The Julio-Claudian Succession Mnemosyne Supplements History and Archaeology of Classical Antiquity Edited by Susan E. Alcock, Brown University Thomas Harrison, Liverpool Willem M. Jongman, Groningen VOLUME 349 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/mns The Julio-Claudian Succession Reality and Perception of the “Augustan Model” Edited by A.G.G. Gibson LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 On the cover: Head of Augustus. Copyright by Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (www.glyptoteket.com). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Julio-Claudian succession : reality and perception of the "Augustan model" / edited by A.G.G. Gibson. p. cm. – (Mnemosyne. Supplements, ISSN 0169-8958 ; v349) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-23191-7 (hardback : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-90-04-23584-7 (e-book) 1. Rome–History–Julio-Claudians, 30 B.C.-68 A.D. 2. Emperors–Succession–Rome. I. Gibson, A. G. G. (Alisdair G. G.) DG281.J85 2012 937'.07–dc23 2012029703 This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0169-8958 ISBN 978-90-04-23191-7 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-23584-7 (e-book) Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhof Publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper. CONTENTS Introduction . 1 A.G.G. Gibson Suetonius and the Succession to Augustus . 19 Josiah Osgood Perceptions of the Domus Augusta, ad4–24 . 41 Robin Seager Tiberius and the Invention of Succession. 59 Caroline Vout The Identity of Drusus: The Making of a Princeps ...................... 79 Jane Bellemore The Lousy Reputation of Piso . 95 Roger Rees ‘All Things to All Men’: Claudius and the Politics of ad41 . 107 A.G.G. Gibson Nero Insitiuus: Constructing Neronian Identity in the Pseudo-Senecan Octavia ........................................... 133 Emma Buckley Nero Caesar and the Half-Baked Principate . 155 John Drinkwater Index ................................................................... 175 INTRODUCTION A.G.G. Gibson University of St Andrews The term ‘succession’ is appended with great ease by historians and com- mentators to the transition of power from one political incumbent to the next. The word carries a symbolism which suggests that the transfer will be seamless, as much the result of painstaking planning as reading the omens in the political wind. Upper levels of management in public com- panies, totalitarian regimes, constitutional monarchies to name just a few, all employ management doubletalk to explain their “succession planning”. Across the long twentieth century to date, the business of monarchy is passed from parent to ofspring without missing a beat, and the success of that transfer can be measured by newspaper column inches or the number of rolling news inserts. The Augustan succession has, by its nature, neces- sitated a great deal of analysis and with the lack of a template or legal framework extant in rst century Rome, it has not been easy for scholars to establish a secure picture. It is sometimes easier to see what it isn’t rather than what it is. This collection of essays examines particular aspects of the imperial succession in the early rst century as it worked its way between the heirs of Augustus. Kingship Because of the unpopularity in Rome of anything that looked remotely like the rule of the kings, Augustus and his successors faced the potentially awk- ward hurdle of how to make any succession look non-hereditary and there- fore non-monarchical. The removal from power of the last king of Rome, L. Tarquinius Superbus, by L. Iunius Brutus in 509bc and the establishment of a government in Rome, acted as a warning to any of those who followed and harboured the ambition to rule alone. After the death of Caesar the destruction wrought by a civil war driven by individual rivalries between members of the Roman elite, meant that absolute monarchy was going to be a di cult act to sell to the citizenry. Livy’s Ab Conde Urbita Libri tells of the history of the city from the new freedom gained by the Roman people after 2 a.g.g. gibson the overthrow of the oppressive Tarquinius, their achievements in war and peace, the new annual magistracies, and that the law was now above all men.1 These were themes that would remain at the forefront of Augustus’ mind. Livy (59bc–ad17) knew Augustus, and his history of Rome would provide a perspective that shone benevolently on the establishment of the Republic. Although Livy was not a mouthpiece for Augustus, the publication of an extensive history of Rome in 142 books, and one that reected a decline in moral standards in Rome (at least until 9bc) would do the latter no harm. Augustus would prove to be the man to remedy such a decline and he set out to found the city of Rome for a second time. Augustus could look for exempla (either useful or something to avoid) among Alexander’s successors and the subsequent dynasties of the Hellenis- tic kings. Van Bremen explains that in Hellenistic royal families the public, political and private spheres all overlap, where “power and authority are vested in the person of the king, indirectly to his wife and children. Monar- chical succession is based on successful producing of ofspring, and alliances are forged and reforged through marriages”.2 The east had already provided an example for Augustus of how titles could be used as a positive mark or symbol of power and inuence. Millar explains that “Imperator, Saviour, Benefactor, Founder of the City” found on dedications from Mytilene that describe Pompey the Great, “are expressions that did no more than reect the long-established custom of applying to Roman commanders the hon- ori c and semi-divine appellations of Hellenistic kings”.3 Augustus’ adop- tion of the title imperator is discussed below. A Hellenistic king followed certain philosophical traits and his ‘perfect virtue’ should be there for all to see. By his actions the king should make his subjects love him; he should use his wealth wisely and own a palace and servants to match his status but not live in excess; he needed to adminis- ter moderation, self-control and dispense justice that followed the ‘divine 1 Liberi iam hinc populi Romani res pace belloque gestas, annuos magistratus, imperi- aque legum potentiora quam hominum peragam. Quae libertas ut laetior esset proximi regis superbia fecerat. Nam priores ita regnarunt ut haud immerito omnes deinceps conditores partium certe urbis, quas nouas ipsi sedes ab se auctae multitudinis addiderunt, numer- entur; neque ambigitur quin Brutus idem qui tantum gloriae superbo exacto rege meruit pessimo publico id facturus fuerit, si libertatis immaturae cupidine priorum regum alicui regnum extorsisset. Livy 2.1–3. 2 Cf. Van Bremen (2005) 313–330; also Ma (2005) 177–195. 3 Millar (1992) 611. introduction 3 harmony of things’.4 Green ofers an excellent summary of the needs of Hel- lenistic kingship established in the wake of the campaigns of Philip II and subsequently Alexander. The Macedonian monarchy had retained numerous archaic, even Homeric traits: the prestige of the triumphant warrior; the symbolic use of the diadem, the royal robe, and the seal ring; personal command in war; a group of privi- leged and, most often, aristocratic Companions, or friends (hetairoi, philoi), in battle, at dinner, to give advice as a royal council; the right to distribute booty (and control looting); the duty, in general, of being what Homer called the “shepherd of the people,” handing out gifts and charitable patronage, win- ning renown as a ghter and hunter, and through philanthropic generosity and cultural enhancement.5 There may be elements in Green’s assessment that would be attractive to Augustus but at the outset he was facing a diferent set of problems to the ∆ιάδοχοι. Augustus, and Rome, had come through a civil war and power had been in the hands of an oligarchic body; he needed to wrest control from them and bind the broken pieces of the Republic together to shape the empire. Then again, the heirs of Augustus would probably recognize the challenges facing the ∆ιάδοχοι, where a key issue was how to establish their own rule when they were not Alexander, or for the Julio-Claudians, Augustus? Conspiracies Augustus’ careful stage management of just about every aspect of his rule as princeps, occluded how he really held the reins of empire. The citizens were dazzled by the excessive commissioning of architecture and monumental sculpture, the panegyrical literature, the heavy promotion of his family and friends. All these factors combined would place Augustus physically and metaphorically at the political heart of empire. However, as a ruler it becomes apparent that one of the elements needed to ensure your very survival is to have a successor lined up to block-of the opportunity for usurpers to take your place. An heir can be an equally dangerous threat if they are impatient for power, but it is usually less problematic to defend oneself against a known foe than an unknown one.