Chapter IV: Classical Authors Cited (2)

His supplying grain as well as money rose from the fact that taxes were imposed both in kind and in money. Cf. Tac. _Ann._ IV, 6; _Agr._ XIX and XXXI; C. I. Gr. 4957, 47. These passages all speak of taxes both in money and in produce. As to the method of levy, Hyginus is interesting (_De Lim._ p. 205). “The tax on agriculture is arranged in many ways. In some provinces the harvest is chargeable with a certain proportion, here a fifth, there a seventh, elsewhere a cash payment, and for this purpose certain values are determined for the fields by an estimation of the soil; as in Pannonia there is arable of the first class, of the second, meadows, mast-bearing woods, common woods, pastures: upon all these the tax is laid by the single acre, according to the fertility of the soil.” This was in the time of Trajan.

[84] The structures detailed here and in cc. 20 and 21, fall into three classes. First, those of c. 19, being either new buildings in place of ruined ones, or else entirely new ones, both classes on soil already consecrated; second, those of c. 20, being repairs of public works; third, public works upon soil given by himself, as noted in the first part of c. 21.

Augustus does not mention structures which he erected in the name of others, as the portico of Octavia, (different from the one below, Note 90), the portico of Livia, cf. Dio, XLIX, 43 and LIV, 23. He also omits the temple of Concord dedicated by Tiberius in 763 (C. I. L. I. p. 384), though he paid for it.

The order of the works is chronological for the most part.

[85] This was the Curia Julia, begun in 712. Cf. Dio XLVII, 19; XLIV, 5; XLV, 17. It was dedicated in 725 after Actium. Cf. Dio LI, 22. Here the senate met. Its location was near the forum.

[86] A shrine of Minerva Chalcidica.

[87] Begun after the Sicilian victories in 718. Cf. Dio XLIX, 15; Vell. II, 81, dedicated Oct. 9, 726. Cf. Dio, LIII, 1; C. I. L. I, p. 403. Suet. _Aug._ 29, says: “He reared a temple of Apollo in that part of his estate on the Palatine which the haruspices declared was desired by the god because it had been struck by lightning; he attached to it a portico and a Greek and Latin library.”

[88] An altar was placed at once on the spot in the forum where the body of Julius Cæsar was cremated. In 712 the senate decreed that a temple should be built there.

[89] Dionysius (I, 32), observes that the ancient condition of this place (originally a grotto near the Palatine, sacred to Pan) had been so changed as to be hardly recognizable. This was by reason of the changes made in his time, which nearly coincided with that of Augustus. Cf. C. I. L. VI, 912, 6, 9, and 841. Its precise location is undetermined.

[90] Festus, _De Verb. Sig._ L. 13, writes: “There were two Octavian porticoes, the one built near the theatre of Marcellus by Octavia, the sister of Augustus, the other close to the theatre of Pompey, built by Cn. Octavius, son of Cnæus, who was curule aedile, prætor, consul (589) decemvir for the sacred rites, and celebrated a naval triumph for a victory over King Perseus. It was the latter which, after its destruction by fire, Cæsar Augustus rebuilt.” Its reconstruction was in 721. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 43, who, however, confounds this Octavian portico with the other built some years after in the name of Augustus’ sister, Octavia.

[91] The Pulvinar was the place of honor from which the imperial family witnessed the games. Cf. Suet. _Aug._ 45; _Claud._ 4. This restoration followed the burning of the Circus Maximus in 723. Cf. Dio, L, 10.

[92] A temple attributed to Romulus, in ruins in the time of Augustus, till restored by him on the suggestion of Atticus. Cf. Nepos, _Atticus_, 20; Livy, IV, 20. The temple was probably restored in 723.

[93] Suetonius, _Aug._ 29, writes: “He dedicated the temple to Jupiter the Thunderer, in acknowledgment of his escape from a great danger in his Cantabrian expedition; when, as he was traveling by night, his litter was struck by lightning, which killed the slave who carried the torch before him.” This expedition was in 728-729, and the temple was dedicated Sept. 1, 732. Cf. Dio, LIV, 4; C. I. L. I, 400.

[94] This was dedicated in 738, on the Quirinal. Cf. Dio, LIV, 19.

[95] These three temples have more than an accidental collocation. Just as the Tarpeian mount and the Quirinal hill had their triple divinities, so had the Aventine. Cf. Varro (_De Lin._) V, 158. The temple of Juno is ascribed to the time of Camillus, and is said to have been built for the Veientines. The date of the other two is unknown, as is that of this restoration by Augustus.

[96] Also of unknown origin, location and restoration, other than as mentioned here.

[97] Dionysius, I, 68, describes the old temple, not the restoration by Augustus of which we have only this statement.

[98] The original temple was dedicated in 563, in the Circus Maximus. Cf. Livy, XXXVI, 36. Burned in 738. Cf. Dio, LIV, 19.

[99] The original temple was burned in 756. Cf. Val. Max. I, 8, 11; Dio, LV, 12; Suet. _Aug._ 57.

[100] The Capitol means the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

[101] Frontinus, _De Aq._ c. 125, speaks of a decree of the Senate in the year 743 “concerning the putting in order of the streams, conduits and arches of the Julian, Marcian, Appian, Tepulan and Aniene waters, which Augustus has promised the Senate that he will repair at his own expense.” Aqueducts were repaired in 749-750. Cf. C. I. L. VI, 1244. C. I. L. VI, 1249, gives _Iul. Tep. Mar.; imp. Cæsar divi f. Augustus ex s. c.; XXV; ped. CCXL_. C. I. L. VI, 1243, records the repairs of the Marcian aqueduct. Frontinus, _op. cit._, 12, gives some details of the doubled supply of this source, and says the new spring had to be conducted eight hundred feet to join the older fountain.

[102] Julius Cæsar dedicated this forum Sept. 24 or 25, 708. Cf. Dio, XLIII, 22; App. _B. C._, III, 28; C. I. L. I, p. 402 and 397. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, XXXV, 12, 156, mentions its completion by Augustus.

Augustus uses the word _profligata_ here for “unfinished,” a use which was common enough but not elegant, and is severely criticised by Gellius, XV, 5. The word really means wretched rather than unfinished. That Augustus was not a purist this inscription testifies, and Suetonius also tells us, _Aug._, 87 and 88, how peculiar he was in diction and orthography.

The basilica which was unfinished at the death of Augustus he refrains from naming while it was not yet dedicated. But we know from Suetonius, _Aug._ 29, and Dio, LVI, 27, that it was built in honor of his grandchildren, Gaius and Lucius.

[103] There is abundant testimony to this architectural activity. Cf. Suet. _Aug._ 29 and 30; Dio, LIII, 2; LVI, 40; Livy IV, 20; Ovid, _Fasti_, II, 59; Hor. _Carm._, III, 6. Nor was this the zeal of a mere archæologist and architect. The emperor was anxious for a revival of religious observance, as a conservative force in his new organization of the state.

[104] It is remarkable that Augustus should say he “_constructed_” the Flaminian Way, etc., for it was made nearly two hundred years before this date, 727. Moreover, the whole chapter is given up to an account of reconstructions, and of course it is meant that he _repaired_ the road and the bridges in question. The Latin verb is wanting and is restored from the Greek, ἐπόησα, which is unmistakable,—“I made.” Mommsen does not comment on the incorrectness of this statement, but Wölfflin regards the Greek verb as a blunder of the stone-cutter at Ancyra, and thinks there was no verb at all at the end of this chapter, but that the mason by mistake took the last word of the preceding chapter which is ἐπόησα. A substitution of ἐπόησα for the proper verb seems more likely, as it seems improbable that the sentence would end without a verb.

These repairs are attested by an inscription on an arch at Ariminum, thus restored by Bormann: Cf. C. I. L. XI, 365.

SENATUS POPULUS_Q ue romanus_
_imp. cæsari divi f. augusto imp. sept._
COS. SEPT. DESIGNAT. OCTAVOM _Via flamin_ IA _et reliquei_S
CELEBERRIMEIS ITALIÆ VIEIS CONSILIO _et sumptib_ US _eius mu_NITEIS.

Cf. also Suet. _Aug._ 30; Dio, LIII, 22. Other roads of Italy were repaired by those who obtained triumphs; of which more were celebrated from 726 to 728 than at any other epoch.

[105] Cf. Suet. _Aug._ 29. Its construction was vowed in 712 and it was dedicated in 752. Cf. C. I. L. I, p. 393, May 12. In c. 35, Augustus mentions the quadriga dedicated to him in this forum.

[106] This theatre was begun by Julius Cæsar. Augustus completed it in honor of Marcellus, who died in 731. It was dedicated May 4, 743. Cf. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, VIII, 17, 65. Dio, LIV, 36, assigns its dedication to 741.

[107] Suetonius, _Aug._, 30, says that on one occasion Augustus deposited in the _cella_ of Jupiter Capitolinus sixteen thousand pounds of gold (= $3,200,000) and gems and pearls of the value of fifty million sesterces (= $2,500,000). But such statements are fabulous, in view of Augustus’ own statement that the total of his gifts of this kind was only one hundred million sesterces (= $5,000,000).

[108] In earlier times it had been customary for cities affected by a victory to give crowns of gold to the triumphing _imperator_. This grew into an abuse and was forbidden by law, unless the gift preceded the decree for the triumph. Later, the value of the crown was commuted for cash, and it came to be a frequent means of extortion on the part of provincial governors. To L. Antonius crowns of gold were given by each of the thirty-five Roman tribes in 713. Cf. Dio, XLVIII, 4. The amount named here, thirty-five thousand pounds of gold, would appear to have been from the thirty-five tribes. On the general subject, _aurum coronarium_, cf. Marquardt, _Staatsverwaltung_, II, p. 285.

[109] The sons of Augustus were Gaius, adopted in 737, died in 757; Lucius, adopted at the same time, died in 755; Agrippa Postumus, adopted in 757, exiled in 760. These were the sons of Agrippa and Julia. On the death of Gaius in 757, Augustus adopted Tiberius. With him Germanicus, nephew and adopted son of Tiberius, and Drusus, Tiberius’ own son, became the legal grandchildren of Augustus. None of these could celebrate games in his own name after adoption, as they had no property rights, but were absolutely dependent on the head of their house, according to the _patria potestas_ of the Roman law. See this very plainly set forth in Suetonius, _Tib._ 15: “After his (Tiberius’) adoption he never again acted as master of a family, nor exercised in the smallest degree the rights which he had lost by it. For he neither disposed of anything in the way of gift, nor manumitted a slave; nor so much as received an estate left him by will, or any legacy, without reckoning it as a part of his _peculium_, or property held under his father.” Tiberius was forty-six years old when he was adopted.

Seven of these exhibitions can be traced. 1. In 725, on the dedication of the temple of the Divine Julius. Dio, LI, 22. 2. In 726, in honor of the victory of Actium. Dio, LIII, 1. 3. In 738, in accordance with a decree of the senate. This was in the name of Tiberius and Drusus. Dio, LIV, 19. 4. In 742, at the Quinquatria held March 19-23, in honor of Minerva. This was in the name of Gaius and Lucius. Dio, LIV, 28, 29. 5. In 747; funeral games in honor of Agrippa. Dio, LV, 8. 6. In 752, at the dedication of the temple of Mars. Vell. II, 100. 7. In 759, in honor of Drusus, in the name of his sons Germanicus and Claudius. Dio, LV, 27; Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, II, 26, 96; VIII, 2, 4. Possibly the eighth occasion may be found in Suetonius, _Aug._, 43.

[110] Cf. Dio, LIII, 1; Suet. _Aug._, 43. Wooden seats were erected in the Campus Martius for gymnastic contests in 726. Whether Germanicus or Drusus is the grandson mentioned here is unknown.

[111] These were the lesser games of the circus and theatres, given ordinarily by magistrates holding the lower offices, which Augustus never filled. He took upon himself the care and expense where the proper magistrates were absent or too poor. Cf. Dio, XLV, 6; C. I. L., I, p. 397.

[112] The charge of the Secular Games, celebrated supposedly once in a century, though in reality oftener, fell to the quindecemvirs. Cf. Eckhel, VI. 102, for a coin with _imp. Cæsar Augustus lud. saec. XV S. F._ This was in 737. Cf. also C. I. L., I, p. 442. The college evidently gave the presidency to Augustus and Agrippa, since it was very convenient that these two members of the sacred body also held the tribunitial power, and so the games came into the charge of the two greatest men of the state in a perfectly natural way. Cf. C. I. L., IX, p. 29, No. 262, for confirmation of Agrippa’s membership in the college of quindecemvirs.

[113] These games were celebrated on August 1. Dio, LX, 5, and LVI, 46, tells of their being annual, and in charge of the consuls after the death of Augustus. They began in 752. This passage is one of the few where both the Latin and Greek are incapable of restoration.

[114] Cf. Suet. _Aug._ 43. Some of these occasions were: in 743 in connection with the dedication of the theatre of Marcellus. Cf. Dio, LIV, 26. Here six hundred beasts were killed, and the tiger was shown for the first time. Cf. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, VIII, 17, 65. In 752, two hundred and sixty lions and thirty-six crocodiles were killed. Cf. Dio, LV, 10. In 765, in the games given by Germanicus, two hundred lions were killed. Cf. Dio, LVI, 27.

Augustus says “amphitheatres,” though there was but one such structure. He may have regarded it as being two theatres joined at their straight side and facing each other.

[115] Velleius II, 100, writes: “The divine Augustus in the year when he was consul with Gallus Caninius (752) sated the minds and the eyes of the Roman people at the dedication of the temple of Mars with the most magnificent gladiatorial shows and naval battles.” Dio, LV, 10, says that traces of the excavation could be seen in his time (c. 200 A. D.), and that the fight represented a battle of Athenians and Persians, in which the former were victorious. Cf. Suet. _Aug._ 43; Ovid, _Ars Am._ I, 171.

Claudius gave a similar exhibition on the Fucine Lake, but with a hundred triremes and quadriremes, and a force of nineteen thousand men, “as once Augustus did in a pond by the Tiber, but with lighter vessels and a smaller force.” Cf. Tac. _Ann._ XII, 56; Suet. _Claud._, 21; Dio, LX, 33.

[116] Another instance of avoidance of the name of an enemy while distinctly referring to him. Antony had stripped various temples at Samos, Ephesus, Pergamos, and Rhœteum, all in the province of Asia, and had given the spoils to Cleopatra. Dio, LI, 17, says that great numbers of such things were found in her palace when Alexandria was captured. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, XXXIV, 8, 58, says: “He (Myro) made an Apollo, which was taken away by the triumvir Antony, but restored to the Ephesians by the divine Augustus.” Strabo, XIII, 1, 30, writes of Rhœteum: “Cæsar Augustus gave back to the Rhœtians the shrine and statue of Ajax which Antony had taken away and given to Egypt. He did the like for other cities. For Antony took away the finest votive offerings from the most famous shrines for the gratification of the Egyptian woman, but Augustus restored them.” Ib. XIV, 1, 14, writes of the temple of Hera, at Samos: “Antony took away three colossal sitting statues on one base, but Augustus Cæsar restored two of them, Athene and Heracles, to the same base; the Zeus, however, he placed upon the Capitol.”

[117] Suetonius, _Aug._, 52, says these gifts took the form of tripods. Cf. Dio, LIII, 22; LII, 35; LIV, 35.

[118] The allusion is to Sextus Pompeius, whose fleets, manned largely by slaves, cut off the grain ships on their way to Rome. Again Augustus avoids the name of an opponent. Cf. Vell., II, 73, who thinks it remarkable that a son of the great Pompey, who had freed the sea from pirates, should himself defile it with piratical crimes. Florus, IV, 8, reflects the same sentiment. App. _B. C._, V, 77, 80, says that captured pirates under torture confessed that Sextus Pompeius was the instigator of their crimes. When the peace of Misenum was made, Sextus Pompeius stipulated for the freedom of the slaves who had fought under him. It was after the overthrow of Pompey, in 718, that the slaves were returned. Dio, XLIX, 12, adds that slaves whose masters did not claim them were returned to their several cities, there to be crucified. Cf. App. _B. C._, V, 131; Oros. VI, 18.

[119] This was in 722, just before the breaking out of hostilities between Antony and Octavian. Cf. Dio, L, 6; Suet., _Aug._ 17.

[120] Cf. c. 8, Note 49. There were a thousand senators at this time. Augustus, in his statement, probably means that seven hundred of the thousand then in the senate were on his side, not merely seven hundred who then or later were senators.

The number of consulars, eighty-three, is quite consistent with the facts, as is shown in a careful analysis of the _Fasti Consulares_ for the period by Mommsen. _R. G._, p. 100.

The priests referred to were probably members of the four great colleges and the Arval brotherhood. Cf. c. 7, notes 40-45.

[121] This statement is borne out by what we otherwise know. Taking the provinces in order we find: First, the German frontier is pushed forward from the Rhine to the Elbe. Cf. Suet. _Aug._ 21. Second, in Illyricum and Macedonia he had erected the new provinces of Pannonia and Moesia. Third, in Asia Minor he did not extend the older limits of Bithynia, but out of the kingdom of Amyntas, he made the new province of Galatia and later added Paphlagonia to it. Fourth, in Africa, Augustus rather narrowed than extended the empire by his partition with Juba in 729. But a number of Roman proconsuls won laurels there.

[122] Here the record is of commotions quelled within the recognized limits of the empire. In Spain there was the Cantabrian war from 727 to 735. In Gaul, G. Carrinas had subdued the Morini, and triumphed, July 14, 726; and M. Messala had suppressed the Aquitani, triumphing Sept. 25, 727. Cf. Suet. _Aug._, 20, 21.

The German campaigns extending at intervals over the years from 742 to the very end of Augustus’ reign it is needless to detail. This reference to the pacification of Germany has been the subject of much dispute. Mommsen in two places (_R. G._, p. VI, and 48), uses the word “crafty” (_callidus_) of Augustus, referring to his alleged glozing over of unsatisfactory events. Hirschfeld goes further, and in connection with the present passage accuses Augustus (_Wiener Studien_, V, 117) of a “masterly concealment and whitewashing (übertünchung) of all that could hurt his reputation.” This charge is made because Augustus omits all mention of the disaster under Varus. Against this charge Johannes Schmidt defends Augustus, (_Philologus_, XLV, p. 394, ff.). The contest between Schmidt and Hirschfeld is based really upon opposing views of the purpose of the _Res Gestae_. Schmidt believed it to be an epitaph. In this there would be no place for anything save the fortunate events of a life. If _nil de mortuis nisi bonum_ be wise, Augustus might well have adapted the adage to his own case and said, _nil de me morituro nisi bonum_. But Hirschfeld insists that the _Res Gestae_ constitute not an epitaph, but “an account of his administration,” and therefore contends that the omission of the German disaster was not in good faith. To this, Schmidt answers that Augustus had nothing to gain by such concealment—indeed that concealment of so notorious a disaster would be absurd. And in the text itself he finds a recognition of the real state of affairs, inasmuch as Augustus expressly distinguishes Germany from the provinces, Gallic and Spanish, and while claiming it for Rome, does not assert that it belongs to her as do organized provinces. Schmidt also says that _pacavi_, “I pacified” does not necessarily imply that Germany continued in a state of peace. It may well enough cover the fact that there was temporary success. But this is hair-splitting. The character of the _Res Gestae_ must be always had in mind. Cf. Introduction. Its deliverances were _ad populum_ and they constituted an epitaph.

[123] Suetonius, _Aug._ 21, says: “He waged war upon no people without just and necessary causes.” The present Torbia near Monaco, derives its name from a _Tropæa Augusti_, “Trophy of Augustus,” some fragments of which still exist.

The inscription has been preserved by Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, III, 20, 136: _imp. Cæsari divi f. Augusto pontifice maxumo imp. XIIII tribunic. potestate XVII s. p. q. R. quod ejus ductu auspiciisque gentes Alpinæ omnes quæ a mari supero ad inferum pertinebant sub imperium p. R. sunt redactæ_—“the Roman senate and people to Cæsar ... Augustus ... because under his leadership and auspices all the Alpine nations, from the upper to the lower sea have been brought into subjection to the Roman empire.” Then follows an enumeration of forty-six peoples. Pliny adds, “the Cottian states were not annexed because they had not been hostile;” and an arch at Segusio was placed in honor of Augustus, and on it are the names of fourteen states, six being repetitions from the Torbia monument. Cf. C. I. L. V, 7817 and 7231.

The campaigns here referred to are: First, of Varro Murena against the Salassi in 729. Cf. Strabo, IV, 6, 7, p. 205; Dio, LIII, 25; Livy, _Epit._, CXXXV; Cass. _ad. ann._ 729; Suet. _Aug._ 21. Second, of Publius Silius against the Vennones and Camunni in 738. Cf. Dio, LIV, 20. Third, of Tiberius and Drusus against the Ræti and Vindelici in 739. Cf. Suet. _Aug._ 21. Fourth, against the Ligurians of the Maritime Alps in 740. Cf. Dio, LIV, 24. Finally these regions were formed into the province of Rætia in 747-748.

[124] This naval expedition was connected with the German campaign of Tiberius in 758. Cf. Vell. II, 106; Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, II, 67, 167.

[125] Strabo, VII, 2, 1, describes an embassy of the Cimbri asking for “peace and amnesty.” They dwelt in the end of Jutland. Cf. Ptolemy, II, 10. Below them were the Charudes, whom the mason at Ancyra makes Charydes, and the Greek translator, thinking of the fable, transforms into Chalybes, living just south of the Cimbri. Cf. Ptolemy, ii, 11, 12. The Semnones were between the Elbe and the Oder.

[126] When the Egyptian garrisons were weakened on account of the Arabian expedition, Queen Candace took advantage of it and captured a number of towns in Upper Egypt. These the præfect, C. Petronius, re-took, and inflicted severe punishment upon the Æthiopians. This took place 730-732. Cf. Strabo, XVII, I, 54; Dio, LIV, 5; Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, VI, 29, 181, 182.

In 1896 Capt. Lyons, R. E., found, at Philæ, an inscription in Latin, Greek and hieroglyphics, of which Prof. Mahaffy gives this translation: “Gaius Cornelius, son of Cnaeus Gallus, a Roman knight, appointed first prefect, after the kings were conquered by Cæsar, son of Divus, of Alexandria and Egypt—who conquered the revolt of the Thebaid in fifteen days, having won two pitched battles, together with the capture of the leaders of his opponents, having taken five cities, some by assault, some by siege, viz., Boresis, Coptos, Ceramice, Diospolis the Great, Ombos (?); having slain the leaders of these revolts, and having brought his army beyond the cataract of the Nile to a point whither neither the Roman people nor the Kings of Egypt had yet carried their standards, a military district impassable before his day; having subdued, to the common terror of all the kings, all the Thebaid, which was not subject to the kings, and having received the ambassadors of the Ethiopians at Philæ, and guest-friendship from their king (and received their king under his protection) and having appointed him tyrant of the 30-_schoeni_ district of Lower Ethiopia—makes this thank-offering to the Dii Patrii, and to the Nile, who aided him in his deeds.” _London Athenæum_, March 14, 1896, and _Sitzungsberichte d. kgl. Pr. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin_, 1896, I, pp. 469-480.

[127] The Arabian campaign, under C. Aelius Gallus was probably in 729-730. Cf. Dio, LIII, 29; Hor. _Carm._ I, 29, 35; Strabo, XVI, 4, 22, 24. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, VI, 28, 159, 160,

[128] Egypt was made an integral part of the empire after Actium and the death of Cleopatra, in 724. Its connection with the empire was peculiar. W. T. Arnold, _Roman Provincial Administration_, p. 113, says: “The government of Egypt was in many points wholly exceptional. Julius Cæsar had deliberately abstained from making it a province of the country (cf. Suet., _Jul._ 35); and when Augustus added it to the empire he subjected it to an altogether exceptional treatment. The country was his private property, or rather the Emperor’s private property; it passed as a matter of course, that is, from emperor to emperor. Augustus appointed a præfect to represent him in the province, just as in earlier times the urban prætors had sent prefects to represent them in the municipalities of Italy. This præfect was of equestrian, and not of the highest equestrian rank (Tac. _Ann._, XII, 60; II, 59; _Hist._ I. 11); no senators were admitted into the province; and the greatest jealousy was shown of the smallest interference with it. The reasons for the special jealousy of Egypt shown by Augustus and his successors were partly the great defensibility of the country (in case of insurrection—ED.), partly its immense importance as the granary of Rome. 'It was an accepted principle with our fathers,’ says Pliny, 'that our city could not possibly be fed and maintained without the resources of Egypt.’” For a fuller treatment cf. Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsverwaltung_, I, 282-298.

[129] Armenia Major had been raised to greatness by Tigranes I (658-699) who had been a formidable ally of Mithridates. Pompey finally subdued him, 688. Henceforth Armenia was in a subject condition. Tigranes was succeeded by his son Artavasdes. In 718, when Antony attacked the Parthians, this king sided with him against Phraates of Parthia, and another Artavasdes, king of Media. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 25.

But presently the two Artavasdes changed relations, the king of Armenia passing to the Parthian side and he of Media joining Antony. Cf. Plut., _Ant._, 52; Dio, XLIX, 33, 44. Antony captured Artavasdes of Armenia and gave him over to Cleopatra, who killed him in 721. His kingdom was assigned to Antony’s son Alexander to whom was betrothed Jotape daughter of Artavasdes of Media. The Armenians made Artaxes, son of the late Artavasdes, their king. When Octavian overcame Antony he did not befriend all the Oriental enemies of the latter, but for purposes of his own set up a rival to Phraates of Parthia in Tiridates. Cf. c. 32. And, angered at the Armenians, who had dealt harshly with certain Romans in that kingdom, he held as hostages the brothers of king Artaxes, and set Artavasdes of Media over Armenia Minor as a check upon Artaxes. Cf. Dio, LI, 16; LIV, 9. In 734 Augustus went to the East to arrange affairs there. A campaign against Artaxes was planned, but he was assassinated. Cf. Dio, LIV, 9; Tac., _Ann._, II, 3; Vell., II, 94, 122; Suet. _Aug._, 21; Jos., _Ant._, XV, 4, 3; Eckhel, VI, 98. At this point the action of Augustus, recorded here in the _Res Gestæ_, takes place. Augustus follows the example of Pompey, who, in dealing with Armenia in 688 had contented himself with making the Armenian king accept his royalty as a gift from Rome. Cf. Cic. _pro Sext._ 27. The affair was conducted by Tiberius, not yet adopted. Cf. Suet. _Tib._, 9; Vell., II, 122. Henceforth Armenia was regarded as part of the empire, though its native sovereigns were continued. Cf. Vell., II, 94, 122: “Armenia restored to the control of the Roman people;” “Armenia retaken.” “The Medes likewise were subjected.” Cf. c. 33.

[130] The reign of Tigranes was brief. The Parthians winning some success against Rome, stirred up Armenia. Cf. Tac. _Ann._, II, 3; Vell., II, 100. They favored the children of Tigranes, Tigranes III and Erato. A Roman faction set up his younger brother Artavasdes. Cf. Tacitus l. c. The suppression of the disorder was enjoined upon Tiberius. But at this juncture, 748, he went into retirement at Rhodes. Cf. Dio, LV, 9. Artavasdes died and the young Tigranes courted the aid of Rome, but was soon killed, probably by Parthian means, and his sister Erato abdicated. Cf. fragments of Dio, cited by Mommsen, _R. G._, p. 113, and Dio, LV, 10. Tacitus confirms the delivery of Armenia to Ariobarzanes by Gaius. Cf. _Ann._, II, 3; and Dio, LV, 10. The Parthian faction did not accept him, and it was in a contest over him that Gaius received a wound, of which he died, Feb. 21, 757. Cf. C. I. L. I, p. 472. For the succession of Artavasdes, cf. Dio, LV, 10. The Tigranes IV, next mentioned “of the royal house of the Armenians” was a grandson of Herod the Great, of Judea, on the one side, and of Archelaus, King of Cappadocia, and probably an Armenian princess on the other. Cf. Tac. _Ann._ VI, 40; XIV, 26; Jos., _Ant._ XVIII, 5, 4; _Wars_, I, 28, 1.

[131] For Sicily and Sardinia, cf. c. 25 and notes.

By the treaty of Brundisium, Antony had received Macedonia, Achaia, Asia, Pontus, Bithynia, Cilicia, Cyprus, Syria, Crete, Cyrenaica. The five last named he had given over to foreign kings. As to Asia and Bithynia, Dio, XLIX, 41 and Plut. _Ant._ 54, are in conflict. But the _Res Gestæ_ tends to confirm the latter. Lycaonia and Pamphylia were taken from the province of Cilicia and given to Amyntas, King of Galatia. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 32. He extended Egypt again by restoring to it Cyprus. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 32, 41; Plut. l. c.; Strabo, XIV, 6, 6: he granted to Cleopatra and Cæsarion, her son by Julius Cæsar, the coast land of Syria, Tyre and Sidon excepted, cf. Jos. _Ant._ XV, 4, 1; _Wars_, I, 18, 5; also Coele-Syria, cf. Jos. _Ant._ XV, 3, 8; Plut. l. c.; Ituraea, Judaea and Arabia Nabataea, cf. Dio, XLIX, 32; Jos. _Ant._ XV, 4, 1; 5, 3; _Wars_, I, 18, 5; 20, 3; parts of Cilicia, cf. Strabo, XIV, 5, 3; 5, 6: and perhaps Crete also, cf. Dio, XLIX, 32: and Cyrenaica, cf. Plut. l. c. To his younger son Ptolemy Philadelphus he gave Syria, and part of Cilicia, cf. Dio, XLIX, 41; Plut. l. c.: for the elder, Alexander he planned a kingdom made up of Armenia, Media and Parthia, cf. Livy, _Epit._ CXXXI; Plutarch, l. c. These alienations of Roman territory were made the occasion of Octavian’s attack upon Antony. Cf. Dio, L, 1; Plut. l. c.

[132] Mommsen believes that Augustus founded only military colonies. Zumpt thinks otherwise. Cf. _Comment Epig._, I, 362.

[133] Known colonies of Augustus are: In Africa, Carthage, cf. C. I. L. VIII, p. 133; Dio, LII, 43; App. _Pun._ CXXXVI. In Sicily, Panhormus, Thermes, Tyndaris, cf. Dio, LIV, 7; Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, III, 8, 88; 89; 90. Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsverwaltung_ I, 246, names seven colonies of Augustus in Sicily. In Macedonia, Dyrrachium, Philippi, cf. Dio, LI, 4. Cassandrea, cf. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, IV, 10. In Hither Spain, Cæsaraugusta, cf. coin in Eckhel I, 37, which also gives the numbers of the legions whose veterans were colonized here: _leg. IV_, _leg. VI_, _leg. X_. Marquardt _op. cit._, I, 256, names six colonies of Augustus here. In Farther Spain, Emerita, cf. Eckhel I, 12, and 19, _leg. V_, _X_; Marquardt, _op. cit._, I, 257. In Achaia, Patrae, cf. C. I. L. III, p. 95, _leg. X_, _XII_. In Asia, Alexandrea of the Troad, cf. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, V, 30. In Syria, Berytus, cf. Eckhel III, 356, _leg. V_, _VIII_; Heliopolis, cf. Eckhel, III, 334. In Gallia Narbonensis, Reii and Aquae Sextiae, cf. Herzog, _Gall. Narb. inscr._ n. 113, 356. In Pisidia, Antioch, cf. Eckhel III, 18; Cremna, cf. Eckhel III, 20; Olbasa, cf. Eckhel, III, 20; Parlais, cf. Ramsay, _Bull. de Corr. Hell._, VII, p. 318.

No colonies are assigned to Sardinia, the three Gauls and two Germanies, Raetia, Noricum, Bithynia, Pontus, Galatia, Galatian Pontus, Paphlagonia, part of Phrygia, Lycaonia, Isauria, Cilicia, Cyprus, Crete, Egypt, Cyrenaica. As for parts of the empire under subject kings, such as Thrace, Cappadocia, Mauretania, no account is taken of them, though there were certainly colonies in Mauretania, at Cartenna and Tupusuctu. Cf. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, V, 2, 20; C. I. L., VIII, 8857.

[134] Cf. an article by Mommsen, _Hermes_, XVIII, 161 ff. on the “Colonies of Italy from Sulla to Vespasian.”

When Augustus wrote, Italy was separated from Illyricum by the river Arsia. Yet Illyricum was not counted by him as a province. It had colonies at Emona, Iader, Salona, and possibly at Epidaurus and Narona. Cf. C. I. L., III, pp. 489, 374, 304, 287, 291. Mommsen thinks this omission was intended by Augustus; that he had been able to satisfy some of his veterans, to whom Italian farms had been promised, with lands over the Italian border in Illyricum, and because he could not call it a province, nor yet a part of Italy, he eludes the difficulty by omitting the Illyrian colonies.

The names of the twenty-eight Italian colonies are somewhat difficult to establish. Several perplexing questions rise in the attempt. What of the colonies founded by Antony and Octavian as triumvirs? Were they Antoniæ Juliæ, or some Juliæ and others Antoniæ? If the former were true and they dropped the name Antoniæ, the result would be far more than twenty-eight Julian and Augustan colonies. The second probability is more likely, and that the colonies Antoniæ simply dropped their name after Actium.

A third difficulty rises in the case of the enlargement of old colonies and their resettlement, as, _e. g._, of Minturnæ. Cf. Hyginus, _De Lim._, p. 177. Mommsen gives a list which nearly meets the statement of Augustus. 1. Ariminum, _Augusta_; 2. Ateste; 3. _Augusta_ Prætoria; 4. _Julia Augusta_ Taurinorum; 5. Beneventum, _Julia Augusta_; 6. Bononia; 7. Brixia, _Augusta_; 8. Capua, _Julia Augusta_; 9. Castrum novum Etruriæ, _Julia_; 10. Concordia, _Julia_; 11. Cumæ (?) _Julia_; 12. Dertona, _Julia_; 13. Fanum Fortunæ, _Julia_; 14. Falerio; 15. Hispellum, _Julia_; 16. Lucus Feroniæ, _Julia_; 17. Minturnæ; 18. Nola, _Augusta_; 19. Parentium, _Julia_; 20. Parma, _Julia Augusta_; 21. Pisae, _Julia_; 22. Pisaurum, _Julia_; 23. Pola, _Julia_; 24. Sæna (?), _Julia_; 25. Sora, _Julia_; 26. Suessa, _Julia_; 27. Sutrium, _Julia_; 28. Tuder, _Julia_; 29, Venafrum, _Julia Augusta_. Cf. Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsverwaltung_, I, 118-132.

[135] Of standards recovered in Spain and Gaul we have no further knowledge. It may be that in the Cantabrian war of 728, 729, some such thing took place.

Appian, _Illyr._ XII, XXV, XXVIII, narrates the capture of standards by the Dalmatians from Gabinius in 706, and their restoration to Augustus in 721. These were then placed in the Octavian portico; and probably later transferred to the temple of Mars.

[136] The standards had been lost by Crassus and Antony. Cf. Justin, XLII, 5, 11; Livy, _Epit._, CXLI; Suetonius, _Aug._ 21; Vell., II, 91; Vergil, _Æn._ VII, 606; Horace, _Carm._, I, 12, 56; III, 5, 4; Dio, LIII, 33; LIV, 8; Cass. _Chron._ ad. 734; Oros., VI, 21; Florus IV, 12; Eutropius, VII, 9. One detachment of Antonius’ army, under L. Decidius Saxa, was exterminated in 714, and another in 718 under Oppius Statianus. Cf. Livy, _Ep._ CXXI; Dio, XLVIII, 24.

Tiberius received the standards from the Parthians in 734. Cf. Dio, LIV, 8, etc.; Suet. _Tib._ 9. Eckhel, VI, 95, shows a coin with a Parthian on bended knee presenting a standard to Augustus. Cf. also Horace, _Epis._, I, 12, 27; Oros., VI, 21, 29; and c. 32 of the inscription.

There were two temples of Mars Ultor, a smaller one on the Capitoline, and a larger in the forum, dedicated in 752. The standards were removed to the larger temple. Cf. Dio, LV, 10; Horace, _Carm._, IV, 5, 16; _Epis._, I, 18, 56; Propertius, III, 10, 3; Ovid, _Trist._ II, 295; _Fasti_, V, 549; VI, 459.

[137] Augustus himself had fought the Pannonians in 719, 720. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 36-38. The campaigns of Tiberius were from 742 to 745. Cf. Vell. II, 96; Dio, LIV, 31, 34; LV, 2; Suet. _Tib._, 9.

[138] This statement varies somewhat from Dio, L, 24, who says Augustus reached the Danube in 720, and from Suetonius, _Tib._ 16, who assigns the complete subjection of the district to 759.

[139] The Dacians had become organized and strong in the latter years of the Roman republic. Cf. Justin. XXXII, 3; Jordanis, _Get._, XI, 67; Strabo, XVI, 2, 39; VII, 3, 5; 11; Suet. _Aug._, 44. Julius Cæsar was about to proceed against them when he died. Cf. Suet. _Jul._, 44; _Aug._, 8; App. _B. C._, II, 110; III, 25, 37; _Illyr._, 13; Vell., II. 59; Livy, _Epit._, CXVII. In 719 Augustus began his Illyrican campaign by occupying Segesta on the Save, whence he threatened the Dacians and Bastarnæ. Cf. App. _Illyr._, 22, 23. Antony is responsible for the statement that Augustus sought to secure the goodwill of Cotiso, king of the Getæ (Dacians), by giving him his daughter and by himself marrying a daughter of Cotiso. Cf. Suetonius, _Aug._, 63. Cotiso refused the alliance and joined the party of Antony. Cf. Dio, L, 6; LI, 22. Antony’s story as to the proposed marriages is hardly credible, and may have been invented by him to offset his own alliance with Cleopatra. During the struggle between Antony and Octavian, an invasion of the Dacians was the constant dread of Italy. Cf. Vergil, _Georg._, II, 497; Hor. _Sat._, II, 6, 53; _Carm._, III, 6, 13. When Antony was overthrown M. Crassus undertook the suppression of the Dacians, and triumphed, July 4, 727. Cf. Dio, LI, 23; Tab. Triumph. But Dacian incursions were still frequent. Dio records one in 738, cf. LIV, 20; and one in 744, cf. LIV, 36. Probably it was in this latter incursion that the defeat here alluded to was met by them. Finally an army was sent against them under Lentulus, in 759. Cf. Dio, LV, 30; Strabo, VII, 12 and 13; Suet. _Aug._, 21; Florus, IV, 12, 19, 20; Tac. _Ann._, IV, 44.

[140] Cf. Suet. _Aug._, 21; Flor. IV, 12, 62; _Oros._, VI, 21, 19, says that deputies of Indians and Scythians came to Augustus at Tarracona in 728 or 729; Dio, LIV, 9, that deputies from India came to him at Samos in 734. Strabo gives the name of the Indian king as Porus. Cf. XV., 1, 4 and 73. Cf. also Ver. _Georg._, II, 170; _Aen._, VI, 794; VIII, 705; Hor. _Carm._, I, 12, 56; _Carm. Saec._, 55, 56; _Carm._, IV, 14, 41.

[141] For a general statement, cf. Suetonius, _Aug._ 21. For the Scythians, cf. Note 140 , above. For the Bastarnæ, cf. Livy, _Ep._ CXXXIV; Dio, LI, 23, 24. For the Sarmatæ, cf. Flor. l. c.; Strabo, II, 5, 30; Tac. _Ann._, VI, 33; Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, II, 108, 246; VI, 7, 19; VI, 5, 16; VI, 13, 40. Vergil refers to them as Gelones. Cf. _Aen._, VIII, 725. Cf. also Hor. _Carm._, II, 9; III, 8, 23. For the Albani and Iberi, cf. Dio, XLIX, 24. For the Medes, cf. c. 27 and notes.

[142] For Phraates and Tiridates, cf. Justin, XLII, 5; Dio, LI, 18. Tiridates had supplanted Phraates and in turn was driven out by him. He then, in 724, came to Augustus for aid. But the latter was anxious to regain the lost standards from Parthia, and simply played off Tiridates against Phraates by setting him over Syria. Dio, in the passage cited, makes mention of a son of Phraates who was captured by Tiridates and given up to Augustus. This was possibly the Phraates here mentioned, though there are difficulties in the way of this explanation. For Augustus implies the voluntary coming of a reigning king, not the delivery of an abducted prince. We know that in 731 Tiridates was in Rome asking that Parthia be assigned to him, and that at the same time Phraates sent an embassy begging the restitution of his son. Cf. Dio, LIII, 33. Augustus laid the matter before the senate, and by their advice restored the prince in exchange for the standards, but did not yield to the plea of Tiridates.

[143] Cf. c. 27.

[144] A people east of the Tigris, and west of Media Atropatane. Nothing is known of Artaxares. For the Adiabeni and their kingdom, cf. Strabo, XVI, 1, 19; Tac. _Ann._, XII, 13; Josephus, _Ant._, XX, 2, 1.

[145] Augustus several times was on the point of invading Britain. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 38, for 720; LIII, 22, 25, for 727, 728. The poets have many prophecies of victories in Britain. Cf. Ver. _Georg._, I, 30, written in 724; III, 25; Hor. _Epode_, VII, 7; _Carm._, I. 35, 29, of the year 727, 728; _Carm._, III, 5; I, 21, 15; III, 4, 33; IV, 14, 48. But nothing came of these plans. Cf. Strabo, IV, 5, 3, for embassies from Britain. Coins of Dumnobellaunus have been found. Cf. J. Evans, _Coins of the Ancient Britons_ (London, 1864), p. 198, and the following plate 4, Nos. 6-12.

[146] The great defeat of Lollius in 738 was by the Sicambri, joined with the Usipites and Tencteri. Cf. Dio, LIV, 20; Vell., II, 97; Suet., _Aug._, 23. There was a temporary peace. Cf. Horace, _Carm._, IV, 2. 36; 14, 51. They rebelled in 742, and were put down, first by Drusus and later by Tiberius. Cf. Dio, LIV, 32, 33, 36. In 746 they were completely subjugated and removed into Gaul. Cf. Dio, LV, 6; Vell. II, 97; Suet., _Aug._, 21; _Tib._, 9; Tac. _Ann._, II, 26; XII, 39; Strabo, VII, 1, 3. Probably the coming of Maelo was during this surrender of 746.

[147] The Marcomani were a branch of the Suevi. Cf. Tac., _Germ._, XXXVIII; _Ann._, II, 44, 62.

[148] The four sons were Seraspedes, Rhodaspedes, Vonones and Phraates, with the wives of two of them and four children. Cf. Strabo, XVI, 1, 28; VI, 4, 2; Justin, XLII, 5, 11; Vell., II, 94; Tac., _Ann._, II, 1; Oros., VI, 21, 29; Suet., _Aug._ 21, 43; Jos., _Antiq._, XVIII, 2, 4. They were sent to be out of harm’s way during troubles in Parthia, according to all but Josephus, who says they were removed so as not to hinder the succession of Phraataces, an illegitimate son. When Phraates died, Phraataces in vain asked Augustus for the return of the princes. This was c. 750. Cf. Dio, fragments, Ursin. 39. The two elder princes died in Rome. Cf. C. I. L., VI, 7799. Vonones was sent back by Augustus. Cf. c. 33, Note 149; Phraates was returned by Tiberius in 788. Cf. Tac., _Ann._, VI, 31; Dio, LVIII, 16. Probably the princes were sent to Augustus in 744. Cf. Mommsen, _R. G._, p. 141.

[149] The comment of Mommsen here seems too severe. He says: “The writer magnifies his splendors beyond what is exact: for the Parthians and Medes asked Augustus, not so much to appoint kings for them, as to restore to them those to whom the kingdom had fallen by hereditary right.” Such a criticism seems to overlook the force of the word _petitos_, as applied to _reges_: they got the kings they “asked for.”

Phraataces was reigning in 754. Cf. Dio, LV, 10; Vell. II, 101. He was succeeded by Orodes for a short time. Then came the choice of Vonones. Cf. Jos. _Ant._ XVIII, 2, 4; Tac. _Ann._ II, 1. Josephus gives no date. Tacitus implies 770. Augustus, however, returned Vonones, and the date must be much earlier, probably c. 760. A Parthian embassy was in Rome between 757 and 759. Cf. Suet. _Tib._, 16. Coins also show the name of Vonones in 761. Cf. Gardner, _Parthian Coinage_, p. 46. His reign was very brief. Cf. Tacitus and Josephus, ll. cc.

[150] Cf. c. 27.

[151] This chapter is possibly the most weighty in the whole inscription, inasmuch as it sets forth the view of his policy which Augustus wished the world to hold. How far his statements in the opening and closing sentences represent his own actual notions of his relations to the sovereign power in Rome is a matter of debate. For a full discussion Mommsen, _Röm. St._ II, p. 723, ff., may be read, and Gardthausen, _Aug._ Iᵉʳ Th. IIᵉʳ Bd., pp. 485-540 and IIᵉʳ Th., pp. 277-299.

The question is: Did Augustus in any real sense restore the republic, or did he conceive of himself as monarch, but find it politic to suppress all outward marks of royalty? Was his chief concern to maintain the peace and prosperity of the Roman people, with as little alteration as possible of the old constitutional forms, or was his object the building up of power for his own sake? This is confessedly one of the riddles of history. The best that can be done is to study his actions, estimating their worth and tendency, and leaving the motives of the great statesman where he hid them,—locked in his own bosom.

Undoubtedly, all through the _Res Gestæ_, as is pointed out in the introduction, and as has been noticed from time to time in these notes, one of his great aims is to represent himself as a conservative, moving within constitutional limits. Coins of the period emphasize the view set forth in the opening sentence of this chapter with regard to the restoration of the republic. Cf. Eckhel, VI, 83: _imp. Cæsar divi f. cos. VI, libertatis p. R. vindex_; “The imperator, Cæsar, son of the divine (Cæsar) consul for the sixth time, (726) restorer of the freedom of the Roman people.” Cf. C. I. L. VI, 1527: “the whole world pacified, the republic restored.” Also, C. I. L. I, p. 384; the date referred to is Jan. 13, 727: “The senate decreed that an oaken crown should be fixed above the door of the imperator, Cæsar Augustus, because he restored the Roman republic.” Contemporary Roman writers simply echo the views of Augustus. Cf. Ovid, _Fasti_, I, 589, for Jan. 13, 727, Velleius, II, 89, says: “When the civil wars were finished in the twentieth year, (724) and the foreign wars brought to a close, peace was brought back, power restored to the laws, authority to the tribunals, majesty to the senate, the _imperium_ of the magistrates reduced to its old time form, the original and ancient form of the state restored.” Cf. Livy, _Epit._, CXXXIV. The Greek Strabo, also a contemporary, writes, XVII, 3, 25: “The country committed to him the headship of her sovereignty, and made him lord of peace and war for life.” Later writers, even the Romans, are equally free in their judgments. Dio, LII, I, says: “From this time (725) the affairs of Rome began to be in the control of one man (μοναρχεῖσθαι).” Cf. Suet. _Aug._, 28; Tac. _Ann._, III, 28. Dio’s account of the conference in which Agrippa advises a real abdication by Augustus, and Mæcenas urges a bold assumption of supreme power (LII, 1-40) is regarded as fictitious.

The facts in the case are these: In 711 the Titian law gave the triumvirs a five years’ lease of power. In 716 this was renewed not by formal legislation, but “by universal consent.” Cf. App., _B. C._ V, 95. This triumviral power Augustus wielded till his sixth consulship, 726, though there was a pretence of its cessation in 721. Cf. c. 7, N, 1, and Mommsen, _Röm. St._, II, 698. In this and the following years he divested himself gradually of one extraordinary power after another. He could not at once fall back to the position of an ordinary magistrate. The armies, the laws, the provinces, the revenues had all been in his control. These he must gradually restore Cf. Dio, LII, 13; LIII, 4, 9, 10. In 726 he began his return to older customs by alternating with Agrippa, his colleague, in the consulship, in having the fasces borne before him by the lictors for a month. Cf. Dio, LIII, 1. The restoration of the censorship was part of the same programme. Dio, LIII, 2, says that by an edict he declared all the revolutionary and extraordinary acts of the triumviral period should cease to be effective with the expiration of his sixth consulship (726). The inscription of Jan. 13, 727, above alluded to, C. I. L. I, p. 384, marks that date as that on which the business of restoring the provinces was finally given over to the senate.

From this time on the senate divided the control of the provinces with him. Augustus took the troublesome provinces and the frontier ones, leaving to the senate the older and more peaceable. Over these provinces he received a proconsular imperium for ten years, which was renewed at the expiration of that term. In c. 7 he says that he found the tribunitial power a sufficient basis for all the measures which he wished to put through. Now the proconsulship and tribuneship were both ordinary and constitutional offices. Augustus’ occupancy of each affords an illustration of the way in which he held ordinary offices in an extraordinary way. For by the old customs a proconsul must exercise his _imperium_ in his province, and never at Rome. Augustus could not be in ten provinces at once, and must be at Rome most of the time. Hence a violation of the constitution was necessary. The tribuneship, instituted for the protection of plebeians could be held only by a plebeian. But Augustus was a patrician. For this reason he did not take the tribuneship in the ordinary way, nor by the ordinary title, but designated himself as _tribunicia potestate_, “of tribunitial authority.”

The title _princeps_, “prince” is never used by Augustus as an official designation in laws and inscriptions, but indicates simply his primacy of rank and is so used throughout the _Res Gestæ_. Cf. cc. 13, 30, 32.

[152] Cf. C. I. L. 1, p. 384; X. 8375; Livy, _Ep._, 134; Cass. ad. an. 727; Oros. VI, 20, 8; Vell. II, 91; Suet. _Aug._ 7; Dio, LIII, 16.

[153] Cf. coins in Eckhel, VI, 88; Cohen, _Aug._ nos. 43-48, 50, 207-212, 301, 341, 356, 385, 426, 476-8, 482. All these show either the crown or the laurels and many of them have both. With the crown is generally _ob civis servatos_, “for preserving the citizens.” The civic crown being the reward of any soldier who saved a citizen’s life, Augustus was pre-eminently deemed worthy of it, because he had saved so many by putting an end to the civil wars, and by his clemency. Cf. Dio, LIII, 16; Suet. _Claud._ 17; Sen. _De Clem._ I, 26, 5; Ovid, _Tr._ III, 1, 39, 41, 47; _Fasti_ IV, 953; III, 137; Val. Max. II, 8, 7; Juv. VI, 52, 79; X, 65; XII, 91; Tac. _Ann._ XV, 71.

[154] No ancient writer mentions this shield, but a number of coins and inscriptions portray it. Cf. C. I. L. IX, 5811, wherein two Victories carry a shield inscribed: “The senate and Roman people have given to Augustus a shield on account of his valor, clemency, justice and piety;” the very words of the _Res Gestæ_. For coins, cf. Eckhel, VI, 95, 103, 121; Cohen, _Aug._ nos. 50-53, 213-216, 253, 264-267, 283, 286-297, 332. The Victory, which is frequently associated with the shield, probably indicates that the latter was placed by Augustus near the altar of Victory erected by him in the Curia Julia.

[155] Cf. Note 151.

[156] This title was given Feb. 5, 752. Cf. C. I. L. I, p. 386; II, No. 2107. As in the case of the title, prince of the youth, conferred upon Gaius and Lucius, and of the continuance of his supreme power by universal consent (cf. cc. 14 and 34), the appellation, father of the fatherland, was given by general acclamation, leaving to the senate only the formal ratification of the popular will. Suet. _Aug._ 58, expressly states this. Cf. also Ovid, _Fasti_, II, 128.