Marcus Aurelius: Family, Dynasty, Power
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Marcus Aurelius: Family, Dynasty, Power Paul Jarvis (B.A. Hons) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Tasmania (November, 2012) 1 This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying and communication in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. Signed:..................................................... Date:..................................................... 2 This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no material previously published or written by another person except where due acknowledgement is made in the text of the thesis, nor does the thesis contain any material that infringes copyright. Signed:..................................................... Date:..................................................... 3 Abstract This thesis is a prosopographical examination of the policy of Marcus Aurelius regarding his family. The prosopographical method avoids schematic biography, and allows the inclusion of individuals who would otherwise only appear in a periphery sense. I aim to demonstrate that a new perspective on Marcus as an emperor can be gained through an examination of the individuals connected to the imperial nexus, most notably his six sons-in-law. The thesis is divided into three chapters. Chapter 1 places Marcus in the context of his scheming family and the succession arrangements of Hadrian, who intended Lucius Verus to be his ultimate successor. Chapter 2, through detailed examination of Marcus’ sons-in-law, establishes that Marcus admitted Lucius to the imperial power from necessity, and how he sought to build his own nexus by moving power away from Lucius and his many connections. Chapter 3 analyses how the rebellion of Avidius Cassius in 175 showed Marcus the potential weakness of his arrangements. The manner in which Marcus responded to the crisis reveals his determination to ensure the succession of Commodus. Marcus accomplished this by completing the construction of a powerful family nexus, which was centred on his sons-in-law. He should be seen not only as a philosopher but as a canny, dynastic, and ruthless emperor. This is established by the position of Marcus in Hadrian’s succession arrangements, an examination of Marcus’ sons-in-law and the manner in which they were selected, and the response of Marcus to the rebellion of Avidius Cassius. 4 Acknowledgements I am indebted to my supervisor, Dr. Geoff W. Adams, for his guidance and encouragement during this project and his thorough criticism of the drafts. I should also like to thank Dr. Graeme Miles and Dr. Jonathan Wallis for their assistance. Sincere thanks are also due to Fabiano Cangelosi, Kristin Heineman, Sarah Hendriks, Dylan James, Sarah Smith, and Adrian Staples. Their friendship, advice, and insight during the writing of this thesis was invaluable. 5 Contents Introduction 7 Chapter 1: Marcus, Lucius, and Hadrian 11 Chapter 2: Marcus’ sons-in-law: Family and Dynasty 34 Chapter 3: The Rebellion of Cassius and the Response of Marcus 95 Conclusions 133 Appendices 137 1. Stemmata 2. The year of Claudius Severus’ first consulship References 142 6 Marcus Aurelius: Family, Dynasty, Power Introduction The three emperors preceding Marcus Aurelius – Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius – lacked sons of their own. In order to settle the question of succession, they looked to their own extended families. Propinquity to the emperor was manipulated as required. At a young age Marcus was the beneficiary of such dynastic manoeuvrings when, along with Lucius, he was adopted by Antoninus Pius. It was an experience of which he made good use. Hadrian intended Lucius to be his eventual heir, but his design was suborned by Antoninus, who favoured Marcus, his wife’s nephew.1 Hadrian’s succession policy and the scheming of Antoninus placed Marcus in a difficult position upon his own accession in 161 CE.2 Marcus made Lucius his co-emperor not to fulfil the original desire of Hadrian, but because Lucius’ powerful family connections had to be conciliated. In this thesis it is argued that Marcus went to great lengths throughout his reign to ensure that his family – and not the connections of Lucius – would retain the imperial power. He accomplished this by carefully selecting the men whom his daughters married, and was able to construct slowly a nexus of connected families. After Marcus’ death in 180, his designs found their completion in the smooth accession of his son Commodus. In time the reign of Commodus became a byword for scandal and conspiracy: but upon his accession Commodus was supported by a powerful nexus of his father’s amici, many of whom were connected to him by marriage.3 1 T. D. Barnes, ‘Hadrian and Lucius Verus’, JRS 57 (1967), 65-79. Barnes is convincing on Hadrian’s intention for Lucius to be his ultimate successor, despite the objections of Birley (1987), 240-1. Discussed in full in Chapter One. 2 All dates are CE unless otherwise noted. 3 The smooth transition from the reign of Marcus to the reign of Commodus can be seen in the fasti of 176-83. The consules ordinarii of these years were nearly all family connections or amici of the dynasty, individuals whom Marcus had selected for his daughters or promoted. The fasti: G. Alföldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen (Bonn, 1977), 190-1 (cf. however 192, n. 215, on Cn. Julius Verus); P. M. M. Leunissen, Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander (Amsterdam, 1989), 129. Apart from Commodus himself and his brothers-in- law and father-in-law, discussed in Chapter Two, the consules ordinarii of 176-83 include Marcus’ cousin Vitrasius Pollio, Fronto’s son-in-law Aufidius Victorinus, and Quintilius Condianus, son of one of the two Quintilii brothers who had been consuls together in 151. See also Pomponius Vitrasius Pollio, CIL 6.41145; Flavius Aper, PIR² F 209; 7 It is necessary to remark briefly on terminology. The term ‘nexus’ is used frequently in this thesis. It is preferred to ‘faction’ (or factio) because it avoids inherent partisanship. Partisanship was certainly a feature of imperial politics under the Antonines, but it was not always a defining one. In the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the meanings provided for ‘nexus’ is ‘a connected group or series; a network’.4 Edward Champlin used the term ‘cousinhood’ to describe just such a group of connected gentes in the ambit of the imperial power in 193, and it is in this context in which the term ‘nexus’ is employed in this thesis.5 Each of Marcus’ sons-in-law was part of a gens that would, after an imperial marriage, have a direct interest and stake in the imperial power, and hence become part of the imperial nexus. This thesis examines the process of the construction of this nexus from a prosopographical perspective. The importance Marcus placed on its construction and composition is traced through prosopographical analyses of his various sons-in-law (and sole daughter-in-law), and the reasons Marcus selected them. The prosopographical method allows for the proper inclusion of individuals who otherwise only appear as periphery figures in the various literary sources.6 Prosopography must naturally be employed with care; it cannot reveal definitively the inner workings of an emperor’s mind. Nevertheless, it remains true that the emperor was the sum of his deeds.7 In this case, there is sufficient prosopographical evidence that Marcus employed a consistent dynastic policy through the marriages of his daughters, and that this policy was aimed at strengthening his own grip on the imperial power at the expense of Lucius’ connections. Since Cornelius Scipio Salvidienus Orfitus, PIR² C 1448; Velius Rufus Julianus, Halfmann (1979), no. 189; Martius Verus, PIR² M 348; Q. Bruttius Praesens, PIR² B 165; Quintilius Condianus PIR² Q 22; Tineius Rufus, Degrassi (1952), 50; Aufidius Victorinus, PIR² A 1393. Discussed in full in Chapter Two. 4 OED 10 (Oxford, 1989), 382-3. 5 E. Champlin, ‘Notes on the Heirs of Commodus’, AJP 100 (1979), 306. 6 The method is rendered feasible by several invaluable prosopographical studies of the period, viz:: Alföldy (1977); Leunissen (1989); W. Eck, Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (Munich, 1970). The many volumes of the Prosopographia Imperii Romani (PIR) now well into the second edition, continue to be essential. Likewise essential for any study of the Antonines are the biographies of the emperors by A. R. Birley and the many articles of R. Syme: A. R. Birley, Marcus Aurelius² (London, 1987); A. R. Birley, Septimius Severus: the African Emperor² (London, 1988); A. R. Birley, Hadrian: the Restless Emperor (London, 1997); R. Syme, Roman Papers 1-7, eds. E. Badian and A. R. Birley, (Oxford, 1975-91). 7 F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World² (London, 1992), 6. 8 the chronology of his daughters’ marriages spans the entire reign of Marcus, the circumstances of each marriage are crucial. Each marriage reflects both immediate concerns and long-term policies. Thus, in order to place the dynastic policies of Marcus in the proper political context it is also necessary to examine the ramifications of the succession crisis in the final years of Hadrian’s reign, and the rebellion of Avidius Cassius in 175. The three chapters follow a generally chronological structure. Chapter One examines the succession plans of Hadrian and places Marcus in his proper context as the beneficiary of the dynastic scheming of his aunt’s husband, Antoninus.8 After he succeeded Hadrian, Antoninus deliberately undermined the plans of Hadrian to ensure that Marcus, not Lucius, would succeed. This did not produce visible civil conflict, but rather a rivalry between the nexus of Marcus, centred on the Annii Veri, and the nexus of Lucius, centred on the Ceionii.