Dissertation Cover Page

274 Pages·2011·4.21 MB·English

by  Karen Acton

Vespasian Augustus: Imperial Power in the First Century CE

by

Karen Louise Acton

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(Greek and Roman History)
in the University of Michigan
2011

Doctoral Committee:

Professor David S. Potter, Chair
Professor Bruce W. Frier
Assistant Professor Ian S. Moyer
Assistant Professor J. Mira Seo
 Karen Louise Acton
2011
Acknowledgements
Completing this project has been a labor of love on my part, but an exercise in
patience, wisdom, sympathy, helpfulness, and humor for a very large number of other
people. I know that any attempt to name all the people to whom I owe a debt of gratitude
would be impossible, and so I will begin by expressing my heartfelt thanks to all the
students, staff, and faculty who comprise the Classics community at the University of
Michigan, who have never failed to provide me with intellectual support and daily
reminders that the study of the ancient world can be – and should be – fun.
Some names stand out, however, and I must take this opportunity to thank my
committee, my Chair David Potter, Bruce Frier, Ian Moyer, and Mira Seo, for their
insight and suggestions; I am also deeply indebted to the faculty of the Program in Greek
and Roman History, especially Sara Forsdyke and Ray Van Dam, and to Ruth Scodel. I
must also thank Michelle Biggs, for always being able to solve my problems.
I would have made no progress without the humor, advice, and friendship of my
fellow students; anyone who has ever attended ancient historians’ lunch has helped me in
countless ways. Those who have read or commented on this project at various stages
deserve special thanks: Rob Chenault, Nate Andrade, Mike Sampson, Sanjaya Thakur,
Jon Arnold, Claudia Arno, Cassie Borges, Richard Persky, Jenn Finn, Jared Secord,
Shonda Thom, Evelyn Adkins, and Joe Groves. I have no doubt that I have forgotten
more names than I have remembered, and I apologize to all those whom I have left out.
ii
Finally, I must thank the people without whom I could never have begun this
project. David Page has inspired so many with his love of the ancient world, and I am
privileged to have learned from him. My family, especially my parents and my brother,
have tolerated my ramblings but encouraged my ambitions, for which I am profoundly
grateful. My deepest thanks belong to Dan Leon, who deserves my constant praise.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..ii
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………….……vi
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..vii
Introduction……………………………………………………………………..…………1
Chapter
1. The Flavian Victory
Introduction………………………………………………………………20
The Flavian plan …...……………………………………………………21
The plan in motion… ...………………………………………………….33
December to January ………………..…………………………………...38
Vespasian in Alexandria ………………..……………………………….44
Spring and early summer in Rome………….……………………………51
Vespasian’s return………………..………………………………………55
Conclusion……………………………………………………………….60

2. Space and the ideological topography of Rome: the Capitoline, the Palatine,
and the Quirinal in 70 CE
Introduction………………………………………………………………65
The Capitoline and the Palatine….………………………………………66
The Palatine and the Quirinal..…………………………………………..99
Conclusion……………………………………………………………...107

3. Auctoritas and imperium: the definition, construction, and negotiation of
Vespasian’s power
Introduction……………………………………………………………..110
Auctoritas and maiestas………………………………………………...112
Vespasian’s legal authority ……………………………………...……..132
Cola di Rienzo and the lex de imperio Vespasiani……………………..167
Conclusion……………………………………………………………...174

4. Vespasian and his dynasty: the Flavian domus Augusta
Introduction..……………………………………………………………178
iv
The Julio-Claudian domus Augusta…………………………………….180
The Flavian domus Augusta…………………………………………….202
Women in the imperial house: Caenis and Berenice…………………...221
Conclusion……………………………………………………………...232

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..… 237

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………245

v
List of Figures

Figure

2.1: RPC 1 (Vitellius) 56 ……………………...………..…………………........77
2.2: RIC II2 (Vespasian) 886…………………………..…..…………………….98
3.1: RIC I (Galba) 189……………………………….…………………………127
4.1: RIC I (Tiberius) 47…………………………………………………………182
4.2: RIC I (Nero) 7……………………………………………………………...194
4.3: RIC I (Tiberius) 68…………………………………………………………195
4.4: RIC I (Tiberius) 51…………………………………………………………198
4.5: RIC II2 (Vespasian) 16……………………………………………………..208
4.6: RIC II2 (Vespasian) 152……………………………………………………208
4.7: RIC II2 (Vespasian) 680……………………………………………………212
4.8: RIC II2 (Titus) 262…………………………………………………………219

vi
Abstract

When civil war broke out in 68 CE, the succession of imperial candidates and the
ensuing military chaos forced the people of Rome to confront their system of government
and their understanding of imperial power. In order to restore peace, Vespasian had to
translate his military victory into stable rule at a point when the concept of the emperor
had been under scrutiny. Vespasian’s solution was to construct and maintain an informal
personal authority that represented a new model of the imperial office that drew from
Julio-Claudian precedents and operated within social and cultural parameters established
by his predecessors. However, Vespasian did not seek to present himself as the heir to
the Julio-Claudian dynasty, but rather as a new imperial founder, a rival for Augustus; he
expressed the difference between himself and his predecessors in his interactions with
space in the city of Rome, the religious identity that he adopted, the rustic Italian public
persona that he developed, and the way he presented the public image of his family as an
imperial dynasty to express Rome’s Flavian future. In creating this model of imperial
authority, Vespasian drew from a range of Roman cultural traditions and historical
exempla from the Julio-Claudian period and earlier, including narrative topoi, notions of
gender and the family, the traditions and memories associated with Roman urban
topography, and models of leadership that emerged in military contexts.
The early months of Vespasian’s reign, from his acclamation in July 69 to the
Flavian triumph of June 71, show how Vespasian’s imperial persona was developed in
response to the ideological and political problems that had arisen in the previous century
vii
of Julio-Claudian rule, and which the intense experience of the civil war had exposed.
By focusing on these early months and considering how Vespasian’s imperial persona
was formed over time and in response to a variety of factors, including pressure by
Rome’s elite, it is possible to discern Vespasian’s unique conception of imperial power,
and to explore how Vespasian and his contemporaries perceived the role of the emperor
in Roman society.

viii
Introduction

The death of Nero in June 68 brought an end to the Julio-Claudian dynasty after
almost exactly a century of imperial rule; this was also the culmination of a series of
events in which a group of provincial governors rose up against the emperor and led their
legions against other Roman armies. Senatorial commanders and their legionary armies
would mobilize against Rome again at least twice over the course of the next few months.
However, the civil war of 68-69, also known as the “Year of Four Emperors,” is
remarkable for its apparent lack of lasting significance in spite of its intensity and scope:
its events encompassed the entire empire and included fierce and bloody battles fought in
Italy and even Rome itself; it saw the violent deaths of four emperors in Italy; the
provincial governor of North Africa turned renegade, while the Batavian tribes rose up
against Roman rule in Gaul and the Roman armies in Judaea ceased to pursue their war
against the Jewish rebels. Nevertheless, after the death of Vitellius and the accession of
Vespasian the empire seems to have recovered its equilibrium almost immediately; order
was restored to the armies, the provinces, and the city. Vespasian’s ability to restore
peace made him seem like a new Augustus, and his sons assumed the roles of imperial
heirs as members of Rome’s second dynasty. In the end, the civil war had changed the
identities of the individuals at the center of Rome’s political and social world, but it does
not seem to have changed the imperial office, let alone the Roman state, at all.
1