study of The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome is one of the more recent works in the field. He argues that in the Roman world, the concepts of morality, and so marriage and childbearing, were inextricably linked to power and politics, and this is a point which Chapter Three will explore in moral detail.147 Whilst,Galinsky makes a significant contribution to the interpretation of Augustus’

141 Galinsky 1981, 134. 142 Galinsky 1981, 139. 143 Galinsky 1981, 140. 144 Galinsky 1981, 143. 145 Miles 1995, 9 outlines how Livy used traditional concepts of moral history in a unique way. 146 Livy 1. Pref. 9. 147 Edwards 1983, 24.

moral reforms by considering their relationship to imperial expansion, it is more useful to consider their internal, rather than external aims. Indeed, Edwards highlights the extent to which moralising rhetoric is apparent in the tone of the legislation itself.148 As such, he argues that the Lex Julia et Papia should be interpreted primarily as political tools.

For example, contemporary concerns regarding moral behaviour characteristically focussed on the upper classes, and this is reflected in the purpose of the Lex Julia et Papia.149 The perceived moral superiority of the upper classes was an important part of the ideology which legitimised the class structure and social hierarchy. Edwards argues that the legislation was in fact designed to change the perception of the behaviour of the upper classes, and reinforce their superiority, rather than the behaviour itself. As such, he criticises Treggiari for maintaining that the legislation addressed a specific practical problem.150 This is the central premise of Edwards’ argument that the ‘legislation should not be seen as a straightforward, common sense solution to a troublesome social problem’ of any kind, but instead a ‘symbolic’ work.151 It is perhaps overzealous to suggest that the moral legislation had no practical basis, but the perceived impact of the legislation must be taken into account when analysing the evidence in the primary source material, such as Livy. As such, Edwards’ hypothesis can be integrated into an examination of the practical aims and effects of the legislation, as well as the wider ideology of Augustus’ state.

However, ancient historians have consistently considered the content of the laws, the contemporary rhetoric, and the aims and effects of the legislation separately. It is this division which has resulted in the historiographic impasse, and so Chapter Three will analyse the different factors together. Whilst the legislation was designed to have at least a small demographic effect, it is clear that it was primarily aimed at the upper classes. Augustus, one can argue, aimed to increase the legitimate birth-rate and moral behaviour of only that minority section of society. The economic sanctions imposed on those who did not comply provided a boost for the treasury, but the reforms are too complex to have been designed to have a solely economic effect. Within Roman society, issues of morality were closely related to politics, and so the ideological aspect of the reforms is arguably the most important. These different approaches are not, however, incompatible and should instead be considered as part of a holistic analysis. Yet, the most significant oversight in the existing interpretations, is the

148 Edwards 1993, 2. 149 Edwards 1983, 24. 150 Edwards 1983, 35. 151 Edwards 1983, 36.

lack of any meaningful analysis of the primary evidence to highlight the actual function of the reforms. Cassius Dio, Tacitus and Suetonius refer to cases where defendants were tried according to the moral reforms, but these have not been integrated in to the debate. As such Chapter Three will examine these cases and cross reference them with the other primary evidence to determine the practical and ideological functions of Augustus’ moral reforms.

Chapter Three: The function of Augustus’ moral reforms

During his 9 CE speech, Dio’s Augustus urged that the equestrians should ‘understand, not only from my words from my actions how far [they] excel [the unmarried]’ and that is methodological advice that shall be followed in this chapter.152 The interaction between the words; rhetoric which accompanied the legislation, and the content of the laws, and their actions; actual effects on the public and private lives of senators, will be closely examined. It has been established in Chapter Two that the moral reforms were primarily concerned with the elite classes of senators, equestrians, and their families. The Roman state was based upon a precise social and political hierarchy, with the elite of equestrians and senators at its head. As Princeps, Augustus created a new position at the top of this structure, and I will argue that the moral reforms functioned to reinforce the new hierarchy. The laws strengthened the collective authority of the senate as the ruling elite, whilst undermining their individual power in favour of that of the Princeps. Only by carefully examining the legislation in the context of this structure, is the function of the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, the Lex Papia Poppaea and the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis apparent.

In Chapter Two, I highlighted how ancient historians have worked extensively to interpret Augustus’ moral reforms. Nonetheless, the few direct examples of how the legislation was enforced on the senate have thus far been neglected. The complexity of the source material has obscured the fact that the moral reforms were integral to shaping Augustus’ relationship with the social and political elite, and ensuring the stability of the

152 Cass. Dio 56.3.9.

Principate. Within the works of Suetonius, Tacitus and Cassius Dio, there are specific cases that can be analysed to determine both the actual and perceived aims and effects of the legislation. The nature of the narrative sources mean that these examples are referred to only briefly, and so they must be closely analysed to draw conclusions which can be extrapolated. Whilst many of the cases, occurred under the reign of Augustus’ successor Tiberius, Cowen argues that Tiberius consciously imitated Augustus’ policies. 153 The cases which Tiberius, the courts, and the senate, administrated illustrate the way that the legislation functioned as the Principate matured, and this can be cross referenced with Augustus’ original aims.

The complex function of the moral reforms is apparent if they are analysed according to their separate aims, and so this chapter will be split into two sections. The first will consider the practical and ideological implications of the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and the Lex Papia Poppaea. As outlined in Chapter One, it is difficult to separate the exact provisions of these laws, and so they will be analysed together to determine the function of their promotion of marriage and childbearing. The second section of the chapter will then examine the function Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis and its prohibition of adultery. Cassius Dio, Tacitus and Suetonius include far more accounts of how this law functioned and so the analysis include a wider variety of cases. These will be cross referenced to illustrate the way that the legislation functioned as a means to regulate Augustus’ relationship with the senate. Together, these sections will demonstrate how Augustus’ moral reforms functioned to ensure the future of not only the Roman state, but the Principate as a system of governance, with the Princeps as regulator of the social and political elite.

The Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and the Lex Papia Poppaea

The promotion of marriage and childbearing formed the basis of Augustus’ programme of moral reforms. As Chapter Two explained, Hin argues that the legislation aimed to increase the legitimate birth-rate of the elite, and this was reliant upon an accompanying increase of the marriage rate.154 Marriage and childbearing, therefore, must be examined as two interconnected parts of Augustus’ strategy. Thus, this section will separate the laws according to their practical and ideological functions, rather than the behaviour which they promoted. The distinction between practical and ideological is, however, rather arbitrary, as the two are inextricably linked. Whilst it is difficult to neatly split the functions of the legislation, the

153 Cowen 2009, 182. 154 Hin 2013, 206.

division facilitates a clearer presentation of the complexity of Augustus’ motives. As such, the ideological function of the laws in stabilising the perceived authority of the senate will be examined first. Afterwards, the practical impact will be analysed to determine how the laws ensured the survival of the Principate.

Ideological The Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea played a significant role in shaping the ideology of the new Principate. The laws ostensibly regulated the practical behaviour of Roman citizens, but the focus on specific behaviours had a key impact on the public perception of Augustus and the upper classes. As such, this sub-section will examine how the legislation functioned to stabilise the positions of the Roman state, elite and Augustus within the social and political structures of the Principate. The unique interactions of the legislation with the ideology which supported these different structures over a range of time frames will be separately examined and cross referenced. From this analysis, it will be apparent how the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea evolved to support the stability of the Principate in the immediate aftermath of the civil war, during Augustus’ reign, and beyond the rule of Tiberius.

The immediate role of this ideology is apparent if one considers the context in which the laws were enacted. As Chapter One illustrated, Propertius can be used to imply that Augustus attempted to make marriage compulsory in 28 BCE. Augustus’ sole rule is commonly dated from the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, and so an attempt to pass moral legislation only three years later, suggests that he believed them to be essential for securing the stability of the new Principate. Frank argues that the reason for this urgency was Augustus’ concern regarding the immoral behaviour of the elite. However, I shall argue that it was the perception of their behaviour which was problematic, and threatened to undermine the newfound stability of the state.155 Roman contemporaries interpreted the civil war as the product of a practical problem and moral decline amongst the governing classes.156 Such a complete breakdown of traditional political practises, was perceived as proof of a similarly catastrophic social change. This is evident in Horace’s Odes:

155 Frank 1975, 43. 156 Edwards 1992, 1-206 highlights the complexities of this association.

Generations prolific in sin first defiled marriage, the family, and the home. From this source is derived the disaster which has engulfed our fatherland and its folk.157

Horace presents the restoration of traditional behaviours, and so the promotion of marriage and childbearing, as a prerequisite for the return of peace and stability. Whilst the Ode was written after the war, it reflects contemporary perceptions about the cause. Ancient historians also support this interpretation, and Csillig argues that the period before the civil war was characterised by a decline in traditional moral behaviours, and the ‘disintegration of the family.’158 Thus, whether the legislation had a tangible effect on the behaviour of the elite, their very presence in the immediate aftermath of the civil war created the perception that Augustus was addressing a key issue which had undermined the authority of the senate. Csillig emphasises this aspect, and argues that by enhancing the perception of the elite, the laws helped to preserve their social and political power over the wider Roman population. 159 Whilst the defilement of marriage Horace refers to implies a perceived increase in adultery, promoting marriage provided a positive solution to the issue by emphasising the benefits of promoting desirable behaviour, rather than simply punishing bad. Although the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis was enacted alongside the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, the original legislation Augustus planned focussed solely on increasing the marriage rate. Thus, the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis reinforced the perception that the elite were capable of ruling Roman society after the civil war had undermined their ideological legitimacy.

After the immediate need to stabilise the state social and political structure, Augustus legitimised his own position by claiming to be restoring the ideals of Rome’s mythical founders. Augustus’ attempts to introduce moral reforms soon after his victory, illustrates the dissatisfaction with the moral behaviour of citizens during the republic. As such, he claimed to be reintroducing traditional behaviours such as marriage and childbearing which had been neglected. The function of the reforms is clear from an analysis of Cassius Dio’s 9 CE speech, which closely linked improving marriage rates with traditional practises from Rome’s mythical foundation. Dio’s Augustus invokes Romulus and the foundation legends of Rome, including the rape of the Sabine women. The first Romans, he explains ‘carr[ied] off foreign girls’ so that they would not be deprived of the ability to marry.160 This reinforces the notion that the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis was reviving traditional behaviours as, ‘even in

157 Hor. Carm. 3.6. 15. 158 Csillig 1976, 53-54: Earl 1967, 16 also makes this point. 159 Csillig 1976, 20. 160 Cass. Dio 56.5.5.

times past, no man was ever allowed to neglect marriage.’161 Thus, by frequently referring to Romulus’ desire that citizens marry, Augustus used the legislation to associate himself and his policies with the founder of Rome.

The alignment of Augustus and Romulus is evident in other sections of Dio’s history, and in other sources from the period. As such, it can interpreted as a reflection of the ideology which Augustus used to legitimise his authority throughout his reign. For example, Dio explains that Octavian had initially wanted to use the name Romulus instead of Augustus, but was advised against it. 162 Whilst he was remembered as a heroic founder and leader of the state, Romulus was of course a monarch, and such an explicit reference to a King could have undermined Augustus’ legitimacy as Princeps. Nevertheless, Crook argues that the name ‘Augustus’ was also a subtle reference to Romulus, and so ‘came to the same thing.’163 Goldschmidt expands upon this interpretation, and convincingly argues that the new name ‘Augustus’ was a reference to Ennius’ Annals:

It is seven hundred years, a little more or less, since famous Rome was founded by august augury.164

Thus, both Augustus’ policies his and title directly recalled Romulus’ foundation of Rome, and so legitimised his position as sole ruler. Suetonius also directly compares Augustus to Romulus; ‘In Augustus’ first consulship, when he was taking auspices, twelve vultures appeared, as they had to Romulus’ and so the association was explicit, even in the years after Augustus’ reign.165

This link is also implied in the artistic works of the period, and Horace repeatedly refers to Augustus as the ‘guardian of Romulus’ folk.’166 Indeed, Zanker argues that the visual imagery of the first century promoted both Augustus’ association with Romulus, and his emphasis on moral reform. In the Forum of Augustus, he explains, the two central niches were occupied by statues of Romulus, and Aeneas as direct representatives of Rome’s heroic mythological past.167 He argues that the artists of the Augustan period ‘joined together past and future in a single image’ and this is indicative of the way in which the Princeps utilised

161 Cass. Dio 56.6.4. 162 Cass. Dio 53.16.5-6. 163 Crook 1996a, 76. 164 Goldschmidt 2013, 28 cites Enn. Ann. 154-5. 165 Suet. Aug. 95. 166 Hor. Carm. 4.5.1. 167 Zanker 1990, 201-203.

the ideology of historic events, and peoples, to support the future stability of the state.168 The ‘fusion of myth and history’ reflected the fusion of ideological and practical policies which legitimised Augustus’ rule.169 These motifs illustrate the impact which promotion of marriage and childbearing had on the ideology which linked Augustus to Romulus. They provided a tangible means for Augustus to associate himself with the policies of Romulus and legitimise his claim to be restoring traditional values and stabilising the state.

The significance of this ideological function of the legislation is apparent if one considers the wider role of familial themes in the Principate. Whilst Augustus was not the first Roman to have been granted the title of Pater Patriae, it became an integral part of his position.170 He was awarded the title in 2 BCE and Suetonius notes that ‘All joined together with alacrity and unanimity in conferring upon him the title ‘Father of the Fatherland.’’ Augustus was apparently moved to tears by this, his ‘highest hopes realized, O senators, what else can I ask of the gods.’171 Whilst, Cassius Dio does not include the precise moment it was conferred, he explains the function of Pater Patriae in his own time.

The term Father perhaps conferred a certain authority on them, such as fathers once possessed over their children. However, this was not its meaning when it was first bestowed upon the emperors. It was intended rather as an honour and also an exhortation both to them that they should love their subjects as they would their children, and to their subjects that they should revere them as they would their fathers.172

The language implies that Augustus was no longer the political leader of the country, but its familial head, and this shift significantly affected the way that he was able to govern.173 Augustus’ role as Father of Rome, supplemented his promotion of the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea and Bauman explicitly links the new title to his legislation.174 The moral reforms contributed to the perceived legitimacy of his practical position as ruler, which was increasingly based upon concepts of the family. As Rutledge argues, Augustus’ role as Pater Patriae reinforced the notion that the private family life of the Roman elite, including their fertility and fidelity, were under his personal jurisdiction.175

168 Zanker 1990, 205. 169 Zanker 1990, 215. 170 Suet. Iul. 76: The title was awarded to Julius Caesar, amongst others. 171 Suet. Aug. 58. 172 Cass. Dio 53.18.3. 173 Bauman 1992, 117 refers to Augustus ‘new identity’. 174 Bauman 1992, 106. 175 Rutledge 2001, 64.

However, the success of this ideology relied upon there being at least a perceived increase in marriage and childbearing rates. Dio makes this link explicit, as his Augustus asks the equestrians:

‘How could I be a good ruler to you if I could bear to see your numbers growing ever smaller? How could I any longer properly be called father by you if you rear no children?’176

By not complying with Augustus’ moral reforms, the elite threatened the very legitimacy of his rule. The presentation of Augustus as Pater Patriae relied upon the practical success of his moral legislation, and his claims to be reforming the morals of the upper classes, and repopulating the state.

The longer term effect of this ideology on the public perception of the senate, is evident from the language which the narrative sources use to refer to refer to both married and unmarried citizens. As Chapter One outlined, being married had a tangible effect on the social and political status of Roman men and women, and the legislation closely linked familial status to political power. This was a direct reflection of Augustus’ ideological emphasis on the link between his own role as Pater Patriae and his authority as Princeps and sole ruler. The long term effect of this link on the position of the senatorial ordo is evident from the trial of Aemilia Lepida, which both Suetonius and Tacitus refer to. Lepida was tried during Tiberius’ reign, but Tacitus includes it immediately after the attempts to ‘mitigate the Papian Poppaean law’, and so it was clearly linked to the moral reforms. She was ‘accused of falsely claiming to bear the son to…Publius Suplicius Quirinus’ who was her ex-husband.177 Quirinus was a ‘fine soldier’ who had risen to consul,178 advisor to Gaius Caesar and governor of Syria, and so a key public figure. 179 Lepida was also of ‘most noble birth’ and,180 Tacitus alleges, was almost Augustus’ daughter-in law.181

Rutledge argues that the case was political in nature, but the language used by the source material to describe the participants is indicative of the impact which the legislation had on notions of power and authority in the Principate.182 The trial is particularly complex,

176 Cass. Dio 56.9. 2-3. 177 Tac. Ann. 3.22. 178 Tac. Ann. 3.48. 179 Thorley 1979, 81-84: The dating of his governorship is ambiguous, but Quirinius is most commonly known as the governor under which the Nativity Census was, according to Luke, undertaken. 180 Suet. Tib. 49. 181 Tac. Ann. 3.23. 182 Rutledge 2001, 61.

and Townend argues that Tacitus described it using unusually emotive language.183 For example, despite holding powerful political positions, Quirinius remained an unpopular figure. This can be directly linked to the fact that he was ‘rich and childless’ and in direct violation of the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea.184 The description of the status of the participants is particularly telling, and the public reaction to the trial illustrates the social perception of orbi:

The crowd was sympathetic and tearful, and howled savage curses upon Quirinius as a childless low-class old man to whom a woman once destined to be Augustus’ daughter-in-law (for she had been engaged to Lucius Caesar) was being sacrificed.185

Quirinius’ familial status is depicted as a reflection of his moral character, and as an insult against him. Suetonius also refers to Quirinius’ lack of children as a part of a negative description of him. This is all the more striking considering he does not mention the false child at all:

Lepida, too, a woman of most noble birth, was condemned through the influence of the ex- consul Quirinus, a childless man of immense wealth, who had divorced her, then, after twenty years, accused her of once having procured poison to use against him.186

Lepida’s social status is conveyed through references to her ancestry, and contrasted with Quirinus’ childlessness. This perception also had a practical effect, as the crowd attempted to mitigate Lepida’s sentence. Despite her criminal behaviour, Lepida was twice married mother from an important family, and, Quirinus, despite his personal achievements, was an orbi and so socially and politically inferior. Whilst this is only one isolated case, it is indicative of the impact which Augustus’ ideology had on the status of the elite. By basing his own claim to power on familial status, Augustus ensured that the unmarried or childless were increasingly perceived as socially inferior.

The wider implications of this policy on the authority of the senate are clear from a closer analysis of Tacitus’ Annals. Writing a generation after Augustus’ reign, Tacitus increasingly uses marital status as a positive adjective in his depiction of characters and so illustrates the ideological impact that the legislation had. Marriage was of course respected before Augustus’ reforms, but the social and political supremacy that the Lex Julia de

183 Townend 1962, 489. 184 Tac. Ann. 3.22. 185 Tac. Ann. 3.23. 186 Suet. Tib. 49.

maritandis ordinibus and the Lex Papia Poppaea gave to married men and fathers had a significant cultural impact. As well as impacting the perception of childless men such as Quirinius, the legislation, crucially, enhanced the political power of those who complied, and so mirrored Augustus’ ideology. Chapter One illustrated the fact that the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and the Lex Papia Poppaea rewarded men who married or had children with precedence in political processes, just as Augustus’ own supremacy was legitimised by his title as Father. Tacitus illustrates the function of this ideology in his description of a letter which Tiberius allegedly wrote to the senate recommending his son Drusus. Whether the letter is real is unclear, but it is the language used which is indicative of the impact of the legislation. According to Tacitus, the letter:

point[ed] out that Drusus was a married man with three children and had reached the age at which he had been called to the same responsibilities by the divine Augustus.187

The most compelling reason for granting Drusus the tribunate is given first; his marital and familial status. For the senate, Tacitus and his audience, the fact that Drusus was married with children was evidence that he was qualified for a leading political position. Thus, the language used by both Suetonius and Tacitus in these two cases, as well as those outlined in Chapter One, illustrates the impact that the ideology of Augustus’ reign had on Roman notions of status and power.

Indeed, the rewards for compliance with the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and the Lex Papia Poppaea explicitly endorsed marriage and fatherhood as qualifications for leadership. The effect of this policy on the power and stability of the upper class in the Principate is evident from the provisions of the Lex Irnitana, which dates from the Flavian period. The legislation originates from the municipality of Irnitana in modern Spain and, when cross referenced with the Leges Salpensana and Malacitana, illustrates how familial status interacted with election to office.188 Whilst the law is not explicitly based upon the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis or the Lex Papia Poppaea, it reflects the impact that they had on the practical governance of the wider Principate.189 Tablet V outlines the ‘order in which votes may be taken’ in a meeting of decuriones, and it is evident that the hierarchy was influenced by the ideology and legislation of Augustus’ reign:

187 Tac. Ann. 3.56. 188 Gonzalez and Crawford 1986, 147. 189 Gonzalez and Crawford 1986, 210 Gonzalez explains that the moral reforms had no jurisdiction over this community.

First (from those who have children) ordo by ordo, in the sequence determined by the number of children born to each in legal marriages, or from those who are, or would be if they were Roman citizens, in the same position as they would be if they then had children.190

This precedence is also outlined in the explanation of ‘what it is appropriate to do in the case of those who have an equal number of votes’:

In any curia in which two or more have the same number of votes, he is to place ahead and announce before the others a man who is married or who counts as married, over a man who is not married, without sons, who does not count as married; a man who has sons over a man who does not; a man who has more sons over a man who has fewer.191

The provisions of the Lex Irnitana, therefore, illustrate how men with wives and children were rewarded with increased social and political status when running for office or offering their opinions of others. Thus, the ideology promoted by the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea had a practical effect on the way that the Principate was governed.

Fundamentally, the promotion of marriage and childbearing enhanced the collective position of the upper classes in Rome’s social and political hierarchy. After the turmoil of the civil war, the legislation was designed to improve the perception of the behaviour of the senate, and so stabilise the state structure and their political supremacy. Once this stability had been restored, the moral reforms that were eventually passed functioned as a key part of Augustus’ claim to be restoring a traditional Rome. By emphasising the promotion of marriage and childbearing, Augustus aligned himself with Romulus and the Principate with the heroic Rome of mythology. Indeed, the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea played an integral role in the ideology of Augustus’ position as ruler, as his claims to legitimacy were increasingly based upon his position as Pater Patriae. Augustus was, of course, a senator, and this ideology had a significant impact on the way that power was perceived in the remainder of the Principate, and after his death. The promotion of marriage and childbearing shaped the Roman ideology of authority, as orbi were regarded as socially inferior, regardless of the extent of their political power. Tiberius’ recommendation of Drusus illustrates the extent that familial status was perceived as a qualification for a place at the top of the social and political hierarchy. Thus, the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis,

190 Lex Irnitana. VA. Ch B. 191 Lex Irnitana. V. Ch 56.

and the Lex Papia Poppaea shaped the ideology promoted to support the different stages of the Principate, and stabilised the social hierarchy of the Roman state, with the senate as the ruling elite, and Augustus as their leader.

Practical As aforementioned, the legitimacy of Augustus’ claims to be Pater Patriae, relied upon the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea having a practical impact on the population of the elite. In literal terms, the children that were born as a result of the law, represented the collective future of the state which they would populate. As such, this sub- section will present a comprehensive analysis of the practical functions of the legislation in relation to the roman state and senate. I will illustrate that, whilst the laws failed in their stated aims, this failure betrays their practical wider function. An analysis of the case of the Hortensii family will be used to highlight how the law was practically applied to stabilise the social and political position of specific elite families. Indeed, the sub-section will then examine how the promotion of marriage and childbearing directly supported the practical survival of the entire state, and the long term future of the a Principate. Thus, whilst the practical function of the laws directly reflected, and supported, their ideological role, this sub- section will illustrate that they also tangible effect on the relative positions of Augustus and the senate.

However, an analysis of the primary source material illustrates they the laws were at least perceived to have failed to create a significant practical increase in the marriage or birth- rate during Augustus’ reign. For example, Dio’s Augustus was prompted to make his 9 CE speech because the equestrian class had failed to comply with the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis.

Then, since the knights in the course of the games had pressed him strongly to repeal the law concerning unmarried and childless individuals, he assembled in one part of the Forum those of the equestrian order who were unmarried, and in another those who were married, including those who also had children. When he saw that the latter were far fewer in number than the former, he felt it keenly…192

In refusing to marry or have children, the equestrians jeopardised the political and social future of the state. After addressing to them equestrians, Augustus introduced the Lex Papia

192 Cass. Dio. 56.1.1.

Poppaea to increase the pressure to comply.193 Suetonius also explicitly refers to this protest: ‘during the public shows, knights insistently called for the laws’ abolition.’194 Thus, despite the content of Augustus’ speech being fictional, the protests which prompted it were not. Treggiari argues that these attempts to evade the legislation, through protest or deception, illustrate its considerable practical effect on the elite.195 Whilst, the nature of demographic evidence from the ancient world means that the practical effect of the legislation is difficult to track, the protests clearly indicate that the legislation failed to encourage the elite to increase their marriage or birth rates.196

The content of the speech also illustrates that the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis failed to create a practical change. Dio explains that the proportion of unmarried equestrians was larger than those who were married, and so there had been no decrease in the number of orbi. The onerous practical effect which they were protesting, was clearly not an increase in their marriage rate. Indeed, the unpopularity of the law is a testament to its practical success in sanctioning caelibes and orbi. Tacitus explicitly distinguishes between these practical effects of the legislation:

It had failed, however, to popularize marriage and the raising of families- childlessness was too attractive. But increasingly many people were liable to penalties, since every household was exposed to informers’ technicalities. The danger was now not so much misbehaviour as the law itself. 197

He implies that informants presented a serious problem for the elite, and this is indicative of the proportion who remained unmarried or childless. Instead of escaping the penalties by getting married, or having children, as the law proscribed, the equestrians in 9 CE campaigned for the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis to be abolished.

The failure of the rewards offered by the legislation to have an impact on the marriage and birth rate of the elite, is evident from the case of Marcus Hortensius Hortalus. Hortalus was a senator, and grandson of Quintus Hortensius. 198 Hortensius was a jurist who ‘flourished’ as leading orator alongside Cicero in the Republic.199 Indeed, Although none of

193 Cass. Dio. 56.10. 3. 194 Suet. Aug. 34. 195 Treggiari 1991, 80. 196 Brunt 1971, 3 refers to the lack of statistics as a ‘grave obstacle’ to determining any changes in the Roman population numbers. 197 Tac. Ann. 3.25. 198 Tac. Ann. 2.37. 199 Vell. Pat. 2.36.2.

his works are extant, Dyck refers to him as a ‘precocious talent’ who also had impressive political connections.200 Hortensius’ first wife Lutatia was the daughter of the consul Catalus, and, his second wife Marcia, the ex-wife of Cato.201 Within Roman society, Edwards argues, social and political prestige depended on four key criteria: ancestry, wealth, achievements and culture.202 As Hortensius’ grandson, Hortalus was qualified to be an influential senator and occupy leading positions, and so was a prime target of the moral reforms. However, Tacitus explains that he appeared before Tiberius, and the senate, to ask for a grant to help his family and ‘save from destitution the great-grandsons of Quintus Hortensius, the protégés of the deified Augustus.’203 Suetonius reveals more detail about their financial problems: ‘Hortalus, grandson of the orator Quintus Hortensius, who persuaded by Augustus, had brought up a family of four, despite his limited resources.’204 Tiberius initially refused to give Hortalus anymore money, but pressure from the senate led him to eventually give each son two hundred thousand sesterces.205

The fact that Hortalus was personally encouraged to marry by Augustus is indicative of the Princep’s personal interest in the promotion of marriage and childbearing. During Augustus’ reign, Hortalus had complied with the law and had four children, and so the case illustrates the long term affect which the moral reforms had after Augustus’ death. However, Hortalus was encouraged to do so by rewards that were not part of the legislation. According to Tacitus:

Hortalus was a grandson of the orator Quintus Hortensius, and had been persuaded by a grant of a million sesterces from Augustus to marry and have children, thus preventing the extinction of his famous family.206

Suetonius also directly links Hortalus’ decision to marry to Augustus’ personal ‘persuasion.’207 Unlike the rewards offered by the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea, which were received after a citizen had married or had children, the one million sesterces was a bribe that was given beforehand. This indicates that, whilst Hortalus was certainly persuaded in the spirit of the law, the inducements which it offered were not

200 Dyck 2008, 144. 201 See Dyck 2008, 142-173. 202 Edwards 1993, 14 203 Tac. Ann. 2.37. 204 Suet. Tib. 47. 205 Tac. Ann. 2.37. 206 Tac. Ann. 2.37. 207 Suet. Tib. 47.

enough to have a practical effect on his behaviour. The sanctions imposed by the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea were vehemently opposed, but Hortalus’ case illustrates that the generous rewards were similarly unsuccessful in changing the behaviour of the elite.

The size of the bribe highlights how the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and the Lex Papia Poppaea were used to stabilise membership of the elite. In the same passage, Suetonius explains that Augustus had increased the property qualification for the senate from eight hundred thousand sesterces to one million, two hundred thousand sesterces, and this gives a sense of the money involved. Alongside this increase, Augustus ‘ma[de] up the amount in the case of those who did not have it’ through a series of grants to poorer senators.208 Cassius Dio clarifies that these were only given to those who ‘lived upright lives.’209 Thus, moral behaviour became a prerequisite for membership of the elite, and allowed Augustus to favour those who were married and had children. Suetonius also mentions that Augustus frequently gave out grants of ‘sometimes four hundred, sometimes three hundred, occasionally two hundred or five hundred sesterces per man.’210 Thus, it is clear that monetary grants were an integral part of Augustus implementation of the moral legislation. Whilst one million sesterces was a considerable sum, it was comparable to the other grants which Augustus used personally supplemented the legislation and motivate certain senators to comply.

The reason for the favouritism of specific families can be inferred from the 9 CE speech that Augustus gave. Dio’s Augustus begins the speech by addressing the proportion of equestrians who were married, with or without children. Ideologically, he links childbearing to immortality:

Take consolation for what is mortal in our nature through a perpetual succession of generations, who will take up the torch like runners in a race. In this way we can with one another’s help achieve immortality in that one respect in which we fall short of the blessed renewal of the gods.211

He repeats that through ‘the perpetual renewal of young life even the mortal nature of man could, in a sense, be rendered eternal.’212 Whilst the first section of the speech is relatively

208 Suet. Aug. 41. 209 Cass. Dio 54.17.3. 210 Suet. Aug. 41. 211 Cass. Dio 56.2.3-4. 212 Cass. Dio 56.2.3-4.

short, Augustus places a strong emphasis on continuity between the foundation of Rome and the new Principate. This immortality was characterised as a ‘private blessing’ for equestrian families, but the benefits which he describes had clear political implications. Edwards’ criteria for social and political prestige are directly reflected in the immortal benefits of childbearing which Augustus lists:

Is it not blessed, on quitting this life, to leave behind as successor an heir both to your breed and your property, one that is your own, born of your own essence, so that only the mortal element of you passes away, while you live on in the child who succeeds you?213

He then refers to ‘the achievements which you have valiantly wrought, made famous and handed down to you, you may likewise hand down to others.’214 Within the speech, Augustus implies that the childbearing would enable leading senators to retain their political status, and so secure the position of their descendants. Whilst similar to the alignment of Romulus and Augustus, this aspect focussed on the future consolidation of the senate, rather than the immediate stabilisation of the state under the Princeps. By encouraging virtuous senators such as Hortalus, to reproduce, Augustus was attempting to influence the future membership of the social and political elite. Practically, the reforms legitimised the long term position of the Principate as a system of governance, by ensuring the continuity of the traditional social and political elite.

However, these grants were given because the moral reforms were unable to persuade senators such as Hortalus to comply, and this posed an immediate practical problem for the Principate. In this second section of the speech, Augustus critiqued those who did not marry, and there is a much stronger emphasis on the destruction that not complying could bring. Dio’s Augustus explicitly makes the link between procreation, or the lack of it, and the stability and survival of the Principate. He asks ‘How otherwise are families to continue? How can the state be preserved if we neither marry nor beget children?’215 This is indicative of the wider function of the moral reforms, in preventing the practical destruction of the state and social structure. For example, the text characterizes being an orbo or caelibis, as a public issue with communal repercussions, whilst childbearing offered personal benefits. As Dio’s Augustus explains:

213 Cass. Dio 56.3.5. 214 Cass. Dio 56.3.2. 215 Cass. Dio 56.7. 5.

Besides this, you are guilty of destroying the state by disobeying its laws, and of betraying your country by making her barren and childless- worse still you are obliterating her very existence by depriving her of those who would inhabit her in future. 216

To disobey the law, and remain childless, Augustus suggests, was a public threat to the existence of the Roman state, and social structure which it relied upon. The purpose of those who did not procreate, ‘was to extinguish our entire race and make it literally mortal, to put an end to the existence of the entire Roman nation.’217 Thus, by promoting marriage and childbearing amongst the elite, the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea conflated the future of the Roman state with the future of the upper class families. The practical success of the Principate as a system of governance relied upon the elites marrying and procreating, and so maintaining a stable base from which to rule.

Talbert extends this point, and suggests that the long term practical aim, and effect, of the legislation was to make the senate hereditary.218 However, the fate of the Hortensii family clearly illustrates why this is inaccurate. Hortalus originally came before the senate due to his inability to support his four sons, even after Augustus had given him one million sesterces to do so. Despite the 1,800,000 sesterces in grants which they eventually received from Augustus and Tiberius ‘the house of the Hortensii continued to sink into abject destitution.’219 One can presume that, as a result of their insolvency, they were unable to meet the minimum property requirements of the senatorial class, and so were removed. Hortalus directly links this poverty the moral reforms:

In these changed days, I have not been able to inherit or acquire money, or popularity, or even our family characteristic- eloquence. If my small resources neither disgraced me nor encumbered other, I was content. Then I married because the emperor told me to.220

The sanctions in the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis significantly restricted the ability of Romans to inherit money from those which they were not related to. Hortalas indicates that his inability to acquire money predated his decision to marry and have children, and so he would have been affected by the punishments given to caelibes. As Chapter One outlined, the legislation prevented them from inheriting money from anyone whom they were not related to, or bequeathing it to associates. Thus, the fate of Hortensii family is indicative of how the

216 Cass. Dio 56.5.3. 217 Cass. Dio 56.4. 2. 218 Talbert 1984, 30. 219 Tac. Ann. 2.38. 220 Tac. Ann. 2.37.

Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea actually undermined the social and political positon of poorer senatorial families, rather than strengthened them, or creating a hereditary body. This is a stark example of the differences between the desired function and actual effects of the legislation.

Moreover, whilst the legislation did attempt to maintain practical continuity in the governance of the Principate, this was clearly difficult. As outlined in Chapter One, Hopkins and Burton argue that social, rather than biological renewal was a serious issue that undermined the stability of the elite, and the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and the Lex Papia Poppaea did not solve it. For example, 75% of consuls who held office 18-235 CE, directly after Augustus’ reign, did not have a direct descendant who held the same office.221 However, Hahn and Leunissen have criticised the methodology Hopkins and Burton used to determine this percentage. Hopkins and Burton, they argue, misconstrue the limited data available by calculating this percentage using two figures from Eck which concern incompatible time periods. 222 Whilst it is clear that these precise statistics are flawed, they reflect the complexity of any kind of demographic approach to ancient history. The fact that the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and the Lex Papia Poppaea failed to save the Hortensii family should not obscure the fact that they were designed to increase the levels of social renewal in the elite. Marcus Hortalus’ four children were intended to ensure the social and political ‘immortality’ of a leading senatorial family, and the Principate.

The Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis

The Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis was introduced alongside the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, but had a very different social and political function. The prohibition of adultery had a direct effect on the legitimate marriage and birth rates by making the alternatives dangerous. Whilst the promotion of marriage and childbearing consolidated the collective position of Augustus and the elite, the prohibition of adultery functioned to undermine the individual positions of senators. This section will present a close analysis of the practical and ideological aims and effects of the law. Within the primary source material, cases of adulterous behaviour are the mostly commonly reported violations of the moral reforms and so a variety of these will be examined to reconstruct the precise function of the legislation. As

221 Hopkins and Burton, 1983b, 124. 222 Hahn and Leunissen 1990, 62 provide a detailed overview of the problems of using Eck’s data here.

such the first sub-section will once again consider the ideological function of the law, which legitimised Augustus’ personal power over the members of the senate. The second will focus on the practical implications of this, and how the prohibition of adultery enabled Augustus, and his associates, to regulate the membership of the senate, and remove the personal political power of his opponents.

Ideological Adultery is a crime which is uniquely complex to study, as the charge was often conflated with general accusations of degeneracy and capital crimes, such as treason or murder. As aforementioned, political problems in Rome were understood by contemporaries in social terms, and this affected the way in which the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis was enforced. Rather than interpret the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis as a practical attempt to curb adultery and immorality, Edwards argues, the legislation should be regarded as an attack on the metaphors of public and private instability.223 Accusations of adultery were characteristic of public disputes, and routinely used to undermine the social and political position of senators. Attempts to prohibit adultery, therefore, were almost entirely ideological in function, and this is reflected in the way that the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis was enforced.224 The legislation formalised the social control that the ideology of immorality exerted on society, and so must be interpreted within this framework. Thus, attempts to reduce the amount of adultery, such as the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, were inherently political, and this sub-section will begin with an analysis of the implications of this link. Next, I will outline how the prohibition of adultery supported Augustus’ ideological supremacy, and strengthened his individual authority as Princeps. Cases outlined by the primary narrative sources will be used to illustrate how the implementation of the legislation was closely associated with Augustus’ personal authority. The precise function of this link will be evident from an analysis of how Augustus’ personal adultery impacted on his ability to control the behaviour of the senate.

The relationship between this ideology and Augustus’ power is evident from an analysis of how his role as Pater Familias interacted with his position as Pater Patriae.225 As aforementioned, the moral reforms were integral to legitimising Augustus’ authority as Pater Patriae, and the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis enabled him to apply that power to

223 Edwards 1993, 36. 224 Edwards 1993, 27. 225 Saller 1999, 182-197 examinations the precise meaning of the term Pater Familias.

individual members of the elite. The clearest example of this direct control, is Augustus’ punishment of his daughter Julia the Elder. Bauman explains that Julia was punished in 2 BCE, just after Augustus had been conferred the title of Pater Patriae, this is indicative of the close link between the two events.226 Whilst the precise circumstances of her misbehaviour continue to be widely debated, she was accused of adultery.227 However, Cassius Dio is vague on the precise details:

But when [Augustus] discovered that his daughter Julia had so far abandoned any restraint in her conduct that she took part in revels and drinking parties by night in the Forum and even upon the Rostra, he was filled with rage.228

Ancient historians have increasingly explained her disgrace, and the later punishment of her daughter, in political rather than moral terms and the complexity of the incident is such that it cannot be comprehensively dealt with in this thesis. For example, Levick explicitly links the adulteries of Julia the Elder and Younger, and argues that they were part of a faction attempting to depose Tiberius as heir.229 Crook’s interpretation is, however, the most persuasive. She argues that the Julia’s actions, or the perceptions of them, fundamentally undermined Augustus’ ideological power, which was based upon his familial status and control of public morality, and so she was punished accordingly.230 As such, I will examine only Julia’s punishment for the perceived crime, as it provides a high profile example of the way in which the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis was enforced.

As a result of her crime, Dio explains that Julia was ‘banished to the island of Pandateria’, whilst her alleged lovers were sent to different islands.231 As outlined in Chapter One, Cohen argues that the punishment of exile ad insulam was derived from Augustus’ intervention in this incident, rather than from the original content of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis. Upon hearing about Julia’s behaviour, Augustus was ‘overcome with a passion so violent that he could not keep the matter to himself, but actually spoke to the senate.’232 This communication is presented as atypical, and so indicates that the punishment was personally imposed by Augustus, rather than by the senate or courts. Suetonius suggests that Augustus instead ‘sent a complaint to the senate to be reported by a quaestor, while he

226 Bauman 1992, 117. 227 Fantham 2006, 79-91 outlines the differing approaches. 228 Cass. Dio 55.10.12. 229 Levick 1976, 301. 230 Crook 1996a, 103. 231 Cass. Dio 55.10.14. 232 Cass. Dio 55.10.14.

himself stayed away.’233 Whilst Augustus’ precise movements are ambiguous, it is clear that the incident was dealt with privately, although it could not be kept a secret. Augustus personally exiled Julia using his authority as Pater Familias, rather than as Pater Patriae or Princeps.234 As a result of this incident, exile became a standard punishment for adultery, and so the conflation of Augustus’ public and private role was enshrined in legal practice. Thus, the exile of Julia the Elder illustrates how the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis enabled Augustus to exercise his personal power to publically punish the behaviour of the elite.

The extent to which the enforcement of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis was reliant upon Augustus, is evident from the way that his own adultery is presented by the narrative sources. Both Cassius Dio and Suetonius describe Augustus as a prolific adulterer, but he escaped punishment. For example, Suetonius devotes a section of his biography to this aspect of Augustus’ behaviour:

Not even his friends deny that he committed adultery, suggesting by way of an excuse that his motive was not lust but policy, as he sought to find out the plans of his opponents more easily through each man’s wife. 235

The distinction between lust and policy represents the division between public and private behaviour which was evident in the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis. Langlands explains that, traditionally, Roman virtue was conceptualised as a public characteristic, whereas any sexual relations were private.236 In contrast, Suetonius presents Augustus’ adultery as a calculated act to gain public political advantage. Cohen argues that female immorality had a direct effect on the reputation of male relatives, and so Augustus’ behaviour undermined the authority of his opponents by disgracing their wives.237 Thus, Augustus used his own adultery to reinforce his personal authority over the senate, and undermine the individual political positions of his opponents.

Augustus’ adultery also influenced his relationship with the senate as a collective group. Whilst Suetonius conceptualized Augustus’ adultery as being for the public good, his opponents, and Cassius Dio, presented it in a different way. Dio integrates the discussion of the adultery into his depiction of Augustus’ reign, but it is possible to use one particular case

233 Suet. Aug. 65. 234 Cohen 2008, 211. 235 Suet. Aug. 69. 236 Langlands 2006, 5. 237 Cohen 1991, 112.

to examine how it interacted with his ability to govern. He explains that the senators complained to Augustus about the apparent unwillingness of youths to marry:

When the senators urged Augustus to correct this abuse too, and hinted mockingly at his own relations with a large number of women, he began by replying that the essential prohibitions had already been laid down, and that it was impossible to regulate people’s conduct further by bringing in more legislation of this kind. 238

The explicit reference to existing legislation illustrates that Augustus’ adultery occurred after the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis had been passed, and so was illegal. As such, his personal behaviour directly undermined his ability as Princeps and Pater to introduce further moral legislation. This is indicative of the close link between the ideological and practical functions of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis. Augustus’ personal behaviour challenged the ideological foundation of his rule which was closely linked with the moral reforms, and so undermined his practical ability to control the behaviour of the senatorial elite.239 Thus, the application of the legislation was inextricably linked with Augustus’ personal authority.

The ideological link between Augustus’ personal and public behaviour also affected his ability to enforce the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis. Cassius Dio refers to one case which explicitly highlights the intersection of his personal behaviour with his public rule. In this case, an unnamed man who committed the same crime as the Princeps was brought before Augustus to be judged:

[Augustus] gave another example of the same inconsistency when he was censor. Someone brought before him a young man who had taken to wife a married woman with whom he had previously committed adultery. The accuser laid many charges against the man, and Augustus was in a dilemma as to how he should act, since he did not dare to overlook the affair, nor yet to reprimand him. 240

Suetonius’ accuses Augustus of marrying Livia ‘in haste’ and it was this similarity which complicated the case.241 Whilst this was not a crime, the implication was that the couple had previously had illicit relations when they were both married to others. As Dio highlights, this rumour had spread widely amongst both the contemporary elite and general public. Thus, in his judgement, Augustus could either punish the man and render himself a hypocrite, or

238 Cass. Dio 54.16.3-4. 239 Cass. Dio 54.16.5. 240 Cass. Dio 54.16.6. 241 Suet. Aug. 69.

pardon him and undermine his repeated condemnation of such behaviour. The close link between the prohibition of adultery, and Augustus’ personal authority, made the incident in question potentially very damaging. According to Dio, Augustus’ response was:

‘The feuds which have divided us have brought terrible consequences; let us forget these and turn our minds to the future, so that nothing of this kind may occur again.’242

In the light of his personal behaviour, Augustus was unable to publically convict the man, or enforce the sanctions in the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis. This is indicative of the precarity of his ideological authority, and the extent to which is legitimised his practical ability to judge the social and political elite. The enforcement of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis was closely linked to Augustus’ personal position, and so reinforced the legitimacy of his political role, which was based upon his regulation of the Roman family. This personal association enabled Augustus to tangibly reinforce his position of superiority over the elite, and control both their behaviour and membership. However, this also meant that Augustus’ personal behaviour could directly undermine his political legitimacy, and his ability to control the senate.

Practical Augustus intervened in a wide range of adultery cases, and this is indicative of the fundamental practical function of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis. As such, this sub- section will examine a number of these cases to illustrate how the legislation functioned to support his position as Princeps. The sub-section will begin with an examination of how the legislation enabled the senate to self-regulate and exclude members. Within Roman society, the prohibition of adultery functioned to support the existing social structure, with Augustus at its head, and so enabled the elite to remove members who challenged their authority. The ideology of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis legitimised this process, and so reinforced the practical power of the social and political elite. This was a power which Augustus also utilised to support his position, and the sub-section will next illustrate how the membership purges which Augustus conducted were directly linked to the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis. However, the prohibition of adultery did not only reinforce Augustus’ immediate position, but also the long term authority of his successor Tiberius. By analysing the practical

242 Cass. Dio 55.16.6.

function of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis over these different time frames, it is clear how it reinforced the authority of Augustus and of the social and political elite.

The extent of Augustus’ personal discretion is evident from an examination of a 12 BCE case which Cassius Dio reports. Whilst the main defendant is unnamed, he explains that Augustus’ friends Appuleius and Maecenas were witnesses for the defence in an adultery trial.

On one occasion when a case of adultery was being tried in court and Appuleius and Maecenas were being vilified, not because they had committed any misconduct themselves, but because they were giving strong support to the defendant, Augustus entered the court- room and seated himself in the praetor’s chair. He did nothing to upset the procedure, but forbade the accuser to insult either his relatives or his friends, and then stood up and left the room.243

As Dio explained in his obituary of Maecenas, despite being an equestrian, he had considerable influence with Augustus, and had served ‘in charge of the capital for a long time.’244The trial was conducted by a court, and so Augustus had no political jurisdiction. His intervention was, therefore, in a private capacity, and as a result of his personal authority. Whilst the precise outcome of the trial is unclear, one can assume that the prohibition of attacks of Appuleius and Maecenas had a significant effect on it. Augustus’ presence protected Appuleius and Maecenas, and so it is highly likely that the defendant was exonerated. Although the case is only briefly mentioned, it highlights the extent to which Augustus could practically control the way in which the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis was enforced. Augustus used the legislation to reinforce not only his own reputation, but to protect that of his associates. This suggests that the Princeps could also personally intervene to ensure that specific members of the social and political elite were harshly punished for their behaviour.

However, whilst it is clear that the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis functioned to regulate the personal power individual senators, it was not only Augustus who enforced it in this manner. The ideological and practical impact of the legislation enabled the elite to self- regulate, and strengthen their collective position. By removing individual senators with adultery charges, they were able to create the perception that remaining members were

243 Cass. Dio 54.30.4. 244 Cass. Dio 55.7.1.

morally superior. Practically, expulsions and punishments also functioned as a vital means of removing senators who threatened the elite who were closely associated with Augustus. This enforcement pattern is evident from the case of Gaius Laetorius, which Suetonius refers to. Suetonius does not explain precisely when the trial occurred, but one can infer that it was after Augustus’ death in the first century CE. Laetorius had been convicted of adultery, but appealed to the senate to change his penalty:

For, according to senate records, one Gaius Laetorius, a young man of patrician family, in an attempt to mitigate a penalty for adultery, which he claimed was too severe for one of his age and family, also drew to the attention of the senators the fact that he was the possessor and, as it were, guardian of the spot which the Deified Augustus first touched at his birth, and sought pardon for the sake of what he termed his own particular god. It was then decreed that this part of the house should be consecrated.245

Whilst Laetorius’ eventual punishment is not specified, the incident illustrates the extent to which the senate had discretion over the application of penalties. His compliant that the penalty imposed was too severe was a common one, but Laetorius specifically pleads for a reprieve based upon his youth and family lineage. Not much is known about the Laetoria family, but it is clear that Laetorius believed that his social and political standing could influence the implementation of the law. Thus, the discretion held by the senate, and the Princeps, was exercised to control how the legislation was applied to those who fitted Edwards’ criteria for social and political prestige. The very fact that Laetorius requested a pardon indicates that there was some degree of precedent for it, and that sentences could be applied based on discretion of the wider senate and elite.

Moreover, the fact that the senate could mitigate Laetorius’ sentence, implies that they could also ensure that specific figures were punished more severely. As aforementioned, accusations of adultery were inherently political, and so this discretion illustrates how the legislation functioned to control the membership of the senate. For example, the second factor that enabled Laetorius to plead for a pardon was his personal link to Augustus. As keeper of Augustus’ ancestral home near Velitrae, the Princeps was his personal deity, and it was on this basis that Laetorius asked for exemption. In the preceding sections, it has been demonstrated that the implementation of the legislation was closely linked to Augustus’ personal authority, and this was a pattern which evidently continued after his death. The fact

245 Suet. Aug. 5.

that Laetorius was linked to Augustus protected him, and ensured that the senate were unwilling to expel him. Thus, the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis enabled the Roman elite to reinforce their social and political authority by providing a means to expel members who did not conform. The criteria used illustrate how this self-regulation reinforced the existing social hierarchy, with the senate under the control of Augustus, and those associated with him.

The large scale impact of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis on the membership of the elite, is evident from the way in which accusations of adultery escalated. Fundamentally, the ideological association between politics and adultery, meant than many of the trials were accompanied by accusations of treason and murder. They also routinely included multiple defendants and victims. Parker argues that these mass trials were the manifestation of wider social fears concerning a disobedient ‘anti-society’ who threatened the state.246 Indeed, the close association of Augustus’ personal authority with the moral reforms, meant that adultery was increasingly aligned with treason and so the two charges were routinely conflated. Tacitus criticises Augustus for this:

For he used the solemn names of sacrilege and treason for the common offence of misconduct between the sexes. This was inconsistent with traditional tolerance, and even with his own legislation.247

The legislation referred to is the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, and so it is clear that this was a direct effect of the moral reforms. A key example of the longer term function of this phenomenon is the trial of Albucilla. She was a leading member of the senatorial ordo, and was accused of adultery with at least five powerful men. Tacitus refers to the case in his depiction of the treason trials during the end of Tiberius’ reign, and this context starkly illustrates the political function of the legislation:

Albucilla, earlier married to Satrius Secundus, who had divulged Sejanus’ conspiracy, was denounced for disloyalty to the emperor. She was notorious for her many lovers, and Cnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, Gaius Vibius Marsus, and Lucius Arruntius were cited for complicity and adultery with her. 248

246 Parker 2004, 592. 247 Tac. Ann. 3.24. 248 Tac. Ann. 6.47.

Carsidius Sacerdos and Pontius Fregallanus were also accused, and Forsyth has carefully examined the social and political status of the five men involved. He argues that all of the men were part of one faction which threatened the position of Gaius as heir, and so their trial was the result of a political plot by Macro. The men had not violated the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, but instead undermined the line of succession and the authority of the Princeps.249 As Chapter One highlighted, Gaius’ personal position was strengthened due to his compliance with the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and so his opponents were undermined with accusations of immorality according to the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis.

Tacitus explains that Tiberius himself had no part in the trial, but the incident illustrates that the senate continued to self-regulate after Augustus’ death. 250 Arruntius made this link explicit:

‘I have lived long enough’, he said. ‘My only regret is that insults and perils have made my old age unhappy. Sejanus long hated me; and Macro does now. There is always some powerful figure against me. It is not my fault; it is because I dislike criminality.

He then ‘opened his veins’ to avoid the final judgement of the senate. The punishments for the rest of the group were varied, and it is this variety which indicates how the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis was precisely applied to undermine the social and political position of upper class. ‘One of her lovers, a former praetor named Carsidius Sacerdos, was deported to an island, another, Pontius Fregellanus, deprived of senatorial rank.251 These punishments were not proscribed by the original Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, but specifically chosen by the senate. As aforementioned, punishment by exile had a dubious legal precedent, but is indicative of the way that the prohibition of adultery, was directly related to Augustus, even after his death. However, it is Fregallanus’ punishment which is the most interesting, as his deprivation of rank was unusual. During Augustus’ reign, the role of senators had increasingly become social, as well as political, and the moral reforms had encouraged this evolution. Whilst Augustus had conflated his public and private authority to enforced the legislation, the senate use the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis to use a private crime to achieve a political aim. Outside of the senate, Fregallanus could not threaten the position of

249 Forsyth 1969, 206. 250 Tac. Ann. 6.47. 251 Tac. Ann. 6.48.

Macro or Gaius and so he did not need to be exiled. The punishment reinforced the supremacy of the leading groups in the senate who were closely linked to the Princeps.

The wider impact of this function of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis is evident from that fact that Albucilla’s accuser was also punished in the same way. In addition to Albucilla, Balbus had successfully accused Acutia of treason, but Tacitus explains that the tribune Junius Otho prevented him from receiving his reward.252 Within Rome, there was no legitimate police force, and so, as aforementioned, law enforcement relied upon informers, or delatores, to report crimes to the relevant bodies. 253 The increasing hostility to this behaviour is reflected in Tacitus’ description of the public reaction to Balbus’ unusual punishment:

But so too was her prosecutor Decimus Laelius Balbus- to the general satisfaction, since he was noted for his malignant eloquence, readily utilized against innocent men.254

The description implies that Balbus was a prolific informer, as, despite his accusations being upheld in this case, Tacitus complains that he attacked innocent men. Indeed, earlier in his reign, Tiberius had attempted to limit the influence of informers.

To rectify the situation, Tiberius appointed a Commission consisting of five former consuls, five former praetors, and five other senators, chosen by lot. It disentangled numerous legal complexities, and temporarily produced a slight alleviation.255

The relief clearly did not last, and the court took the unprecedented step of punishing an informant whose accusation they had just upheld. This is indicative of the changing role and application of the moral legislation, from Augustus’ reign to Tiberius’. The Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis enabled the Princeps, and leading members of the senate, to use accusations and punishments for adultery to undermine the political position of individual members of the elite. Thus, unaffiliated career informants both practically and ideologically threatened the structures of power in the Principate. The senate were acutely aware of the danger that accusations posed to their individual positions, and this is reflected in the punishment which Balbus was given.

252 Tac. Ann. 6.47: Treggiari 1991, 76 explains that Nero capped the percentage which accusers were entitled to at 10%, and so during the reigns of Tiberius and Augustus this figure was higher. As Chapter One outlined, accusations of adultery had to include specific details of the offence, but the accuser was entitled to a proportion of any property seized as a result of the conviction. 253 Tac. Ann. 3.28. 254 Tac. Ann. 6.48. 255 Tac. Ann. 3.28.

The precise nature of the punishment is an extension of the ideology promoted by the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, which equated marriage, and fatherhood with the right to rule. Once these moral values were compromised, so too was the right of senators or equestrians to remain a part of the ruling elite, and the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis reflected this. As well as adultery, maliciously accusing one’s colleagues of immorality disqualified a senator from membership. Csillig suggests that practise of using informants, such as Balbus, was eventually integrated into government processes, but that is a misunderstanding. 256 Rather, I would argue that making accusations was an integral part of the governance of the Principate, that grew outside of it. The nature of the Roman legal system ensured that informants were essential for the functioning of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, and enabled the law to be used to specific individuals. Fundamentally, the legislation was designed to uphold the authority of the ruling social and political elite, and the Princeps. Once informants began to undermine this, their power and position was curtailed.

Whilst Albucilla’s trial occurred towards the end of Tiberius’ reign, the use of moral criteria to regulate the membership of the elite reflects Augustus’ earlier policies. For example, in addition to the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, the Lex Papia Poppaea, and the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, Augustus made a number of attempts to directly change the demography of the senate.

Since the number of senators was swelled by a disorderly and undignified rabble- for there were more than a thousand of them, some most unworthy men who had been admitted after Caesar’s death through favour or bribery (these were commonly referred to as Orcini)- Augustus returned it to its former size and glory by means of two reviews, the first conducted by the senators themselves in which each man chose one other, the second by himself and Agrippa. 257

As aforementioned, the Princeps also substantially increased the property qualification for membership of the senatorial ordo. Augustus gave grants to ensure that some senators could retain their membership, but these purges were, essentially, a systematic removal of senatorial rank. As such, this set a clear precedent for the fate of those punished for adultery with Albucilla. In the first round of these purges, Cassius Dio explains that Augustus

256 Csillig 1976, 164. 257 Suet. Aug. 35.

removed 190 men,258 and a further few hundred were expelled in the second attempt.259 Suetonius separates Augustus’ practical motive of reducing the size of the senate, and the rhetoric which he used to justify the process. Augustus suggested that the senate had been filled with deceitful men, and these ‘he induced to resign through shame.’260 Cassius Dio also highlights how the process was framed in moral terms:

Although Octavian wished to expel these men, he did not himself strike their names off the roll, but rather urged them in view of what they knew about their families and their lives to make themselves judges of their case.261

With this reference to familial status, Augustus implied that the men had failed to uphold the moral standards that were now a prerequisite for senatorial membership. Augustus was directly applying the association between morality, and the qualification to rule which the moral reforms had created. This link was just as evident in the second purge which Augustus undertook because ‘he thought its numbers’ were still too large. Crucially, ‘he detested those who were notorious for some vice’ and so there was an explicit, and continued, association between perceived moral virtue, and membership of the senate.262 Thus, the practical and ideological function of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis enabled Augustus to legitimise a large scale purge of the senate, and so exercise his own authority as Princeps.

Moreover, the complex fate of the expelled senators illustrates how the moral reforms enabled Augustus’ to exercise his political control. Whilst they may have had their rank removed, the men were not removed from the senatorial class. Suetonius explains that those who resigned retained ‘the right to wear senatorial garb, sit in the front rows at the games, and take part in public banquets.’263 Cassius Dio reiterates that they:

had the right to attend public spectacles and celebrate festivals together with the full senators; they could also wear the same dress, and for the future he allowed them to stand for the various offices of state.264

Thus, whilst the men were removed from their political role as senators, they kept their social position as part of the senatorial ordo. This distinction is indicative of the fundamental

258 Cass. Dio 52.42. 2. 259 Cass. Dio 54.14.1. 260 Suet. Aug. 35. 261 Cass. Dio 52.42. 2. 262 Cass. Dio 54.13.1. 263 Suet. Aug. 35. 264 Cass. Dio 54.13.4.

purpose of the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, the Lex Papia Poppaea, and the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis. By promoting those who were married and who had legitimate children, Augustus strengthened the perceived and actual power of the elite, but undermined the position of individuals who he claimed were immoral. The very fact that the senators retained their social position clearly illustrates that the legislation was political in nature. Ensuring that they retained their social status strengthened the public perception of the collective stability of the senate. Thus, the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, the Lex Papia Poppaea, and the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis played an essential role in stabilising the Roman state and social hierarchy, whilst reinforcing the personal authority of the Princeps both during Augustus reign, and afterwards.

Conclusion

To conclude, the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea had specific practical and ideological functions. This thesis has illustrated how the laws shaped Augustus’ relationship with the senatorial elite in a way that has previously been overlooked by ancient historians. Fundamentally, the moral reforms stabilised the Roman state, reinforced the social and political superiority of the senate, and legitimised Augustus’ position as Princeps

The Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and Lex Papia Poppaea encouraged marriage and legitimate childbearing, and this had significant ideological and practical effects on the governance of the Principate. Motifs of family, childbearing and marriage were used to legitimise the authority of the senate as the leading social strata, and Augustus as Princeps in

the new regime. For example, encouraging marriage and childbearing was designed to enhance the public perception of the senate and wider elite. This function is clear in the immediate aftermath of the civil war and Propertius illustrates that Augustus originally intended to pass the legislation in 28 BCE. Whilst the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis was not actually introduced until 18 BCE, it nevertheless provided a positive solution to the perception that the war had been caused by a decline in traditional morality amongst the elite. After the position of the elite had been initially stabilised, the legislation enabled Augustus to justify his own rule as Princeps. In purely ideological terms, it enabled Augustus to create the impression that he was reforming the elite, and legitimise his authority over them. In the longer term, the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and the Lex Papia Poppaea enabled Augustus to ideologically associate himself with Romulus, the mythical founder of Rome. This motif is evident both throughout his reign, and in the wider ideology which supported the Principate under Tiberius. Moreover, in 2 BCE, Augustus was awarded the title of Pater Patriae, and so his position, and that of his successors, was inextricably linked with his ability to regulate the Roman family. The case of Aemilia Lepida, and the promotion of Drusus, illustrate how this ideology directly impacted the criteria for social and political authority. The content of the laws, and their role in legitimising Augustus’ authority, meant that familial status was increasingly presented as a qualification for power. This also reinforced the authority of the senate as the leading strata in Roman society, as Augustus used the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis to suggest that they were morally superior.

The Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and the Lex Papia Poppaea also had practical effects which directly supported the new regime. For example, the case of Marcus Hortalus and the Hortensii family highlight that the legislation failed in their initial aim of increasing the birth or marriage rates of the upper classes. Instead, Augustus used a series of extra monetary grants to bribe specific senators to comply. The pattern of these bribes illustrates the underlying function of the legislation, as Augustus favoured senators who fitted the traditional model for membership of the elite. This policy once again reinforced the perceived morality and superiority of the elite, but also had a key practical effect. Crucially, the targeting of specific families provided a level of continuity to ensure the future stability of the state and Principate. Whilst the destruction of the Hortensii illustrate that this aim was not wholly successful, the legislation enabled Augustus to legitimise the authority of the senators who did survive. Thus, the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and Lex Papia Poppaea functioned to stabilise the collective position of social and political elite, and consolidate their

dominance as the ruling strata in Rome. In turn, Augustus used his role in reforming their behaviour to both practically and ideologically enhance his own power as Princeps and Pater Patriae.

The Lex Julia de adulteriis, worked alongside the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea to shape Augustus’ relationship with the senate, and their position in the social hierarchy. Ideologically, concepts of morality and politics were closely linked, and so the prohibition of adultery was an act of political control. Whilst the promotion of marriage and childbearing served to stabilise the collection authority of the senate, the prohibition of adultery enabled Augustus, and those associated with him, to undermine the position of individual senators. In the immediate aftermath of the civil war, the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and the Lex Papia Poppaea enhanced the collective perception of the elite by promoting marriage as a positive solution to the immorality that had preceded the civil war. In contrast, the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis justified Augustus’ attacks on the conduct of individual senators, and so strengthened his social and political authority over them. This function is apparent from the case of Julia the Elder, Augustus’ daughter whom he exiled for adultery. By punishing her in this manner, Augustus conflated his personal and public authority as Pater Familias and Pater Patriae. The expansion of his power was also reflected in the way that other violators were punished, and in the reaction to Augustus’ own adultery. During Augustus’ reign, the sanctions in the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis were applied according to his personal discretion, and so the law enabled him to exercise his practical authority over the senate and wider Principate. The Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis also enabled Augustus to protect the position of senators he was associated with, such as Appuleius and Maecenas. This practical function continued into the later Principate, as Laetorius was able to plead for an exemption due to his association with Augustus. The legislation also enabled the social and political elite to self-regulate and remove members who undermined their collective authority. The trial of Albucialla is a clear example of this political function, as both Fregallanus and Balbus had their senatorial ranks removed. This was an extension of Augustus’ earlier purges, during which he used familial status and immorality to justify wide-scale expulsions. The atypical use of removal of rank as a punishment illustrates how the association of familial positon and the right to rule was extended by the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis to control membership of the elite. Langlands argues that concepts of moral behaviour became a key method of social and political control under the emperors, and this development can be traced to the Lex Julia de

adulteriis coercendis.265 As such, the moral legislation must be regarded as an integral part of Augustus’ rule, which made an important contribution to the longevity of the Principate and the stability of the Roman state.

Bibliography

Translated Primary Sources Abbreviations in the text in accordance with the Oxford Classical Dictionary.

Digest of Justinian (1985) (ed.) T. Mommsen. Translated by A. Watson. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lex Irnitana (1986) Translated by M. H. Crawford in Gonzalez, J. and Crawford, M. H. ‘The Lex Irnitana: A New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law’ The Journal of Roman Studies 76, 147-243.

265 Langlands 2006, 319.

Augustus (2009) Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Translated by A. E. Cooley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cassius Dio (1987) Roman History. Translated by I. Scott- Kilvert. London: Penguin Books.

Horace (2004) Carmen Saeculare. Translated by H. Rudd. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Horace (2004) Odes. Translated by N. Rudd. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Livy (1919) History of Rome. Translated by B. O. Foster. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Ovid (1914) Amores. Translated by G. Showerman. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Ovid (1929) Ars Amatoria. Translated by J.H. Mozley. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Ovid (1924) Tristia. Ex Ponto. Translated by A.L. Wheeler. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Propertius (1990) Elegies. Translated by G.P. Goold. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Suetonius (2000) Lives of the Caesar. Translated C. Edwards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tacitus (1996) The Annals of Imperial Rome. Translated M. Grant. London: Penguin Classics.

Velleius Paterculus (1924) Compedium of Roman History. Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Translated by F. W. Shipley. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Secondary Sources Badian, E. (1985) ‘A Phantom Marriage Law’, Philogus129, 82-98.

Bauman, R. A. (1992) Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge.

Brunt, P.A. (1971) Italian Manpower. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burgersdijk, D. (2016)‘Augustus’ Fame in Late Antiquity: From Constantine to Theodosius’ Latomus.

Cantarella, E. (1991) ‘Homicides of Honor: The Development of Italian Adultery Law over Two Millenia’ in Kertser, D. I. and Saller, R. P. (ed.) The Family in Italy from Antiquity to the Present. London: New Haven, 229-244.

Cohen, D. (1991) ‘The Augustan Law on Adultery; The Social and Cultural Context’ in Kertser, D. I. and Saller, R. P. (ed.) The Family in Italy from Antiquity to the Present. London: New Haven, 109-126.

Cohen, S. (2008) ‘Augustus, Julia and the Development of Exile Ad Insulum’ The Classical Quarterly 58(1), 206-217.

Cowen, E. (2009) ‘Tacitus, Tiberius and Augustus’, Classical Antiquity 8(2), 179-210.

Crawford, M.H. (ed.) (1996) Roman Statutes: Volume II. London: Institute of Classical Studies.

Crook, J. A. (1996a) ‘Political History, 30 BC to AD 14’ in Bowman, A. K., Champlin, E. and Lintott, A. (eds.) The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 10: The Augustan Empire, 43BC- AD 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 70-112.

Crook, J.A. (1996b) ‘Augustus: Power, Authority and Achievement’ in Bowman, A. K., Champlin, E. and Lintott, A. (eds.) The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 10: The Augustan Empire, 43BC- AD 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 113-146.

Csillig, P. (1976) The Augustan Laws on Family Relations. Budapest: Akad, Kiado.

Dyck, A.R. (2008) ‘Rivals into Partners: Hortensius and Cicero’ Historia: Aeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte 57(2), 142-173.

Earl, D. (1967) The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome. London: Thames & Hudson.

Eder, W. (1990) ‘Augustus and the Power of Tradition: The Augustan Principate as Binding Link between Republic and Empire’ in Raaflaub, K.A. and Toher, M. (ed.) Between Republic and Empire. Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate. Berkeley: University of California Press, 71-122.

Edwards, C. (1993) The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fantham, E. (2006) Julia Augusti. London: Routledge.

Field, J. A. (1945) ‘The Purpose of the Lex Iulia et Papia Poppaea’ The Classical Journal 40(7), 398-416.

Forsyth, P. Y. (1969) ‘A Treason Case of AD 37’ Phoenix 23(2), 204-207.

Frank, R. I. (1975) ‘Augustus’ legislation on Marriage and Children’ California Studies in Classical Antiquity 8, 41-52.

Galinsky, K. (1981) ‘Augustus’ legislation on Morals and Marriage’ Philologus 125, 126- 144.

Garnsey, P. (1966) ‘The Lex Iulia and Appeal Under the Empire’ The Journal of Roman Studies 56, 167-189.

Garnsey, P. (1967) ‘Adultery trials and the survival of the Quaestiones in the Severan Age’ JRS 57, 56-60.

Goldschmidt, N. (2013) Shaggy Crowns: Ennius’ Annales and Virgil’s Aeneid. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gonzalez, J. and Crawford, M. H. (1986) ‘The Lex Irnitana: A New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law’ The Journal of Roman Studies 76, 147-243.

Hahn, J. and Leunissen, P. M. M. (1990) ‘Statistical Method and Inheritance of the Consulate Under the Early Roman Empire’ Phoenix 44, 60-81.

Harries, J. (2004) Law and Empire in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hin, S. (2013) The Demography of Roman Italy: Population Dynamics in an Ancient Conquest Society 201BCE-14CE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hopkins, K. (1983) ‘Death in Rome’ in Hopkins, K. (ed.) Death and Renewal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 201- 256.

Hopkins, K. and Burton, G. (1983a) ‘Political Succession in the Late Republic 249-5BC’ in Hopkins, K. (ed.) Death and Renewal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 31-119.

Hopkins, K. and Burton, G. (1983b) ‘Ambition and Withdrawal: The Senatorial Aristocracy Under the Emperors’ in Hopkins, K. (ed.) Death and Renewal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 120-200.

Humfrees, C. (2005) ‘Law and Legal Practice in the Age of Justinian’ in Maas, M. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 161-184.

Kemezis, A. M. (2007) ‘Augustus and the Ironic Paradigm: Cassius Dio’s Portrayal of the Lex Julia and the Lex Papia Poppaea’ Phoenix (61), 270-285.

Langlands, R. (2006) Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levick, B. (1976) ‘The Fall of Julia the Younger’ Latomus 35(2), 301-339.

McGinn, T. A. J. (1991) ‘Concubinage and the Lex Iulia on Adultery’ Transactions of the American Philological Association 121, 335-375.

Miles, G. B. (1995) Livy: Reconstructing Early Rome. London: Cornell University Press.

Millar, F. (1964) A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Nisbet, R. (2007) ‘Horace: Life and Chronology’ in Harrison, S. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Horace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 7-21.

Parker, H. N. (2004) ‘Why were the Vestals Virgins? Or the Chastity of Women and the Safety of the Roman State’ The American Journal of Philology 125(4), 563-601

Richlin, A. (1981) ‘Approaches to the sources on adultery at Rome’ Women’s Studies 8, 225- 250.

Rutledge, S. H (2001) Imperial Inquisitions: Prosecutors from Tiberius to Domitian. London: Routledge.

Saller, R. P. (1999) ‘Pater Familias, Mater Familias, and the Gendered Semantics of the Roman Household’ Classical Philology 94(2), 182-197.

Swan, P.M. (2004) The Augustan Succession: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s ‘Roman History’ Books 55-56 (9BC-AD14). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Talbert, R. J. A. (1984) The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Thorley, J. (1979) ‘The Nativity Census: What Does Luke Actually Say?’ Greece & Rome 26(1), 81-84.

Toher, M. (1990) ‘Augustus and the Evolution of Roman Historiography’ in Raaflaub, K.A. and Toher, M. (ed.) Between Republic and Empire. Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate. Berkeley: University of California Press, 139- 154.

Townend, G.B. (1962) ‘The Trial of Aemilia Lepida in AD 20’ Latomus 21(3), 484-493.

Treggiari, S. (1991) Roman Marriage. Iustis Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Volk, K. (2010) Ovid. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1983) Suetonius: The Scholar and his Caesars. London: Duckworth & Co. Ltd.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. (2009) ‘Family and Inheritance in the Augustan Marriage Laws’ in Edmondson, J. (ed.) Augustus. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 250-274.

Zanker, P. (1990) The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Translated by A. Shapiro. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.