Imperial Ideals in the Roman West 9781107005082, 2011008366

Citation preview

IMPERIAL IDEALS IN THE ROMAN WEST

This book examines the figure of the Roman emperor as a unifying symbol for the western empire. It documents an extensive correspondence between the ideals cited in honorific inscriptions for the emperor erected across the western empire and those advertised on imperial coins minted at Rome. T his reveals chat the dissemination of specific imperial ideals was more pervasive than previously thought, and indicates a high degree of ideological unification amongst the aristocracies of the western provinces. The widespread circulation of a particular set of imperial ideals, and the particular form of ideological unification that this brought about, not only reinforced the power of the Roman imperial state, but also increased the au thori ty of local aristocrats, thereby faci litating a general convergence of social power that defined the high Roman empire. isAssistantProfessorofHiscoryatcheUniversicy of California, Berkeley. He is the co-editor, with Bjorn C. Ewald, of The Emperor and Rome: Space, Representation, and Ritual (Cam bridge, 2010) .

CA RL OS F . NORENA

IMPERIAL IDEALS IN THE ROMAN WEST Representation, Circulation, Power

CARLOS F. NORENA

HCAMBRIDGE ~ UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVER ITV PRE SS

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, ~ape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo, Delhi, Tokyo, Mexico C,ry Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cB2 8Ru, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this tide: www.cambridge.org/978uo7oo5o82

© Carlos F. Norefia 2011 This publication is in copyright. Subject to Statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2011 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

A catalogue r,cordfor thi.r publication i.r available from th, Briti.rh library Library ofCongrm Ca111loguing in Publication data Norefia, Carlos F. Imperial ideals in the Roman West : representation, circulation, power / Carlos F. Norefia. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-107-00508-2 (hardback) 1. Rome - History- Empire, 30 B.c.-284 A.O. 2. Emperors - Rome - Hisrory. 3. Political culture - Rome - History. 4. Imperialism - Social aspects - Rome - History. 5. Ideals (Philosophy) - Political aspects - Rome - History. 6. Signs and symbols - Political aspects Rome - History. 7. Power (Social sciences) - Rome - History. 8. Inscriptions, Latin - Hisrory. 9. Coins, Roman - History. 10. Rome - Politics and government - 30 B.C.-284 A.O. I. Title. OG271.N67 2011 937' .06 - dc22 2011008366

ISBN 978-1-107-00508-2 H ardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-parry internet websites referred ro in this publication, and does nor guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Parentibus optimis

I

Contents

List ofillustratiom List offigures and tables List ofmaps Acknowledgments Abbreviatiom 1

page viii XJV XVII XVIII

XX1

Incroduccion

PART I. REPRESENTATION

27

Introduction co Pare r 2

28

Values and virtues: the ethical profile of the emperor

3 The benefits of empire and monarchy PART II. CIRCULATION

Introduction co Pare 4

37 IOI

179 11

180

The diffusion of imperial ideals in rime and space

5 Central communication and local response

2 45

PART III. POWER

299

6 Ideological unification and social power in the Roman West

300

List ofappendices Appendices I-If Works cited General index

325 326 421

447 Vil

List ofillustrations

List ofillustrations

2.1 Reverse of denarius (RIC 2, Nerva 13): Aequitas holding a cornucopia and a pair of scales. AEQUITAS AUGUST. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 2.2 Reverse of denarius (RIC 2, Hadrian 257): Pietas standing next to an altar. PIETAS AUG. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 2.3 Reverse of denarius (RIC 2, Hadrian 260): Pietas holding a patera and a scepter. PIETAS AUG. © Ficzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 2.4 Reverse of sestertius (RIC 3, Antoninus Pius 1281): Pietas with a child. PIETAS. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 2.5 Reverse of aureus (RIC 2, Hadrian 4396): Pietas holding a perfume box. PIETAS. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 2.6 Reverse of sestertius (RIC 2, Hadrian 614): Virtus holding a spear and a parazonium. VIRT. AUG. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 2.7 Reverse of denarius (RIC 4.1, Septimius Severus 24): Virtus with a statuette of Victory. VIRT. AUG. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 2.8 Reverse of as (BMCRE 2, Domitian 394): Virtus holding a spear and a parazonium and resting a foot on a helmet. VIRTUTI AUGUST!. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 2.9 Reverse of as (RIC 2, Trajan 483): Roma holding Victory and a spear.© Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge.

Vlll

page66

2.10 Reverse of denarius (RIC 3, Marcus Aurelius 206): Liberalitas holding an abacus and a cornucopia. LIBERAL. AUG. Photo: American Numismatic Society. 2.n Reverse of sestertius (RIC 2, Hadrian 552): Hadrian seated on raised platform and distributing coins to urban plebs. LIBERALITAS AUG. Photo: American Numismatic Society. 2.12 Reverse of as (RIC 2, Vespasian 655): The altar of Providentia Augusta. PROVIDENT. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 2.13 Reverse of sestertius (RIC 2, Titus 97): Vespasian presenting a globe to Titus. PROVIDENT. AUGUST. Photo: American Numismatic Society. 2.14 Reverse of denarius (RIC 2, Hadrian 133): Providencia carrying a scepter and pointing to a globe. PRO. AUG. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3.1 Reverse of denarius (RIC 2, Vespasian 131): Annona with grain stalks. ANNONA AUG. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3.2 Reverse of denarius (RIC 4.2, Severus Alexander 136): Annona with nautical symbols (rudder and prow). ANNONA AUG. © FitzwilJiam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3.3 Depiction of Abundantia on a wall painting from Herculaneum (mid-first century AD). Naples, National Museum no. 9451. 3.4 Reverse of sestertius (RIC 1 2nd edn., Nero 137): Annona holding a cornucopia and Ceres holding grain stalks, with a grain measure (modius) between them and a ship in the background. ANNONA AUGUST! CERES. Photo: American Numismatic Society. 3.5 Marble statue of Julia Domna with the attributes of Ceres (c. AD 203). Ostia, Museum . 3.6 Reverse of denarius (RIC 2, Trajan 292): Trajan's Column. SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3.7 Reverse of denarius (RIC 3, Antoninus Pius 117): Pax holding an olive branch and a cornucopia. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge.

ix

97

97

n5

n6

117

u8 n9

125

129

X

List ofillustrations

3.8 Reverse of as (RIC 2, Titus 129): Pax holding a caduceus and a branch. PAX.AUGUST. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3.9 Reverse of denarius (RIC 2, Hadrian 95): Pax holding a statuette of Victory and a branch. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3-10 Reverse of sestertius (RIC 3, Antoninus Pius 641): Securitas holding a scepter. SECURITAS PUBLICA. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3.n Reverse of denarius (RIC 2, Hadrian 222): Tranquillitas holding a scepter. TRANQUILLITAS AUG. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3-12 Obverse and reverse of sestertius (RIC 3, Antoninus Pius 601): Obverse: portrait of Antoninus Pius. Reverse: Antoninus Pius and Faustina I in the marital pose of dextrarum iunctio ("a joining of the right hands"); between them, Marcus Aurelius and Faustina II in the marital pose of dextrarum iunctio. CONCORDIAE. Photo: American Numismatic Society. 3-13 Reverse of denarius (RIC 3, Antoninus Pius 335): Concordia holding a patera and a cornucopia. CONCORDIA AUG. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3.14 Obverse and reverse of aureus (RIC 3, Marcus Aurelius 42): Obverse: portrait of Marcus Aurelius. Reverse: Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus clasping hands. CONCORDIA AUGUSTO RUM. Photo: American Numismatic Society. 3.15 Reverse of dupondius (RIC 2, Domitian 392): Fortuna holding a rudder and a cornucopia. FORTUNAE AUGUST!. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3.16 Reverse of denarius (RIC 4.1, Septimius Severus 78c): Fortuna holding a cornucopia and a rudder on a globe. FORTUNAE REDUCI. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3,17 Reverse of sestertius (RIC 3, Antoninus Pius 637): Salus holding a patera and feeding a snake wrapped around

List ofillustrations

129

130

131

131

134

135

136

139

140

an altar. SALUS PUBLICA. © American Numismatic Society. 3-18 The Gemma Augustea (early first century AD) . Sardonyx cameo. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum. 3.19 Reverse of aureus (RIC 3, Antoninus Pius 266a): Victory holding a laurel wreath and a palm. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3.20 Reverse of aureus (RIC 3, Marcus Aurelius 525): Victory inscribing VIC AUG onto shield. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3.21 Reverse of sesterti us (BMCRE 5, Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta 266): Victory placing hand on trophy, with captive and female figure. VICT. BRIT. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3.22 Reverse of dupondius (RIC 3, Antoninus Pius 674): Victory in triumphal chariot (quadriga). VICTORIA AUG. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3.23 Reverse of quinarius (RIC1 2nd edn. , Galba 132): Victory standing on a globe. VICTORIA GALBAE AUG. Photo: American Numismatic Society. 3.24 Reverse of quinarius (RIC 2, Vespasian 52): Victory holding a palm and placing a wreath on a military trophy. VICTORIA AUGUST!. Photo: American Numismatic Society. 3.25 Reverse of sestertius (RIC 2, Domitian 322): Victory crowning the emperor Domitian. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3.26 The sheath of the "Sword of Tiberius" (c. AD 16). Gilt bronze. British Museum, London. 3.27 Reverse of denarius (RIC 2, H adrian 121): Felicitas holding a caduceus and a cornucopia. FELIC. AUG. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. 3.28 Reverse of denarius (RIC 3, Commodus 282): Hilaritas holding a palm and a cornucopia. HILARITAS. Photo: American Numismatic Society. 3.29 Reverse of antoninianus (RIC 4. 3, Gordian III 86): Laetitia holding a laurel wreath and an anchor. LAETITIA AUG . N . © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge.

xi

144 152

154

154

154

154

155

155

156 160

171

173

173

Xll

List ofillustrations

3.30 Reverse of sestertius (RIC 3, ':'11toninus ~ius no5): Aeternitas holding a globe with a phoenix on top. AETERNITAS . © FitzwilJiam Museum , University of Cambridge. . 4.1 A model of coin ci rculation in the Roman empire. 4. 2 Marble statue of T itus as a civilian magistrate in a toga (second half of first century AD). Rome, Vatican Museums. 4.3 Marble statue of Hadrian wearing a toga capite velato ("with his head covered") (mid-second century AD). Rome, Museo Capitolino. 4.4 Marble statue of Trajan in military uniform (cuirass and mantle) (first half of second century AD) . Ostia, M=um. 4.5 Bronze statue of Septimius Severus in "divine" nudity (c. AD 197). Cyprus, Museum. 4.6 Portraits of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus on a sardonyx cameo (mid-second century AD) . Paris, Cabinet des MedailJes 294. 4.7 Portrait of Caracalla on a chalcedony cameo (late second/early third century AD). Paris, Cabinet des MedailJes (Inv. 2861). 4.8 Miniature bust of Domitian in bronze (second half of first century AD). Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Inv. 768). 4.9 Miniature bust of Commodus in amethyst (second half of second century AD). Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum (Inv. X 4). 4.10 Milestone from Hispania Tarraconensis, set up in AD 98/99, with Trajan 's official names and titles. Lostal Pros 1992: no. 72. 4.u Marble statue base for Marcus Aurelius, with his official names and titles, from Fidenae. Museo Nazionale Romano. Photo courtesy of]. M. H0jte. p Arrangement of statues on the east side of the Forum, Cuicul, Mauretania Caesariensis. Zimmer 1989: 35, Abb. 15. By permission of author. 6.1 Depiction of Victory on a carnelian intaglio (second- fourth century AD) . Kopenhagen, National Museum (Inv. 349).

List of illustrations

206 ~

208

209

209

210

2II

213

215

274

307

6.2 D epiction of Victory on a clay lamp (first century AD). Brussels, Royal Museum (Inv. R. 624) . 6.3 Bronze statuette of Victo ry carrying a shield with legend CAIS. SACERD (second- third century AD). Belgrade, National Museum (Inv. 2725/III). 6.4 D epiction of Fortuna on a wall painting from Pompeii (second half of first century AD). Casa di Acceptus et Euhodia, Pompeii (8.5.39). 6.5 Depiction of Fortuna on a mosaic from Britannia (Lincolnshire). Scunthorpe, Winterton Museum .

Xlll

308

308

308

List offigures and tables

Int.

List offigures and tables

II.I

Inc. n.2

4.1

4.2

FIGURES

2.l Relative frequency of Aequitas types on denarii,

expressed as a percentage of all virtue types by reign, AD 69-235 (N = 18,187) 2.2 Number of denarii struck per pound of silver by reign, AD

4.3

page69 69

69-235

5-I

2.3 Relative frequency ofLiberalitas types on denarii,

expressed as a percentage of all virtue types by reign, 117-235 (N = 18,187) Number of congiaria per reign-year, AD 117-235 Relative frequency of Providencia types on denarii, expressed as a percentage of all virtue types by reign, AD 69-235 (N = 18,187) Relative frequencies of Annona and Ceres types on denarii, expressed as a percentage of benefit types and deity types, respectively, by reign, AD 69-235 (N = 93,320) Relative frequency of building types on denarii and base-metal coins, expressed as a percentage of object types per reign, AD 69-235 (N = 15,025) Relative frequency of Victoria types on silver coins, expressed as a percentage of all benefit types by reign, AD 69-235 (N = 52,096) Relative frequencies of Victoria, Felicitas, and Pax types on silver coins, expressed as a percentage of all benefit types by reign, AD 96-2n (N = 40,712) AD

2.4 2.5

3-l

3.2

3.3

3.4

XJV

91 91

5.2

5.3 95

5.4

120

Relative frequency of inscriptions employing honorific terminology for the emperor, per reign-year, AD 69-235 (N = 575) Relative frequency of Latin inscriptions, 27 BCAD 284, expressed as number of inscriptions per reign-year, from Augustus to Numerianus (N = 2892) Relative frequency of Pietas types on denarii, expressed as a percentage of all virtue types, AD 96-180 (N = n ,658) Relative frequency of virtue types as a group, expressed as a percentage of all personification types, AD 69-235 (N = 98,698) "Civilian" and "military" personification types on denarii, expressed as a percentage of all reverse types, AD 69-235 (N = 77,853) Relative frequency of Pi etas types on denarii, expressed as a percentage of all virtue types, AD 138-2n (N = n,349) Relative frequency of Indulgencia types on denarii, expressed as a percentage of all virtue types, AD 117-218 (N = 14,185) Relative frequency of the terms optimus and dominus in honorific inscriptions for the emperor, expressed as a percentage of all honorific terms (N = 575) Number of datable Italian honorific inscriptions for local aristocrats employing the term optimus, 27 BC-AD 284 (N = 39)

xv

184

185

233

237

241

256

279

285

291

123 TABLES

Int. 157

I.I

Regional sources for tabulations of silver coins, AD

69-235

31

Int. 1.2 Regional sources for tabulations of bronze coins, AD

165

69-235

Inc. 1. 3 Relative frequency of iconographic categories on the imperial coinage, expressed as a percentage of all reverse types, AD 69-235

32

34

XV I

List offigures and tables

2.1 Relative frequency on denarii of individual imperial virtues, expressed as a percentage of al] imperial virtues, AD 69-235 (N = 18,187) 2.2 Relative frequency on base-metal coins of individual imperial virtues, expressed as a percentage of all imperial virtues, AD 69-235 (N = 4141) 3.1 Relative frequency on denarii of individual imperial benefits, expressed as a percentage of all imperial benefits, AD 69-23 5 (N = 52,096) 3.2 Relative frequency on base-metal coins of individual imperial benefits, expressed as a percentage of all imperial benefits, AD 69-235 (N = 14,166) 3.3 Imperarorial acclamations and triumphs, AD 69-235 Inc. II.I Total number of inscriptions employing honorific terminology for the emperor, by type, AD 69-235 Inc. 11. 2 Total number of inscriptions employing honorific terminology for the emperor, by reign, AD 69-235 Inc. 11.3 Regional distribution of inscriptions employing honorific terminology for the emperor, AD 69-235

60

List ofmaps 60

109

Inscriptions employing honorific terminology for the emperor AD 69-235 2 Inscriptions employing honorific termi nology for the emperor, AD 69-192 3 Inscriptions employi ng honorific terminology fo r the emperor, AD 193-235 1

109

188

XV ll

page 186-7 230 231

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

I have long dreamed of chis moment, chinking, wrongly, that to write up these acknowledgments would be an easy task compared to the labors of writing the book icsel£ But as I stare at my computer screen, and contemplate the full extent of my debts, I now realize how difficult it will be to express the depth of my gratitude to the many teachers, colleagues, friends, and family members (overlapping categories, in a number of cases) who have made chis book possible. Fortuna has been very kind to me indeed. Imperial Ideals in the Roman West began as a doctoral dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania written under the supervision of Brent Shaw. Brent not only provided expert guidance on a topic that lay somewhat outside his own considerable area of research expertise, but also, more important, caught me how co think like an historian. His influence on my whole approach co the Roman empire, and to the discipline of history more generally, has been profound. To the other members of my dissertation committee, Ann Kuttner and Bill Metcalf, my debts are hardly less significant. From Ann I learned both how co "read" visual language and how co integrate the analysis of image and text, while Bill taught me more or less everything I know about Roman numismatics. He also provided me with the raw hoard data upon which my sample of silver coins was built. Without this extraordinary ace of generosity on Bill's part, chis book could not have been written. I have incurred further debts in the process of transforming chis scudy from a dissertation into a book. Ramsay MacMullen read the entire dissertation and responded co it with fifteen pages of single-spaced comments an~ quescio~s char were uniformly incisive, challenging, critical, and illuminating. I senously doubt chat he will agree with all of my conclusions here, but I do hope chat he will recognize his influence on che final produce. My fo rmer colleagues in the Department of Classics at Yale, especially Susanna Braund, Christina Kraus, and John Matthews, offered further guidance and XVlll

XlX

counsel at chis crucial stage. Elizabeth Meyer and Greg Woolf read a detailed and lengthy book prospectus and helped me ro sharpen my questions and strengthen my arguments. Some of these arguments were first tested out on audiences at Brown University, the Whitney H umanities Center (Yale University), the New England Ancient H istorians Colloquium (University of Connecticut, April 2005), and the American Philological Association Annual Meeting (Montreal, January 2006), while a num ber of the ideas were first floated in the bracing atmosphere of graduate seminars at Yale ("Roman Imperial Ideology: Text and Image," Spring 2005) and Berkeley ("Culture and Empire in the Roman West," Fa!] 200 6). I am most grateful for all the useful feedback I received in these talks and seminars from colleagues and students alike. When ic came time to assemble these arguments into book chapters, I turned for critical feedback ro Kathleen Coleman, Erich Gruen, Ted Lendon, Carlos G. Norefia, and Josephine Quinn, all of whom provided most helpful comments on different pares of the manuscript. I have also received much useful advice from my colleagues in the Department of History at Berkeley, especially Beth Berry, Susanna Elm, Robin Einhorn, David Johnson, Emily Mack.ii, Michael Nylan, Peter Sahlins, and James Vernon. To each of them, as well as to the anonymous readers for the Press, I offer my warmest thanks. I beneficed from different types of assistance in the final stages of preparing the manuscript for publication. Philip Stark and his team in the Department of Statistics at Berkeley checked (and improved) my statistical formulas and calculacions, while Darin Jensen and Mike Jones in the Department of Geography prepared the maps. Elena Scolyarik at the American Numismatic Society and Lynda Clark and Adrian Popescu at the Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge, helped me co acquire images. My gratitude goes co each of them. I would also like co thank the journal ofRoman Studies for permission to reprint parts of my article chat appeared in volume 91 (2001) . Finally, I would like co thank the editorial ream at Cambridge University Press for bringing this book co publication, especially Michael Sharp, Joanna Garbutt, Elizabeth H anlon, Mary Morton, and Christina Sarigiannidou. These brief acknowledgments will be particularly incapable, I fear, of expressing all that I owe co my family: co my wife, Elizabeth, for her unwavering support through the inevitable ups and downs chat come with the writing of a book like chis; co my son, Carlos, fo r companionship and good cheer (and for typing a few sentences from chapter 5 into the computer); and co my daughter, Laura, for being such a lovely reminder

xx

Acknowledgments

chat some things are more important than Roman history. Bue by far the deepest debt of all is owed co my parents, Carlos G. and Maria I. Norefia, whose love, support, and encouragement for so many years has made all the difference. I dedicate chis book co chem as a very small token of gratitude for all chat they have given and continue co give to me.

Abbreviations

Berkeley, CA ju/y 20IO

Abbreviations of personal names and rexes follow chose of the Oxford Classical Dictionary, and of modern periodicals, chose of L '.Annee Philologique. Ocher abbreviations are as follows.

AE AJN BMCRE CIL CRAJ

EJ FdA IGRR ILLRP ILM !LS Inscr.ltal. /RT ]RS LIMC LTUR OGIS OLD ORF P.Oxy RE RG RIB RIC RPC

L '.Annee epigraphique American Journal ofNumismatics Coins ofthe Roman Empire in the British Museum Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Comptes rendus de l'.Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres V Ehrenberg and A. H. M. Jones (eds.) Documents Illustrating the Reigns ofAugustus & Tiberius (Oxford, 1955). Die Fundmiinzen der Antike Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae Inscriptions latines du Maroc lnscriptiones Latinae Selectae lnscriptiones ltaliae Inscriptions ofRoman Tripolitania journal ofRoman Studies Lexicon lconographicum Mythologiae Classicae Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae Oxford Latin Dictionary Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta (2nd edn.) Oxyrhynchus papyri Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Res Gestae Roman Inscriptions ofBritain Roman Imperial Coinage Roman Provincial Coinage

JOCll

Abbreviatiom

RRC RS

Roman Republican Coinage Roman Statutes

SB

D.R. Shackleton Bailey (ed.) Cicero: Letters to Atticus, 7 vols.; Epistulae ad Familiares, 2 vols.; Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem et M Brutum (Cambridge, 2004).

SCPP Syll Tab.Siar. TLL

CHAPTER I

Introduction

senatuscomultum de Gnaeo Pisone Patre Sy/loge Inscriptionum Graecarum (3rd edn.) Tabula Siarensis Thesaurus Linguae Latinae MONARCHY, CULTURE , AND EMPIRE IN THE ROMAN WEST

The Roman empire, like all empires, may be seen as a particular configuration of power. Controlled by an interlinked sec of central institutions and layered aristocracies, chis configuration of power reached its widest extent, deepest penetration, and greatest stability between the lace first century BC and early third century AD. One feature of chis 250-year period chat distinguishes it from the previous two and a half centuries, when the Roman scare was creating its overseas empire, was the existence of a single, empire-wide ruler, che emperor, who functioned in pare as a unifying symbol for che far-flung territories and widely scattered inhabitants of the Roman world. There were no symbols of comparable resonance under the Republic. Two features of the period char distinguish ic from the two and a half centuries char followed were, first, a broadly shared conception of the ideal emperor as an ethical and beneficent ruler, and second, the absence of competing symbols of equivalent distinction and empire-wide reach. For in the lacer empire, the emperor was often constructed as a distant and frightening autocrat, while the rise of Christianity brought with it a new and increasingly autonomous symbolic system chat transcended the imperial order. As we will see, the significance of these distinctive features of che period between the lace first century BC and the early third century AD went beyond che realm of symbols and ideas. Indeed, the existence of a single ruler, systematically represented as a moral exemplar who provided a range of benefits co his subjects, and standing alone as the only symbol of empire-wide scope, not only reinforced the power of the Roman imperial state, as I will argue, bur also increased the collective authority of the local aristocracies upon which che empire's social and political order was based. In order co sustain chis argument, discussion will focus on the specific imperial ideals chat defined the emperor as an ethical and beneficent ruler; on che mechanisms by which these ideals came to be diffused throughout

Imperial Ideals in the Roman West

Introduction

the empire; and on the reasons whf the circu_larion of ~h_ese p~rticular ideals helped to underpin the empires steep social and polmcal hierarchy. Though some of rhe conclusions will pertai n to the empire as a whole over rhe long term (c. 200 BC to AD 400) , this study will concentrate, for reasons discussed below, on the western empire berween AD 69 and 235. Before rurning to the specific parameters of chis study, however, and as a way of underlining rhe importance of unifying structures in the Roman world, we first need to consider the sheer size and diversity of the Roman empire at the peak of its power in the mid-second century AD. Coming to grips with the size of the Roman empire is a constant challenge. Conventional metrics of the empire's magnitude, such as surface area (c. 2.5 million square miles in the mid-second century AD) or population (c. 60-70 million), are impressive enough, and standard cartographic depictions of the empire "at its height" - fixed, monochromatic, and screeching from rhe Adantic to the Euphrates and from the Danube to the Sahara are suitably imposing. ' The effects of such distances on the experience of time and space in the empire can be difficult for the modern observer to appreciate. For even though the communications infrastructure of the empire was relatively advanced by the standards of the ancient world, it was limited by pre-modern rechnology. 2 Ir will be important to bear in mind just how slowly most persons, objects, and ideas circulated throughout this world. More striking is the sheer diversity of the Roman empire. In geographical and ecological terms, the empire was deeply fragmented .3 Stretching across four modern rime zones, the empire embraced three continents and included multiple geological and climatic zones ranging from coastal plains, rugged mountain ranges, and high plateaus to fertile river valleys, deserts, and thick forests, all differentiated by temperature, rainfall, flora, and fauna. Nested within these broad zones were the coundess microregions of the Roman imperial world, sometimes no larger than a single hillside or coastal inlet, within which the majority of the empire's inhabitants, more or less insulated from one another, spent most of their lives. The human geography of the Roman empire was nearly as heterogeneous. The very different pre-conquest histories of the many areas brought under Roman imperial control gave rise to considerable internal diversity.

Here the big divide was berween east and west. Ar the dawn of Roman overseas expansion c. 2 40 BC, the Italian peninsula sat at the far western edge of a world-system centered on the eastern Mediterranean and running as far east as the Hindu Kush. 4 This was a world oflarge, centralized states, ruled, for the most part, by kings, and characterized by elaborate social stratification, economic complexity, technological innovation, widespread urbanization, and a highly developed historical consciousness based on authoritative literary texts. Most of the western Mediterranean and continental Europe, by contrast, stood as a tribal periphery of chis world-system, with simple political structures, rudimentary social and economic organization, low levels of urbanization, and no literary rradicion. 5 At the intersection of these regions lay a central zone, the "Hellenistic West, " comprising southern Italy, Sicily, Punic North Africa, and the southern Iberian peninsula, which served as a sort of"gareway" for the spread of political structures and cultural forms from east to west. 6 These different regions of the Mediterranean basin, then, were at very different stages of political development in the last centuries of the first millennium BC, when all were simultaneously incorporated by the Roman state into a single imperial sysrem.7 And it goes without sayi ng that within these broad zones, there was considerable diversity of historical experience prior to the Roman conquest. T he Roman empire contained within its administrative boundaries a myriad of distinctive regional and local histories. Historical variatio n meant cultural diversiry. T his could be illustrated in many ways. In the religious sphere, for example, coundess deities, sacred objects and spaces, ritual practices, and beliefs co-existed in a profoundly pluralist imperial order. 8 Artistic diversity was perhaps less pronounced bur significant nonetheless, with different traditions and styles, as well as different modes of artistic production and ways of seeing, prevailing in

2

' Population: Scheidel 2007: 45-9. For the speed of communications, see e.g. Casson 1971: 281-99; Millar 2002-6 [1982]: 2.173-5; Duncan-Jones 1990: 7-29; Ando 2000: 121-2. l Horden and Purcell 2000, with Shaw 2001 ; Potter 2004: 10-23.

1

3

4

I use the term "world-system" co denote a large-scale, multipolar, and loosely bounded civili2ation characteriud by broadly similar political, economic, and social structures. T here are now many useful introductions co the historical evolution of the eastern Mediterranean - the "Hellenistic wo rld" prior co the Roman conquest; see, e.g., Erskine 2003, with full bibliography.

5

For a broad overview of the pre- Ro man, Iron Age western Mediterranean and temperate Europe, see

Dietler 2007. 6 On the "Hellenistic West," a rapidly developing fiel d, see the papers collected in Prag and Q uinn forthcoming. 7 This is not meant to imply a crude, evolutionary model of development, but rather to point co varyi ng levels of social and political complexity at different stages in the (variable) processes of state-form ation in the ancient world; see brieAy Goldstone and Haldon 2009: 24-7. 8 Religious diversity: e.g. Turcan 1996; Rupke 1997; Beard, North and Price 1998. For a recent attempt co delineate some of the unify ing features of religion in the Roman empire, Rives 2007.

.--- ..----

---

I 4

Imperial Ideals in the Roman West empire. 9

different parts of the Dietary patterns, too, were quite variegated across the empire, determined not only by the availability of specific crops, but also by regional and local preferences fo r different types of meat.'0 Perhaps the most obvious marker of cultural diversity in the Roman empire was language. We tend to think immediately, and too often exclusively, of the major Latin west/Greek east divide, but it must be emphasized that this bifurcation in the language of high culture in the Roman empire was only the most conspicuous crack in the linguistic fa~ade of a truly polyglot realm that comprised scores oflocal languages and dialects. 11 It is probably safe to assume that most subjects of the Roman empire could not communicate with one another. There were, of course, several unifying forces in the Roman empire, but all must be qualified in one way or another. The Mediterranean sea provided a measure of cohesion, especially as a catalyst for the communications that promoted local, regional, and interregional interaction between the geologically discrete, but functionally interdependent, microregions of the Roman world. But the sea itself was very large, extending some 2 ,300 miles from west to east, and very differentiated, effectively broken up into numerous separate waters by islands, peninsulas, a sprawling maze of disjointed currents, and a highly variable coastline. The economy of the empire as a whole was based on agriculture, and long-distance trade was substantial enough to ensure the regular movement of goods between regions, but there never emerged a single, fully integrated, market economy in the Roman empire.12 Though rhe basic dynamics of the urban/ rural dichotomy were roughly the same everywhere, the geographical distribution of cities and urban systems throughout the empire was rather lopsided, with much higher densities in the east and along the Mediterranean coast.'3 And while the Roman imperial state did impose a degree of administrative unifo rmity on its sweeping territories, chis never approached the sort of homogeneity that we take for granted in a modern nation-state. 14 Indeed, 9

Artistic diversity: e.g. Scott and Webster 2003; Brilliant 2007; for varieties of visual literacy, viewing, and subjectivity, see also Elsner 2007. ' King 1999. " Linguistic diversity: Neumann and Untermann 1980; Harris 1989: 175-90. For bilingualism with " Laun,_ see also Adams 2003, and for regional variation of Latin itself, Adams 2007. Agran an economy: e.g. Horden and Purcell 2000: 175-297; Kehoe 2007: 550-9. O n markets and degrees of economic integration in the Roman empi re, see, e.g., Duncan-Jones 1990: 48-76; , H?wgego 1994; Hopkins 2002 (1995/96); Temin 2001; Morley 2007. 3 It IS also "'.orth ~o n~g that the multitude of cities, towns, and villages throughout the empire was organized in an mtncate mosaic of varying fo rmal status. 4 ' Taxat!on, for example, w~ fur from unifo rm, and even tho ugh the tenets of Roman law applied.' in pn nc,ple, to all Roman cmrens throughout the empire, in practice it seems that local laws prevailed 0

Introduction

5

the central state duri ng the first two centuries AD never attempted direct rule over its widely dispersed subjects, channeling the bulk of its material and human resources into the armies stationed along the frontiers and devolving most of what passed fo r day-to-day administration onto semi-autonomous communities. ' 5 This, too, res ulted in local and regional diversity. Finally, the diffusio n of Roman citizensh ip from one end of the Mediterranean world to the other was a remarkable and characteristic feature of the Roman empire, but its spread was very uneven, both socially and geographically. 16 Overall, then, the picture is one of diversity and fragmentation . One conspicuous exception to this empire-wide diversity was the Roman emperor. If nothing else, every inhabitant of the Roman empire shared a single ruler.17 And the Roman emperor was no mere ornament in the Roman imperial superstructure. Partly as an important actor in his own right, and partly as a deeply resonant symbol, the Roman emperor had a deep impact on both the political system and the cultural fabric of the Roman empire. It is surprisingly difficult to fit the Roman emperor neatly into standard typologies of rulership. On the one hand, the emperor served as something like a civilian magistrate, formally endowed by the institutions of the res publica, "commonwealth," with a collection of precisely defined constitutional powers. T here was no public investiture or coronation ceremony for new emperors. In fact, most emperors made an elaborate show of initially refusing imperial power, subsequently rejecting all sorts of prerogatives and honors fo r the d uration of their reigns. 18 At. the root of this anomalous posture of monarchic recusatio was the venerable rep ublican framework out of which Augustus and his successors had fashioned the political system known to later commentators and modern scholars as "the principate" (principatus). As is well known, Augustus in particular was careful to ensure more often than nor. O n taxatio n in the empi re, see, e.g., Neesen 1980; Brunt 1990 (1981}: 324-46, 531-40; Corbier 1991; Lo Cascio 2000: 36---43, 177-203. On Roman law and local law, Galsterer 1986; Crawfo rd 1988; Lintott 1993: 154-60. •s Accounts of d ifferent aspects of this arrangement in Jacques 1984; Ga rnsey and Saller 1987: 26---40; Reyno lds 1988; Burto n 2001. ' 6 O n Roman citirenship, see Sherwin-White 1973; Shaw 2000: 361-72; Inglebert 2002b; Garnsey 2004; for Roman citirenship as a benefit of empire, see below, 104. ' 7 In some parts of the empi re, especially in the east during the first centu ry AD, many inhabitants actually lived under what Millar has called a "two-level monarchy," subject both to a local king and to the Ro man emperor (2002- 6 (1996) : 2.229-45}. But the Roman emperor was clearly superior. 8 ' O n imperial recu.ratio at accession, see H urcne r 2004; cf. Beranger 1953: 137-69 (note the long list of em perors, from Augustus through T heodosius, for whom this ritual is attested, 139-40}; Wickert 1954: 2,258- 64. See also Wallace-Had rill 1982: 36---7 and Talbert 1984: 359-61 fo r imperial refusal of honors in general.

Imperial Ideals in the Roman West

Introduction

that each of the powers and honors voted to him could be represented as consistent with Republican precedent, and throughout the imperial period the emperor articulated his formal power largely through Republican symbols and ticles.'9 In these respects, then, the Roman emperor does not look • al "abso Iute monarch •"20 very much like a convennon On the other hand, the formal powers with which the emperor was invested were in fact absolute, and he was acknowledged by the Roman jurists as being, uniquely, "above the law. "21 lndee~, ultimate decisionmaking authority in the Roman state came to rest with the person of the emperor, as the multiple, discrete points of decision-making characteristic of the Republic were eventually subordinated to the will of a single ruler. The reigning emperor also normally controlled the transmission of imperial power. Though the Roman imperial monarchy is historically distinctive for its high degree of dynastic discontinuity, individual emperors nevertheless regularly designated their own successors - often, in the absence of direct male descendants, from outside the nuclear family - and for most of the period down co AD 235 these publicly named heirs acceded to the imperial throne without incident. 22 And finally, the emperor very nearly monopolized all the key symbols of political power, especially in the city of Rome. 2 3 Later observers were quite right to refer to the political system established under Augustus as a monarchy. 24

It would be misleading, however, to conceptualize the emperor as an omnipotent monarch capable of dominating his far-flung empire. T he structural limitations to the practical power of Roman emperors were simply too great. Arisrocratic competito rs could be very dangerous, especially those in command of legions stationed in the periphery. From such potential pretenders to the throne the threat of usurpation could never be extinguished entirely. 25 Less acute but more constant pressure came fro m those groups within Roman imperial society that were capable of meaningful collective action in the public sphere. Especially significant were the senate, the plebs urbana of Rome, and the legionary armies. With these influential collectivities the emperor was in constant dialogue, both real and symbolic, interacting with each in a highly prescribed manner calculated to elicit the public displays of consensus, or "acceptance," upon which imperial legitimacy ultimately rested.26 And even when the emperor did decide to act, he faced the stubborn problems of time and space noted above - a constant challenge to the effective communications, mobilization of resources, and concentration of power necessary to achieve desired ends. There were, then, multiple constraints on the independent power of the emperor. There was also real institutional continuity before and after Augustus. 27 This does not mean, however, that the transition from republic to monarchy made little difference to the political system of the Roman empire. No one will claim chat the advent of monarchy at Rome triggered a fundamental redistribution of wealth and power throughout Roman society. Bue it did create a major new actor within the larger configuration of power that comprised the Roman empire. Part of this complex process was documented by Syme in The Roman Revolution, in which "the revolution" had less co do with the transition from republic co monarchy than with the extensive changes in the composition of the senatorial order brought about

6

1

9

10

11

Different perspectives on the "emperor as magistrate," with references to earlier studies, in Ycync 200:ia; Rowe 2007. For Republican elements in the emperor's cirulacure, prominent at least through the reign of Constantine (cf. Cll 5.8ou = !LS 697), see Hammond 1959: 58--91. . As exemplified, for example, by the absolutist kings of early modern Europe; for a recent overvi~ of the scholarship on early modern absolutism, with a focus on the reign of Louis XIV, see Beik 2005, with abundant references. The emperor's absolute power is stated quire explicitly in the sixth clause of the lex de imptrio V,spasiani (CIL 6.930 = !LS 244 = RS 1.39, II. 18-20): utiqu, quaecunqu, ,x usu reipublica, mai,s/11/t

divinarum hum[an)arum publicarum privatarumqu, r,rum me cens,bit, ei ager, facer, ius pottstasqut sit . .. For the argument that this clause means exactly what it says, and was intended to grant absolui~ power to the emperor, see Brunt 1977: 109-16; contra, C rook 1996: 120 ("residual emergency pow•~ only). The emperor's imperium was also formally superior to that of all ocher magistrates: cf. D10 53.32.5; CJL 21 /5.900, II. 34-6, with Eck , t al. 1996: 158-61. Emperor "above the law:" Dig. 1.3.3i (U lpian): prinu ps legibus solutm est; for the general perception that the emperor was above the law, see also Sen. Ep. 7.2, Clem. 1.1 ; Plin. Pan. 65,1 ; Suer. Cal. 14.1; Dio 53.18. 1. . . " In general on the transmission of imperial power, Hammond 1956. For Roman dynasric disconnnu!ry in wo rld-histori cal perspective, see Scheidel fo rthcoming; cf. Heksrer 2001 on adoption and ficnve kinship in the second century. 13 See, e.g., Veyne 1976: 675-730; Zanker 1988a; Benoist 2005; Ewald and Norefia 2010. "' For explicit references 10 the Augustan regime as a monarchy, see, e.g., App. Hist. pr. 14 (Ta,,wµal'."_v ESµovapxiav m pn;;>,eev); Dio 52.1.1 (EK 6ho(nov µovap x efo8ai av81s C1Kp1!3ws i\p~aVTo). lmphc1t references abound, e.g. Sen. Ben. 2 .20, 6.32; Suet. Aug. 28; Tac. Hist. 1.1 Ann. 1. 1.1 , 1.2.2 , 1.3.I, I.4.1, 1.9.4, 3,28, etc. No contempora ry author referred 10 Augustus as a monarch, but many passages reflect a clear recognition of his monarchic power, e.g. Vier. pr. 1-2; Hor. Carm. 1.12.49-52, 3.14.i4-• 6• 1

1 1

16

4.5.1- 2, Ep. 2.1.1- 4; O v. Fast. 1.531-2, 2.138-42, Trist. 4-4-13-16. On these passages, see Millar 2002-6 (1973): 1.267-70, arguing that Augustus' reign was openly mo narchic and universally seen as such; contra, Gruen 2005 . Furthe r discussion of the discincrive nature of Ro man imperial mo narchy below, 315-17. T he poli tical histo ry of the fi rst rwo centuries AD is punctuated by usurpers making violent bids fo r im perial power, some unsuccessful (e.g. Vi ndex in 68, Sarurninus in 89, Avidius Cassius in 175), others successfu l (Vespasian in 69, Septim ius Severus in 193); for analysis and discussion, see Flaig 1992. Flaig 1992, esp. 94- 131 (sen ate), 38-93 (urban plebs), and 132-73 (army). For the worki ngs unde r a single emperor, Trajan, of what Flaig calls an Aku ptanzsystem, see Seelenrag 2004. O n the connection between consensus and legitimacy, Weber 1968 (1921): 1,121-48, esp. 1,125-6, with Flaig 2010 {' acceptance"). Legislative assemblies, fo r example, are a11es1ed as late as Nerva (Dig. 47.21.3.1), and electoral assemblies we re still meeting in the early third century (Dio 37.28, 68.20.4) . 1

17

7

Imperial Ideals in the Roman West

Introduction

by the violent criumph ofAugustus' )arty." Where_ S_yme _went a_scray was in . •mplicit disregard for the symbolic forms of pol meal. life, an interpretive hg1 • ce signaled most clearly by a famous programmatic statement: In al] scan b . h ages, whatever the form and name of g~vernment, e 1t mo narc y, rep_ublic, or democracy, an oligarchy lurks behmd the fas;ade; and Roman history, 28 Republican or Imperial, is the hist?:)' o~ the_ go~erning class.''. F~r despite the underlying continuity of polmcal msmunons, Republican ideology, and oligarchic power, the change in the "~orm of government" was in fact critical - if not for the reasons normally given. One impediment to understanding has been a tendency to conflate the reigning emperor with the institution of monarchy. No emperor was as powerful as his public image would suggest, but the advent of monarchy was nevertheless a decisive moment in the political and cultural history of the Roman empire, above all because it brought with it the emergence of a new symbol, the emperor, a simple but potent idea with tremendous resonance. The very existence of this symbol, and the different uses to which it could be put by different actors, reconfigured several power networks within the Roman world, as I will argue, intensifying mechanisms of social control and solidifying the hegemony of the Roman imperial state. In the transition from republic to monarchy, that is to say, it was not so much the political dimension of the change that mattered, but the symbolic one. This has not been sufficiently emphasized in recent accounts of the impact of the Augustan revolution on the political system of the Roman empire. 29 One clue suggesting that the advent of monarchy at Rome had farreaching effects on the politics and culture of the Roman world is chronological. A number of broadly interrelated changes and processes converged in the decades straddling the turn of the first millennium, coinciding with the advent of monarchy under Augustus. Changes in the organization of state and empire were especially momentous. The explosive and ceaseless imperial expansion of the last two centuries BC decelerated rapidly. Henceforth conquest was sporadic and comparatively brief. The administration of the provinces was rationalized. New conceptualizations of imperial territory and administrative space came to the fore, road systems were systematically

developed, the provincial census was initiated, and the collection of tax regularized. In brief, an aggressive conquest state was replaced by a more stable tributary regime. 30 At Rome, several new discourses arose, on time, religion, law, science, and language, and as a result knowledge became increasingly differentiated and professionalized. Literature, art, architecture, domestic space, and forms of public display (especially oratory) were all developing rapidly and in dynamic ways. Together these changes amounted to what has rightly been called a "cultural revolution. "31 In the provinces, the processes of urbanization accelerated, especially in the west. 32 Indeed, the western empire experienced its own cultural revolution during this period, a process often described under the rubric of "Romanization," as many of the objects, practices, and beliefs characteristic of Roman Italy, from monumental architecture, public space, and religious ritual to clothing, tablewares, and nomenclature, began to be widely adopted - and adapted - throughout the western provinces. Rome had had an overseas empire stretching back to the mid-third century BC, bur the formative period of provincial cultures in the west did not really take off until the late first century Bc. 33 All of these changes were chronologically coincident with the transition from republic to monarchy at Rome. It is naturally difficult to disentangle how, precisely, such political and cultural changes were related to one another, and to determine where ultimate causation lies. Too much was happening at the same time for chis convergence to have been merely coincidental. Ir is equally unrealistic to posit Augustus himself as the architect of these empire-wide transformations. We must look for deeper causes. Some scholars favor political explanations, arguing (or implying) that the emergence of monarchy drove the cultural changes characteristic of the

8

18 19

Syme 1939: 7. See, for_ ':""mple, Eder 2005 and Rowe 2007, both putting too much emphasis on institutional contmumes between the Republic and Augustan/Julio-Claudian periods. And those studies that do focus on the cultural and symbolic aspects of the Augustan age (and of the early empire in general) do not draw enough attention to the effects of these changes on political structures and configurations of power; see below, n. 35 and 13-14.

30

9

Deceleration of conquest: Gruen 1996; Rich 2003. Provincial administration: Eck 2000; Eich 2005. Conceptualization of administrative space: Nicolet 1991. Road systems: Rathmann 2003. Provincial census: Lo Cascio 2000: 205- 19. Collection of tax: see above, n. 14. Imperial state as tributary regime: Bang 2008. 3' Knowledge and discourse: Wallace-Hadrill 1997, 2005, 2008: 213-58; Moatti 1997; on time and calendrical reform, see also Feeney 2006. Literature: Galinsky 1996: 225- 87, 2005: 281- 358 (essays by Barchiesi, Griffin, White, and Galinsky). Art and architecture: Zanker 1988a; Ha fter 1988; Galinsky 1996: 141-224. "Cultural revolution" at Rome: Wallace-Hadrill 1989, 1997, 2008; Habinek and Schiesaro 1997; cf. Gruen 1990, 1992. 3' Cf. MacMullen 2000: 7-10, 30-5, 51-5, 93-9, with references ro earlier studies. H Studies on the meaning and usefulness of the term "Romanization" continue to proliferate at a dizzying pace; Woolf 1998: 1-23 offers a sensible introduction. Adoption of Italic "way of life": MacMullen 2000; cf. Ward-Perkins 1970 for architectural change in the western provinces, and Wallace-Hadrill 2000 and 2008 for changes in material culcure more broadly. "Formative period" of provincial cul cures: Woolf 1995.

Imperial Ideals in the Roman West

Introduction

period.34 Some have suggested chat cultural change was primary, and chat the transition from republic to monarchy should be seen as a product of chat change.35 Ochers have sought to dissolve the dichotomy between political and cultural change altogether, arguing chat each was part of the same "process."36 Consensus remains elusive. . One approach is to see these broadly simultaneous changes - the shift from a republic to a monarchy and from conquest state to tributary empire, the cultural revolution at Rome, and the cultural transformation of the western empire - as the product of a more general convergence of "social power" in the Roman world.37 As a measure of the capacity to control territory, resources, and persons, social power arises from a number of different sources, especially control over meaning and values, material resources, physical force, and administrative infrastructure. 38 These various sources of power are organized and actualized in different ways, and are usually controlled by any number of different social actors. In the Roman empire, the key actors were the institutions and associated personnel of the central state; the most influential collectivities within the empire, especially the senate and the army; and the layered aristocracies of the Roman world, both imperial and local. 39 In attempting to situate the changes summarized

above within the context of social power in the Roman world, we must remain sensitive not on ly to different types of power, but also to the different networks within which these types of power were organized, and to the different actors controlling these networks. Explaining chis convergence, in other words, is rather more complicated than simply analyzing the relationship between "policies" and "culture," as the question is normally framed. The vital link chat enabled the co nvergence of social power in the Roman world was forged between the central state, on the one hand, and the local aristocracies of the empire, on the other. This bond was based on a simple trade. Local aristocrats throughout the empire helped to maintain order and to collect taxes in the interests of the central state, which in return provided these local "big men" with markers of status, especially Roman citizenship and, where necessary, with armed force. 4° Closely related to local administration was civic benefaction, the customary practice by which these same local aristocrats voluntarily expended their own wealth on the physical development and adornment of their cities. In the western empire in particular, chis voluntary civic benefaction was the engine that drove urbanization and the making of the cities in which the cultural transformation chat began in the late first century BC was most visible. 41 Both the upper-tier aristocrats who controlled the central state and the lower-tier aristocrats who controlled the municipalities of the empire had a strong incentive to maintain this arrangement, since both benefited from it. And the results are everywhere manifest in the early imperial period, above all in the political stability of the state, dominated by an imperial aristocracy headed by an emperor; in the territorial stability of the empire, maintained by a large and expensive army that was fin anced by the taxes

IO

Syme 1939 is still the best-known politics-driven acco unt of this transformarive period. Zanker 1988a is a celebrated overview of the vis ual sphere in the Augustan age, but art and architecture are seen throughout as the products of - and therefore secondary to - underlying political and social conditions. 35 T his has been the dominant approach of the 1990s and 2000s, very much a product of "the cultural turn" of these decades (cf. Steinmetz 19996: 1-3). Representative works include Galinsky 1996 and Habinek and Schiesaro 1997, who write of "the centrality of culture, both as an explanatory phenomenon and as an analytical category" (xvi) ; the primacy of culture also characterizes much ofWoolfs work (1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005}, e.g. 2005: 110: "The shift to autocracy at Rome, in other words, was just another component of the cultural transformation of the Mediterranean world" (author's emphasis). 16 E.g. Wallace- Hadri ll 200s: 81: "The present argument neither explai ns political change by cultural change, nor the opposite. It attempts to show that the two processes of change were deeply enmeshed with each other, indeed were one and the same process" (my emphasis) . 37 For what follows, see Mann 1986 (esp. 1-33 for the general model of"social power"} and 1993; further discussion below, 322-3. 38 These represent what Mann calls, respectively, "ideological," "economic," "military," and "political" power (1986: 22-8) . 39 There was, of course, substantial overlap between these three categories (a senator from Baetica serving as a provincial governor in Asia Minor, for example, or an equestrian from North Africa serving as a legionary officer on the Rhine frontier, simultaneously belonged to all three). I follow Bendix in characterizing the aristoc racy as that segment of society that controlled landowne rship and monopolized a position of honor and prestige through claims to superior birth and morality (1978: I06), and Kaursky in stressing aristocratic participation in imperial administration and warfure (1982: 79-98, 144- 66); cf. Trigger 2003: 147-54. T he aristocracies (or "elites") of the Roman empire were "layered" in the sense that there always e,cisted important subdivisions within this larger ruling classi the most important for our purposes was the divis ion between an upper tier of "imperial" l4

II

aristocrats, i.e. members of the senatorial and equestrian orders in the imperial administration, and a lower tier of "locaJ" aristocrats, i.e. the members of the municipal ruling classes of the empire. For the senatorial and equestrian orders as a composite R,ich,aristokratie, see (e.g.) Hopkins 1983: 44- 5, n o-11. Ir should also be stressed, finally, that the emperor himself, and the imperial fumily in general, did not stand apart, but belonged to the imperial aristocracy; cf. Kautsky 1982: 235-7, and below, 315. 4 ° For the administrative arrangements, see works cited in n. 15 above; for the central state's contributions to the bargain (esp. citizenship and armed force}, see also Brunt 1990 (1976} : 267-81, 515-17; MacMullen 1988: I04- 18; Lendon 1997 (passim); Woolf 1998, esp. 24- 47; Shaw 2000: 362-73- For similar arrangements in other pre-industrial empires, see discussion in Eisenstadt 1963, esp. 11 5-22 1; Bendix 1978: 218- 43; Kau rsky 1982, esp. 132-43; Sinopoli 1994: 164-5, 2001: 197-9; Trigger 2003: 207-9. 4 ' On civic benefuction in the Greek and Roman world, Veyne 1976 remains fundamental. For regional studies of benefaction and urbanization in the early Roman west, see, e.g., Wesch-Klein 1990 {North Africa}; Woolf 1998: 106- 41 (Gaul); Melchor Gil 2001 (Spai n}; Lomas 2003 (Italy}; fo r the eastern empire, see most recently Z uiderhoek 2009. For more derail, see below, chapter 5.

j

12

Introduction

Imperial Ideals in the Roman West

collected by local aristocrats; and in the replication of Roman/Italic ~ultural forms throughout the western empire, requiring a sustained expenditure _of material resources by these same local aristocrats, wh~se o"."n weal~, so~1al status, and political power were all enhanced by their acnve pamc1pat1on in the Roman imperial system. None of this is meant to imply that the convergence of power networks, harmonization of interests, and resulting intensification of Roman imperial power was complete or unproblematic. The p~litical stabilicr of the central state and the territorial stability of the empire were occasionally threatened by large-scale violence from within and from beyond the empire's borders, especially in the second half of the second century_AD. The sectional interests of the different key actors could always come mto conflict, too, especially over the limited agricultural surplus of the empire, shared by the central state and the empire's landowners and extracted through taxes and rents, respectively.42 And the _intensive, infrastru~tural power of the central state was never sufficient to intervene regularly m the daily lives of the empire's subjects. The point is simply that the deg~ee of convergence, harmonization, and intensification in the Roman emp_1re was significantly higher between the late first century BC and early third century AD than it was in the two and a half centuries that came before and after. Attention to overlapping power networks may elucidate the specific processes that drove the general convergence of the late first century BC, but it does not by itself solve the problems of causation and chronology. Why did this convergence of power networks and the resulting intensification of Roman imperial power occur at all, and why did it occur when it did? Part of the answer, I argue, lies in the simple fact that the Roman world was now ruled, for the first time, by a single ruler, a monarch. The emperor played several critical roles in this convergence, both as a social actor and as a symbol - and this distinction, which deserves more emphasis than it is normally given, is critically important. As a uniquely powerful actor in his own right, on the one hand, the emperor functioned as the ultimate arbiter between still fiercely ambitious senators, suppressing the violent aristocratic competition that had destroyed the Republic and effectively re-directing this energy towards the larger goals of the central state, especially in the maintenance of a large territorial empire - less expansion and plundering, more administration and

development.43 In this way, political, military, and economic power, and the networks within which each was organized, were harmonized to a degree that had never been reached under the Republic. And th is arrangement was ultimately beneficial to the aristocrats themselves since it facilitated their collective dominance.44 In addition, the empero r could dispense marks of honor, status, and authority to equestrian officials and local aristocrats in the provinces, unilaterally distributing privilege and power throughout the empire in a manner that the Rome-based, Republican oligarchy never would have tolerated, but that was clearly advantageous to the imperial system as a whole.45 Again, this resulted in an unprecedented extension and harmonization of political, military, and economic power networks throughout the empire. As a potent symbol, on the other hand, the figure of the Roman emperor was useful to all the beneficiaries of the imperial system, above all because this symbol was uniquely capable of generating a degree of ideological unification throughout an otherwise highly diverse and fragmented empire, helping to universalize the particular claims of the Roman imperial state and to legitimate the social and political order upon which the state was based. In this way, ideological power was effectively harnessed for all the key actors within this larger configuration of power- local aristocracies, the Roman senate, and the Roman army (collectivities); lower-tier and uppertier aristocrats (individuals); and, critically, the ruling emperor himself in a manner that would have been nearly impossible without a resonant, unifying symbol of this sort. 46 The general convergence of social power in the Mediterranean world of the late first century BC, then, triggered in part by the advent of monarchy at Rome, generated an unprecedented extension and intensification of institutional, collective, and aristocratic power - an amalgamation that we 43

44

41

Senato rial competi tion in the downfall of the Republic: e.g. Brunt 1988: 32-45. Suppression of aristocratic competition (and public display) under the monarchy: Eck 1984, 2005, 2010; Campbell 1984: 348-62; Talbert 1984: 362-4, 425-30; Roller 2001: 97-108. T he benefi rs of a strong, centralized, and universalistic state for the individual power of panicularist aristocrats is a key theme of Eisenstadt 1963; cf. Mann 1986: 170-1. It was precisely the unwillingness of the ruling elites of other ancient, republ ican, city-state empi res (e.g., Athens and Carthage) to distribute power and privilege in this way that hindered stateformatio n and prevented large-scale extensions and intensifications of imperial power; cf. Scheidel 2006. Such policies could cause tension between monarchs and aristocrats, another example of sectional inte resrs coming into confl ict; the loctJS classi= from the early empire is the debate under C laudius on the admission of Gallic aristocrats to the Roman senate; see Tac. Ann. 11.23-5 and !LS 212,

4'

For this structural competition over a limited agricultural surplus, see, e.g., Hopkins 2002 (1995/96).

13

46

wi th Griffin

1982.

In general o n the continuous struggle between monarchs and aristocrats, and

their mutual interdependence, see Weber 1968 (1921): 1,006-69; cf. Moryl 2001: 12-38. T his point will be argued in detail in subseque nt chapters.

Imperial Ideals in the Roman West

Introduction

may call, as a convenient shorthand, "the Roman empi_r--l _ _ --oo..r,0::,-

ro ~ ::-- ~ Q 3 ~-

::, n S- -· ~ I>' ,:~nJJ&l:g 3 e:'"' !J!. ..., Mo '"O~ (b n ::, .., - · (b~ aq::, s- ~-· ~• n n ~JJ ~ 8 "Sl £..S-" n C/l~ e=n3;;n~ 3 --o n ::, o ~ .., n6-> i'i .., en M

Q..

,-,

g_

-·

~ o e!.

~ ...,...:.

~

'-:

"'0--,Q~j::M

~

~~g@::,E..

~

..,

:5. ,.., ..,

-·

Cl)

Cl)

(1)

0.. 0.. "' '"O

"" "" -I>

:::r

o g ~ sn

...,

so

n· o· ~ ~

..,

o..

~ ~

~ o·

~

0

O :..

..,

0

>
) 0.. ~ 0 ::! . r:r ~ °' "'..,.,o~ '"O \D n ~ - ::, ::, n I ::, ~ - "' ff> ~ o::, ~S r:r V"\ ti ~ n, CT '< ~ s-E.~§--@ p.) ~ ~ ~ ~ OQ ' ' 0.. 0...?

Totals:

z ....t:,

~

- ·

n~

"' "' tt1

('I)

::no..nn:;z::,::, oqo30..,."' ~ ::, ~ 5· i'i o' r;is-a~;;i:

Q

>

~

~ r:r

~

1·

Vesp

Tit

Dom

Nerv

Traj

Had

AntP

MAur

Com m

SepSev

Car

Mac

Elag

SevAI

6,665

1,550

2,146

1,044

13,073

15,261

25,533

18,493

5,736

24,015

5224

730

I0,117

13,211

-

475 1,039 115

307 485 166

-

-

313

-

41

112 569

63

63

-

-

-

69-235 142,798

Personifications

"" ~

Abundamia Aequitas Aeternitas Annona Bonus Eventus Clementia Concordia Fecunditas Felicitas Fides Fortuna Hilaritas Honos Jndulgentia lustitia Juventas Laetitia Liberalitas Libertas Moneta Munificentia Nobilitas Patientia Pax Perpetuitas Pietas Providencia

51

223

-

18

-

158

-

1,020

1,071 724 883 13 559 413

276

500 14 1,569 86 911 355

753 91 1,193

-

686

65 293

-

-

120 49 501 39 20

-

-

-

628 305 646 82

-

r

-

1,137 17 796

-

-

-

-

-

1,643

275

-

248

-

437 14

-

I

-

!08 86

-

Ill

225

2

-

149

-

-

-

176

248

25 70

-

974 97 220 87

155 2,094

-

90

-

788 2,600 2,659

29

150

-

837

91 410 364

-

4 478

-

98 349

763 209

-

-

8

80 2 57

-

-

822

638

-

-

1,161 143

163 1,583

415 198 237 145

-

I

l

173 I

-

-

502

92

-

-

-

!04 492 78 75 81

89

345

-

-

147

554

!04

36 269 244

-

149 150

-

979 438

142 98 304

-

89 103

7

-

-

86

30

711

-

4 23 124 740 620 217

116 249 530 292 16

-

-

177 187 519

184 192

-

-

115

!093

276 443

1,207 4,430 2,978 4,595 20 5 430 6,064 1,111

6,745 1923 4,897 995 686 659 330 120 446 2,130 1,730 763 81 434 4 6,431

IOI

IOI

16 613

3,606 4 ,044

(cont.)

(cont.)

Totals: Pudicitia Salus Securitas Spes Tranquillitas Victoria Vircus

Tit 1,550

Dom 2,146

-

-

-

186 28 38

II

3

Vesp 6,665

-

-

240

38

-

-

-

-

-

-

21

32

Nerv 1,044

-

Traj 13,073

Had 15,261

-

-

62

26 3 264

363 1,042 12 244 65 959

-

1,920 619

-

AmP 25,533

MAur 18,493

219

146 1,164 38 33

124 38

-

-

1,093 215

228 183

799 18 465 265 276 505

Comm SepSev 5,736 24,015

-

256 453 760 205

-

Car 5224 IO !IO

Mac 730

Elag 10,II7

SevAI 13,2II

69-235 142,798

-

940 352

685

1,934 5,0 70 977 1,639 33° 8,419 2,339

53 80 33

-

-

963

-

3

-

-

166 3ll

-

-

-

-

73 329

-

-

2,264 587

64

-

357

-

371 230

Deities

V,) V,)

°'

Aesculapius Apollo Bacchus Capricorn Castor Ceres Cybele Diana Dionysus Genius Hercules Juno Jupiter Luna Mars Mercury Minerva Nemesis Neptune Oceanus

Ops Pluto Roma Romulus Serapis Sol Tellus Triton Venus Vesta

-

-

135

50

-

-

300

272

-

-

-

I

2

-

47

1,877

5 29

-

-

-

-

-

22

91 13

-

-

II4

25

-

-

359

-

Objectl

V,) V,)

'-I

Altar Asch Asms Bull Caduceus Caprive(s) Clasped hands Club of Herc. Column ColumnAnrP Column Traj . Cornucopiae Dolphin 1

-

3 305 218 66

58 12

-

-

-

23

38

8

3

-

-

-

223

43

10

-

-

-

27

II

2,751

-

-

-

n9

n9

-

-

260 65 214

7 25

652 236

-

102

-

-

422

-

92 2

-

-

1,073 120

-

-

-

-

175

1,520

-

-

-

179

768

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

629

1,540 64

-

-

230

365

79

-

-

-

147 291

-

-

196

-

-

74 24

-

51 320 156 154 646 160 413 619

69

-

1,027

33

161

667

18

-

403 25 480

l

-

-

45 189 291

49 5

172

-

-

230 60 302

1,240 78 223

917

139

182

-

-

236

-

-

-

-

-

22

102

378

207

479

-

-

633 1,683

-

23

-

3

-

514 224

-

555 2

-

735 261

217

-

734 328

505 288

473

85

-

-

I

8

-

-

28

-

-

569

450

l

-

-

-

64

-

20

-

-

694

-

57

-

-

-

-

132 85

1,466

779

-

-

302

1,856

-

-

-

-

481

543

200

790

-

166 60 1 5 53 33 3,347 455 1,026 154 2,430 797 3,222 3,344 25 6,992 78 3,933 5 339 24

217 476

3 22 3,538 64 537 1,821 182 2 4,174 3,852

-

697 1 8 3 333 2,566 539 20 69 64 196 3 266

-

This is not a list of attributes and adjuncrs, but rather of those reverse types in which various objecrs were depicted, usually without an identifying legend. The cornucopiae, for example, was one of the most common attributes on the imperial coinage (see 176), but was only rasely shown by itself (three examples in the entire sample, all minted under Vespasian).

(com.)

(cont.)

Totals:

..,, ..,, 00

Eagle Elephant Galley Globe Goat/Goatherd Grain stalks Heifer Herald Laurel Lion Oxen Peacock Pegasus Prow Pulvinar Pyre Quadriga Relig. cools Rogus Seasons She-wolf Shield Sow Standards Scar/ crescent Temple Throne Thunderbolt Tripod

Trophy Via Traiana Woman Wreath

Emp!Imp. Familj

Vesp

Tit

Dom

Nerv

Traj

Had

AmP

MAur

6,665

1,550

2,146

1,044

13,073

15,261

25,533

18,493

268

-

-

-

16

18

-

-

-

-

567

25

-

-

-

17 124 38

-

129

98

13

91

-

-

-

-

281

315

-

-

15

98

188 20

9 450

-

-

59

-

125

106

-

195

-

l

19

-

I

2

227 113

41 45 52

-

138

-

49

-

86

107

-

-

-

4

-

-

20

204

-

-

414 97 322

-

308 138

Comm SepSev

Car

Mac

Elag

SevAI

5,736

24,015

5224

730

10,117

13,211

379

106

-

-

7

-

-

-

-

12

-

33

-

2 9

-

200

661

-

-

-

-

-

-

62

37

19

105

I

4

-

-

23

-

-

-

-

821

452

719

15

103

880

395

338

3,402

1,483 105 82 I

42 240 38 19 15 23 98 596 188 20 2 9 68 981 661 I

-

145 195 106 4 223 421 470 480 52

407 138 6 150

6 31

69-235 142,798

164

171

1,718

1,436

10,496

Geography

..,, ..,,

Aegypros Africa Alexandria Asia Danube Germania Hispania Italia Nile

164 123 48 43

-

-

121

55 2

50

So 57 73

66

\D

' Because the number of different types in this category is so large, the tabulations list only the totals, rather than the numbers for individual types.

164 244 48 43 55 52 80 123

73

s- t:! . ;:, ~ ~ ~ ::r,..., n, 0 ~ - · ;:, n O ::,::r,;:, 3 ~ ~ Q 3 ;;;·

~ 8 ;f:, ::: ~ ~~ ..,

r..'l

'"'Oc2~ ::,-,a 0 e; .., ,.., ,..,e; ....., !"I)

U'


~

"' ~ ,.., ,..,· ;;: "O ~ E. l')l"l);fp..n,,i;:,1"

0- •

n, I') 0- ~ 1-rj O t:!. n, "O ,..,OO...:;,:

'I)

~ ;::s

~- ~ ~ ~ o' 0 v.i::,(D;:r,.,i-t

"Or-t""

'I)

rDrt~

;:id'cls-~~n

~t

~~0~'"0~

"'0 "'

::, ::,-- ,.., '"O O ...., ~ ~ g ~ ::!. ::r o...