Augustus, page 30
Even more important was the question of how Caesar Augustus’ power should be openly expressed for the future – a future that his recovery from illness now suggested might last some time. Tact was important. In later years great stress would be laid on the tribunician power and his reign would be dated according to the number of years he had held this, a pattern followed by his successors. Tacitus, writing at the start of the second century AD, would describe the tribunicia potestas as the ‘title of greatest power’ (summi fastigii vocabulum). Yet the emphasis placed on this power was not immediate, and the system of dating was at first little more than a convenience now that it was no longer possible to measure time by the number of his consulships, which had been the case since 30 BC. Many Romans had a strong sentimental attachment to the tribunes of the plebs, seeing them as guardians of citizens’ rights, and association with this was no doubt appealing. Even so, the repeated attempts to force the princeps to assume the consulship – and on one later occasion even the dictatorship – suggest that there was little satisfaction felt for Augustus’ association with the tribunes in itself.21
There are some signs of a conscious effort to make his supremacy a little less blatant during these years. Thus the earlier plans for a grand approach to his house on the Palatine were abandoned. Instead, it would be reached by a route leading up from the Forum and passing the fronts of many of the grandest aristocratic houses, their porches decorated with trophies and symbols of their owners’ and their ancestors’ achievements. In this way the princeps stood not alone but as the culmination of the great men of the City. Even so there was no attempt to conceal his vastly greater glory and status. No one else lived in so grand a complex, which included within it the magnificent Temple of Apollo, or dwelled alongside so many of Rome’s oldest and most sacred sites, such as the hut of Romulus or the Lupercal, the shrine marking the spot where he and his brother were found after being suckled by the she-wolf. This could not be the dwelling of just another senator, or even of one princeps or leading man among many. The Forum, where the walk up to the house began, was steadily filling with monuments to the glory of Imperator Caesar Augustus, the son of a god.22
As consul – and indeed as triumvir – Augustus held a formal magistracy and thus the powers that came with it, limited only by those of his colleagues in the emergency legislation which had created the triumvirate. This changed with his resignation from the consulship in 23 BC. From then on he only occasionally held any formal magistracy. Instead his powers were personal and not associated with any office. They were also permanent. Augustus possessed tribunician power and proconsular imperium as well as other rights because the Senate and People had given them to him. There was no time limit, and indeed no office from which to resign. His provincial command was for a set period, although it was readily renewed long before it came close to expiring, for periods of five or ten years. Caesar Augustus was the greatest servant of the res publica because he was Caesar Augustus and this would always remain true. In many ways his supremacy was more rather than less obvious after 23 BC and what is known conventionally as the Second Augustan Settlement. Although titles such as king or dictator were scrupulously avoided, his dominance was as clear, and by every indication intended to be as permanent, as that of Julius Caesar in 44 BC.
RIVALRIES AND PLOTS
Agrippa left Rome for the eastern Mediterranean at some point in the second half of 23 BC. He received a special grant of proconsular imperium, perhaps for a set period of five years. It is less clear whether he was given a specific command and if so what this was, although it certainly seems to have included responsibility for the imperial province of Syria. Yet Agrippa did not go there, and instead established himself on the island of Lesbos – itself normally administered by the proconsul of Asia – and from there exercised a general supervision of the wider region. He probably acted as Augustus’ representative, receiving delegations from communities within the senatorial as well as imperial provinces and so saving the princeps some work. The Parthian king was currently nervous about his rival living within the Roman Empire and this had increased tension on the frontier. It was possible that the Parthians might launch an invasion just as they had done in 41–40 BC, and did no harm to have someone capable of coordinating a response. In itself, the despatch of Agrippa was a signal of preparedness and perhaps enough to deter the king from open hostility.23
At the time rumours abounded that there was more to it than this. People spoke of rivalry between the nineteen-year-old Marcellus and the forty-year-old Agrippa. The older man was supposed to be jealous of the favour shown to Augustus’ young and unproven nephew, or perhaps generously unwilling to stand in his way. It is possible that the relationship was a little uneasy. Agrippa was known to possess a temper and at times could be difficult. Already boasting a long string of victories and public works, he was now of the age when traditionally a Roman could expect to be at the peak of his career. Marcellus was young and may well have found his newly acquired eminence intoxicating. There are hints that his judgement and speech were both sometimes questionable. The powerful attracted clients and less formal hangers-on hoping to benefit from their association with them, and it is just possible that some of these saw advantage in diminishing the prestige of anyone felt to match or surpass their patron.24
There is unlikely to have been any more to it than this, and the stories of bitter rivalries were either grossly exaggerated or wholly invented. It is more than likely that it was always planned to send Agrippa to the provinces when Augustus was back in Rome, so that at any time one of them would be labouring to ensure that the empire was stable, secure and yielding a steady flow of revenue. It was still less than a decade since the eastern Mediterranean had been squeezed to support Antony’s war effort and then fund Caesar’s victorious army. Even if the Parthian threat proved illusory, there was much to be done in ensuring that the region continued to recover and remained under effective control. Caesar’s illness probably delayed the departure and it was only after he recovered that his greatest subordinate set off for yet another mundane and unglamorous task. The gossip continued, but is unlikely to have shaped any of the important decisions.
Caesar Augustus was well and continued to enjoy good health even though food shortages, outbreaks of plague and other natural disasters ravaged Italy and Rome itself. Near the end of the year Marcellus fell ill. One source maintains that his symptoms were similar to those so recently suffered by Augustus, but with the epidemic still raging it is equally possible that he was a victim of the plague (whatever that may have been). Antonius Musa was summoned to attend him in the hope that he could work a similar miracle to the one he had performed on the young man’s uncle. This time he failed. Marcellus died, leaving the sixteen-year-old Julia a widow. The brief marriage between these teenage first cousins had failed to produce a child.25
Plan of the Palantine quarter developed by Augustus
Later there were rumours of foul play, claiming that the death was not a natural one but the result of poison, the assassination engineered if not actually performed by Livia. While it is impossible to prove with absolute certainty that Marcellus was not murdered, it is extremely unlikely. At a time of plague there were many premature deaths, and the famous were not immune, while even in ordinary years young people might well fall ill and die in Rome. In a city crammed with almost a million inhabitants and constantly receiving goods and people from all over the world, germs had plenty of opportunity to spread and claim victims. It is most probable that Marcellus died of natural causes. At that moment his death was not especially convenient for any potential rival. The princeps showed every sign of continued health and his refusal to name Marcellus as successor earlier in the year surely made it unlikely that he would show more open favour to Tiberius or anyone else now that his nephew was removed from the scene.26
Publicly there was great mourning. After his funeral Marcellus’ ashes were deposited in the great Mausoleum of Augustus out on the Campus Martius, the first to occupy this still not quite complete monument. Octavia constructed a public library as a memorial to her son. Augustus added his own tribute, giving the name ‘Theatre of Marcellus’ to the stone theatre begun – or at least planned – by Julius Caesar and now nearing completion. Propertius devoted a poem to his memory, recalling the festival he had staged and the canopies shading the crowd. A few years later Virgil depicted his hero Aeneas visiting the underworld and seeing the images of great Romans of the future, men yet to be given bodies and born into the world. Among them he spotted a youth of ‘surpassing beauty’, but sorrowed because the ‘dark shadow of death’ lay over him. His guide explained that it was Marcellus and that:
. . . only a glimpse of him will fate give the earth nor suffer him to stay too long. Too powerful, O gods above, you deemed the Roman people, had these gifts of yours been lasting. What sobbing of the brave will the famed Field waft to Mars’ mighty city! What cortège will you behold, Father Tiber, as you glide past the new-built tomb! No youth of Trojan stock will ever raise his Latin ancestry so high in hope nor the land of Romulus ever boast of any son like this. Alas for his goodness, alas for his chivalrous honour and his sword arm unconquerable in fight! In arms none would have faced him unscathed, marched he on foot against his foe or dug with spurs the flank of his foaming steed.27
The natural disasters persisted into 22 BC, but the health of Augustus himself continued to be good. There were two new consuls with sound aristocratic pedigrees, if perhaps without any particular personal distinction, and the ongoing food shortage prompted cries for the princeps to take direct charge, just as Pompey the Great had done during a similar crisis in 56 BC. Caesar Augustus refused any additional powers or titles, but did turn his attention to the problem. By placing informal pressure on some of the people who were hoarding grain until the price reached its highest level, stocks were immediately released onto the market, providing some short-term relief. In the longer term, provision was made for two former praetors to be appointed each year as prefects to oversee the grain supplies to the City.28
Augustus was able to make things happen. If he was not involved, then the inertia which had characterised senatorial government for so many years seemed to return. Many remained uncomfortable with his resignation from the consulship and refusal to accept any other magistracy. Some demanded that he become censor or take on the powers of censorship permanently. On another occasion a determined crowd surrounded a meeting of the Senate, closing the doors of the Curia, and threatening to burn the place down with the senators inside if they did not immediately vote to make Augustus dictator. Perhaps on the same occasion, a large group of people either managed to seize the real fasces or made something resembling them and approached Caesar with the twenty-four that were the symbol of dictatorship.
Imperator Caesar Augustus, the son of the divine Julius, made a speech refusing the honour, and met their continuing pleas in the same way. Yet the crowd was determined, prompting him to a histrionic display when he tore his garments in frustration. In later years he boasted that he had twice refused the dictatorship and much of the scene is reminiscent of Julius Caesar at the Lupercal, although curiously while some scholars remain inclined to doubt the latter’s sincerity they do not in the case of Augustus. Similarly there is little debate over whether or not these demonstrations were orchestrated, and generally it is assumed that they were more or less spontaneous. At the very least they offer further important reminders that Caesar Augustus had to concern himself with opinion outside the senatorial and equestrian classes. It was not simply the elite who mattered, and long-term stability would only be preserved if other groups were also content. In this case it was enough to demonstrate his continued commitment to serving the state and dealing with crises. People were reassured that his resignation from the consulship did not mean his effective retirement or determination to focus solely on the provinces. Instead he used his existing power to do what he could.29
In addition, two censors were elected in another return to the appearance of traditional practices. One was Munatius Plancus, a man whose reputation no doubt made his appointment to oversee morals seem somewhat ironic, and the other a man who had survived being proscribed in 43 BC. Their term of office did not go well, and on one occasion a platform collapsed under them while they were presiding over a ceremony. Dio notes that Augustus actually arranged most of the tasks normally supervised by the censors. At a time of food shortages, some public feasts were cancelled and others celebrated on a more modest scale. Limits were placed on the sums spent on festivals, the magistrates responsible being permitted to use no more funds than their colleagues. Gladiatorial fights were only to be staged with formal approval from the Senate, and were limited to a maximum of two a year, each involving no more than 120 fighters. Other measures followed the censorial tradition by curbing behaviour as well as extravagance. The sons and grandsons (as long as they were still wealthy enough to be registered as equestrians) of senators were forbidden from appearing onstage – something Caesar Augustus had permitted during Marcellus’ games. Some measures may have been passed into law on the motion of others, but it was clear that Augustus was behind them.30
Such dominance was obviously reassuring for many people, but in the early months of 22 BC the question of his power and status was raised in a less welcome context. First came the trial of Marcus Primus, lately returned from a spell as proconsul of the senatorial province of Macedonia. It was one of the few that still contained a legionary garrison, and Primus had made use of his army to wage war, winning glory and enriching himself with booty. Now he was charged under the maiestas law, dealing with actions considered to be damaging to the majesty or reputation of the Roman people. Both Sulla and Julius Caesar had confirmed existing legislation banning a governor from leading his army outside his province without the express permission of the Senate. In this case, one of the peoples attacked by Primus were the Odrysae, a tribe defeated just a few years before by Crassus who had then granted them allied status after their surrender to him. If he were still alive, it is more than likely that Crassus would have assisted the Odrysae in seeking redress, since it was normal for the conqueror of an enemy to become their patron. Others may also have taken an interest in the case, helping to mount the prosecution. No non-citizen individual or community could bring a case in a Roman court and so they needed to be represented.
Primus was defended by a senator generally considered to be a good man and in favour with Augustus. His name was Murena, although it is variously given as Licinius Murena or Varro Murena in our sources. He may well have been related to the man who had died before, or soon after, assuming the consulship for 23 BC, although how closely is impossible to say. His sister or half-sister was Terentia, the wife of Maecenas, and another sibling was the Caius Proculeius known to be an intimate of the princeps. There was no suspicion that Murena was hostile to Augustus, and it may be that as the leading advocate – there were most likely others speaking for the defence as well – his sole concern was to exonerate his client. A glance at Cicero’s speeches is enough to show the readiness with which Roman advocates distorted the truth.
There was no doubt that Primus had attacked the Odrysae, or that the tribe were officially allies of the Roman people. It is possible that the defence argued that this was a sham, and the tribe were plotting or had committed hostile acts and so deserved punishment – Julius Caesar had offered a similar justification for attacking some German tribes during a truce. Yet in this case Primus went further, claiming that he had been given permission – perhaps even direct instructions – to launch the attack. Dio says that his testimony varied. At one point he claimed that Augustus had instructed him, and then later asserted that in fact Marcellus had done so. Perhaps the claim was that Marcellus had passed on a hint or direct command from Augustus.31
This was shocking on many levels – not least the implication that a proconsul could be ordered or encouraged to do something by a teenager only recently admitted to the Senate. It smacked of the earlier years of triumviral rule or of monarchy where no magistrate or governor possessed real independence and could be forced to do the bidding of one man or his inner circle. This was not the image carefully cultivated by Caesar Augustus in 27 BC, or by his more recent resignation from the consulship and dramatic refusal to accept the dictatorship.
Marcellus was dead and could not testify. Caesar Augustus was not summoned, since no one wished to challenge his auctoritas in any way. Murena and Primus probably hoped that invoking the name of the princeps might be enough to muddy the waters and aid his acquittal. In the past, Roman courts had routinely failed to convict many patently guilty men, and it is probable that quite a few of the jurors were well disposed towards Primus, or willing to be lenient for the promise of future friendship and favour.
Augustus arrived in court even though no one had either dared or wanted to request his presence. He made it clear that he was willing to give testimony, and when asked by the presiding praetor whether he had instructed Primus as claimed, the princeps denied it. He remained to be questioned by Murena, who was by now growing increasingly desperate since the presence and irresistible reputation of Caesar Augustus were adding to the pressure on his client. They had surely hoped to avoid this, and a mixture of anger and fear soon let the defence counsel adopt the aggressive and abusive tone common in Roman trials. Augustus remained infuriatingly impassive. When asked why he was there and who had summoned him, the princeps gave the laconic reply: ‘The common good’.
Primus was found guilty, although a number of jurors voted for acquittal. Most probably they did so out of existing bonds with the accused, but perhaps some were also annoyed by the interference of Augustus in the trial. It is impossible to know whether or not the princeps spoke the truth – whether the whole truth or the carefully worded and intentionally misleading avoidance of a direct lie after the style of many modern politicians. That he wanted an attack on the Odrysae and arranged it in so crass a way does seem unlikely. Yet there are stories that he was sometimes disappointed in Marcellus’ judgement and behaviour, which raises the intriguing possibility that his nephew had unwisely said something to Primus.32
