Chapter 63

61That this annual sacrifice was instituted July 4, 741, appears from C. I. L., I, 395.Feriae ex. s. c. quod eo die ara Pacis Augustae in campo Martio constituta est Nerone et Varo cos.Cf. Fasti of Præneste, Jan. 30, C. I. L., I, 313, for day of the actual dedication; also Ovid,FastiI, 709; Dio, LIV, 25.This altar was probably on the Flaminian Way by which Augustus returned from Gaul.

This altar was probably on the Flaminian Way by which Augustus returned from Gaul.

62The exact conditions necessary for the closing of the temple, viz., “peace won by victories” were first made known in 1882 by this perfected text of theRes Gestæ.

63Cf. Livy, I, 19; Varro, V, 165. The temple of Janus (or as the Romans called it, Janus, without the word temple,) (cf. Latin text and Livy, l. c., and Horace, Carm, IV, 15, 9,) had been closed first under Numa and again after the first Punic War.

64Augustus first closed it in 725, after Actium. Cf. Livy, l. c.; Dio, LI, 20; Vell., II, 38; Victor,De Viris Ill., LXXIX, 6; Plut.De Fort. Rom., 9; Oros., VI, 20, 8. C. I. L. I, p. 384, supplies the day, January 11. In 728 it was opened again, on account of the war with the Cantabri. Cf. Dio, LIII, 26, Plutarch, l. c. A second time it was closed in 729, cf. Dio, l. c.; Oros., VI, 21, 1. The time of its next opening cannot be determined; but in all probability it was reopened that very year, on account of the Arabian campaign. Dio, LIV, 36, records that in 744 the Senate decreed that it should be closed, but that a Dacian rebellion interfered. But Dio must be mistaken, for Drusus was then in the midst of his German campaign. But after the campaigns of Drusus and Tiberius in Germany, closed in 746, up to 753, when Gaius Cæsar started for Armenia, the temple might well have been closed. Parts of Dio are lost here, which may have mentioned such closing. The birth of Jesus Christ, 749, falls in this period of peace. Cf. Milton’sNativity Hymn. When it was opened for the third time cannot be said. Tacitus says it was opened when Augustus was an old man. But it can hardly have remained shut after the opening of the Armenian war in 753. Augustus was then sixty-two years old. That age may possibly suit the expression of Tacitus. HoraceEp., II, 1, 255, andCarm., IV, 15, 9, mentions the closing of the temple. Suetonius,Aug.22, says: “Janus Quirinus, which had been shut twice only, from the era of the building of the city to his own time, he closed thrice in a much shorter period, having established universal peace both by sea and land.” This is almost a literal transcript of theRes Gestæ.

65Gaius and Lucius, the sons of Agrippa and Julia, the daughter of Augustus, were born, the one in 734 (Dio, LIV, 8), the other in 737 (Dio, LIV, 18) and were adopted by their grandfather immediately after the birth of the latter. Dio, LIV, 18, says: “Lucius and his brother Gaius, Augustus at once adopted and made heirs of the empire, without waiting till they grew to manhood, in order that he might be the more secure against conspiracies.” The will of Augustus (Suet.Tib.23), speaks much as this chapter does of the death of the two Cæsars: “Since harsh fortune has snatched from me my sons, Gaius and Lucius, let Tiberius Cæsar be heir to two-thirds of my estate.” Suetonius,Aug.26, says that Augustus took his twelfth and thirteenth consulships, for the purpose of introducing these two boys into the forum.

66Dio, LV, 9, under the year 748 writes that these lads were wild and insolent and that the younger, then eleven years old, actually proposed to the people to make Gaius consul. Augustus appeared very angry at this, saying it would be a public calamity for the consulship to be borne by one of less age than that at which he himself had assumed it, viz., twenty. Gaius was, however, designated consul in 749, and Lucius in 752. Cf. Tac.Ann.I, 3; a coin of Rome has on one side:Cæsar Augustus, divi. f., pater patriæ; on the other:C. L. Cæsares, Augusti f., cos. desig., princ. juvent.(Eckhel VI, 171). This must have been struck between Feb. 5, 752, when Augustus received the titlepater patriæ, and January 1, 754, when Gaius entered upon his actual consulship. Cf. C. I. L. III, n. 323, and VI, 900.Lucius died, Aug. 20, 755, and so did not reach the consulship to which he had been elected. Gaius died in 757. Cf. Dio, LV, II; C. I. L. I. p. 472.

Lucius died, Aug. 20, 755, and so did not reach the consulship to which he had been elected. Gaius died in 757. Cf. Dio, LV, II; C. I. L. I. p. 472.

67Cf. Dio, LV, 9; C. I. L. I, p. 286 and 565.

68Dio, LV, 12, says: “The bodies of Lucius and Gaius were carried to Rome by military tribunes, and the chief men of each city; and the golden (sic) shields and spears, which they had received from the knights when they assumed thetoga virilis, were suspended in the curia.”The title ofprinceps juventutisis somewhat difficult to explain. The fact is attested by Zonaras, X, 35, and by an inscription found near Viterbo (cf. MommsenR. G., p. 53), which reads:C. Cæsari Aug. f.d.n. pontif. cos. design. principi juventut, “To Caius Cæsar, son of Augustus, nephew of the divine (Julius) pontifex, consul designate, prince of the youth.” Mommsen sums up his investigation of this (Cf.R. G.p. 54, ff.): the knights were divided intoturmæ, or troops, each officered byseviri, threedecurionsand threeoptiosor adjutants. Gaius and Lucius weredecurionsof the firstturma, and their title, “princes of the youth,” was a special one, and always thereafter reserved for members of the imperial family. The title does not appear to have been official, or formally bestowed, but was given by common consent of the knights.

The title ofprinceps juventutisis somewhat difficult to explain. The fact is attested by Zonaras, X, 35, and by an inscription found near Viterbo (cf. MommsenR. G., p. 53), which reads:C. Cæsari Aug. f.d.n. pontif. cos. design. principi juventut, “To Caius Cæsar, son of Augustus, nephew of the divine (Julius) pontifex, consul designate, prince of the youth.” Mommsen sums up his investigation of this (Cf.R. G.p. 54, ff.): the knights were divided intoturmæ, or troops, each officered byseviri, threedecurionsand threeoptiosor adjutants. Gaius and Lucius weredecurionsof the firstturma, and their title, “princes of the youth,” was a special one, and always thereafter reserved for members of the imperial family. The title does not appear to have been official, or formally bestowed, but was given by common consent of the knights.

69Cf. Suet.Cæs.LXXXIII: “He (Cæsar) bequeathed to the Roman people his gardens near the Tiber, and three hundred sesterces to each man.” Dio, XLIV, 35, is peculiar, saying: “Cæsar left to the people his gardens on the Tiber, and to each man one hundred and twenty sesterces, as Augustus himself says, or as others say, three hundred sesterces apiece.” May it be that Dio has reversed the facts here, and that it was “others” who reported the smaller sum and Augustus the larger? Augustus is substantiated, or followed, by Plut.;Ant., XVI,Brut., XX; App.B. C., II, 143.Three hundred sesterces equals about fifteen dollars. The date of this disbursement is 710: its amount, supposing the minimum number of receivers, 250,000, comes to $3,750,000.

Three hundred sesterces equals about fifteen dollars. The date of this disbursement is 710: its amount, supposing the minimum number of receivers, 250,000, comes to $3,750,000.

70The second (and the seventh, cf. Note76) donations belong to the year 725 and were connected with the triple triumph. Dio mentions the two together, LI, 21. Four hundred sesterces is about twenty dollars.

71The third donation was in 730, on the return of Augustus after subduing the Cantabri. Dio, LIII, 28, says: “Augustus gave the people a hundred denarii (four hundred sesterces) apiece, but forbade the distribution until his act should receive the sanction of the senate.” It would seem to have been unlawful to give money to the people without the consent of the senate. Probably this was a measure of precaution against demagogues.The termcongiarium, which is transferred rather than translated, means a gift, primarily of food or drink, and is derived fromcongius, a measure holding about three quarts, which was perhaps originally brought to be filled with grain or oil, or the like.

The termcongiarium, which is transferred rather than translated, means a gift, primarily of food or drink, and is derived fromcongius, a measure holding about three quarts, which was perhaps originally brought to be filled with grain or oil, or the like.

72Cf. c. 5 and Note33. The date was 731.

73The fifth distribution was in 742. We learn from Dio, LIV, 29, that in that year Agrippa died, leaving to the Roman people his gardens and bath, and that Augustus, as his executor, not only turned over these properties, but made a donation besides, as if it had been so willed by Agrippa. Cf. C. I. L., I. p. 472.

74As c. 8 furnishes a basis for estimating the total population of the empire, so here we have a guide to the number of people in the city. Merivale,History of the Romans, c. XL, gives 700,000 as the limit; Bunsen, 1,300,000; Gibbon, c. XXXI, 1,200,000.

75Sixty denarii is about twelve dollars. This donation of 749, and the last one mentioned in this chapter, of 752, have been connected with the introduction in those years of Gaius and Lucius Cæsar, into the forum. Cf. c. 14. The amounts are the same in the two cases, and they vary from the sum given at other times.

76Up to this point the donations have been enumerated in order of time. But here, between the largesses to citizens in 749 and 752 is introduced one given to veterans in 725. Why this break in the order? Mommsen,R. G.p. 2 and 59, thinks that a first draft of this inscription was prepared about 750. In this draft Augustus first mentioned all his gifts to the city people; and at the end placed the one gift to the soldiers. Then, when in 767, the document was brought down to date, this later gift to the people was placed last, instead of being interpolated after the civil donation of 749 and before the military one of 725. But his reasoning has not convinced other scholars.

77Cf. Dio, LV, 10.

78Augustus omits any mention of his bounty to discharged soldiers. Cf. Dio, XLVI, 46; XLIX, 14; LV, 6; Appian, V, 129. The total of the donations in this list is 619,800,000 sesterces = about $30,990,000.

79Cf. c. 3; Dio, LI, 3, 4; Suet.Aug.17. The last writer says that there was a mutiny at Brundisium in a detachment sent there immediately after Actium, and that they demanded reward and discharge. Augustus was forced to come from Samos to settle the trouble. This was in 724. There were 120,000 veterans to be provided for. Cf. c. 15. 600,000,000 sesterces was the compensation for the lands given to these men, an average of 5000 sesterces ($250) for each holding. But not all Italian proprietors were reimbursed. The Italians who had favored Antony were simply dispossessed. To some other Italians were given lands at Dyracchium and Philippi. His expenditure for land in Italy was $30,000,000. As to colonies outside of Italy, Dio, LIV, 23, tells of many settlements in Gallia (Narbonensis) and Iberia in 739. Eusebius notes colonies at Berytus in Syria, and Patræ in Achaia, as founded in 739. Cf.Chron.ad. a. Abr. 2001; C. I. L. III, p. 95.

80The dates are 747, 748, 750, 751 and 752. The amount is $20,000,000. It was in 741 (Dio, LIV, 25) that Augustus determined upon a gift in money as a substitute for the assignments of land customary up to that time. Why such payments began only in 747 is a matter of conjecture; also why they ceased after 752. Probably because the years 742-746 were occupied with the German and Pannonian wars of Tiberius and Drusus, and either there were no discharges, or else no money to spare from the expenses of war. Again in 753 troubles began in the East.

81Only two of these occasions can be traced. Dio, LIII, 2, mentions one. He says that in 726, when it was determined to exhibit games in honor of Actium, Augustus replenished the empty treasury for that purpose. And there is a coin of c. 738 with the inscription:Senatus populusque Romanus imperatori Cæsari quod viæ munitæ sunt ex ea pecunia quam is ad ærarium detulit.Eckhel VI, 105.Up to 726 the treasury was in charge of the quæstors. Thence to 731 two exprætors, after that year two prætors presided over it, up to the time of Claudius. Cf. Tac.Ann.XIII, 29; Dio, LIII, 2 and 32; Suet.Aug.36. The sum mentioned here is $7,500,000. In the Greekτρίςhas evidently been omitted beforeχειλίας.

Up to 726 the treasury was in charge of the quæstors. Thence to 731 two exprætors, after that year two prætors presided over it, up to the time of Claudius. Cf. Tac.Ann.XIII, 29; Dio, LIII, 2 and 32; Suet.Aug.36. The sum mentioned here is $7,500,000. In the Greekτρίςhas evidently been omitted beforeχειλίας.

82This was in 759. In 741 (Dio, LIV, 25) Augustus had fixed the term of service at twelve years for the prætorians and sixteen for the legionaries. The gift to the former upon discharge was also larger. In 758 the terms of service were lengthened to sixteen and twenty years. Cf. Dio, LV, 23. In LV, 25, Dio writes of this year 759: “Augustus contributed, in his own name and in that of Tiberius, money for that treasury which is called the military.” The sum so given was $8,500,000. Tributary states and kings also assisted. But income could not keep pace with expenses. The old tax of a twentieth on bequests, except when the heir was a very near relative, or very poor, was revived, much to the discontent of the Roman people. Cf. Dio, LV, 25. Other taxes were devised, such as that of oneper centon sales. Cf. Tac.Ann.I, 78. On sales of slaves twoper centwas exacted. Cf. Dio, LV, 31.A glance at the military establishment of Augustus may help to some idea of its vast expense. Mommsen discusses the matter in detail (R. G.pp. 68-76). Augustus seems to have left at his death a standing army of twenty-five legions. Each legion approximated seven thousand men, giving a total of 175,000 soldiers. His legions were numbered from one to twenty-two. The number twenty-five is accounted for as follows: the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth had been exterminated under the leadership of Varus. But there were three legions, one in Africa, one in Syria and one in Cyrenaica, bearing the title third, and the fourth, fifth, sixth and tenth were each double. After Actium, Augustus disbanded the legions numbered above twelve (cf. his colonies of veterans at this time, numbering 120,000 men, c. XV). But by reason of the repetitions above alluded to, the legions bearing the numbers up to twelve, really amounted to eighteen. These duplications may have risen from the absorption into Augustus’ army of legions bearing the same numbers from the forces of Lepidus and later from those of Antony. In 759, eight new legions, the thirteenth to the twentieth, seem to have been enrolled, in view of the German and Pannonian wars. This made twenty six. Three were lost with Varus, and their numbers, seventeen, eighteen and nineteen, seem never to have been restored to the list. To offset this loss in a measure, two new legions, the twenty-first and twenty-second were levied. Thus the twenty-five remaining at the death of Augustus are accounted for. Such an establishment was enormously and increasingly expensive. Pliny,Hist. Nat., VII, 45.

A glance at the military establishment of Augustus may help to some idea of its vast expense. Mommsen discusses the matter in detail (R. G.pp. 68-76). Augustus seems to have left at his death a standing army of twenty-five legions. Each legion approximated seven thousand men, giving a total of 175,000 soldiers. His legions were numbered from one to twenty-two. The number twenty-five is accounted for as follows: the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth had been exterminated under the leadership of Varus. But there were three legions, one in Africa, one in Syria and one in Cyrenaica, bearing the title third, and the fourth, fifth, sixth and tenth were each double. After Actium, Augustus disbanded the legions numbered above twelve (cf. his colonies of veterans at this time, numbering 120,000 men, c. XV). But by reason of the repetitions above alluded to, the legions bearing the numbers up to twelve, really amounted to eighteen. These duplications may have risen from the absorption into Augustus’ army of legions bearing the same numbers from the forces of Lepidus and later from those of Antony. In 759, eight new legions, the thirteenth to the twentieth, seem to have been enrolled, in view of the German and Pannonian wars. This made twenty six. Three were lost with Varus, and their numbers, seventeen, eighteen and nineteen, seem never to have been restored to the list. To offset this loss in a measure, two new legions, the twenty-first and twenty-second were levied. Thus the twenty-five remaining at the death of Augustus are accounted for. Such an establishment was enormously and increasingly expensive. Pliny,Hist. Nat., VII, 45.

83This form of benefaction began in 736. It is a little remarkable that Augustus should not mention the exact years of its continuance, its amount, or the beneficiaries, while he does name the minimum number of men who received aid from time to time. Perhaps he did not go into details because these gifts concerned the provincials and would be of slight interest to the city people for whose reading the inscription was intended. In 742, “when Asia was in need of aid on account of earthquakes, he paid the year’s tribute of the province out of his own means.” Dio, LIV, 30.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.

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.

84The 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, Note90), 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.

Augustus does not mention structures which he erected in the name of others, as the portico of Octavia, (different from the one below, Note90), 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.

85This 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.

86A shrine of Minerva Chalcidica.

87Begun 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.”

88An 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.

89Dionysius (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.

90Festus,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.

91The 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.

92A 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.

93Suetonius,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.

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

95These 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.

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

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

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

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

100The Capitol means the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

101Frontinus,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, givesIul. 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.

102Julius 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 wordprofligatahere 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.

102Julius 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 wordprofligatahere 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.

103There 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.

104It 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 herepairedthe 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 isἐπόησα. A substitution ofἐπόησαfor 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 POPULUSQ ue romanusimp. cæsari divi f. augusto imp. sept.COS. SEPT. DESIGNAT. OCTAVOMVia flaminIAet reliqueiSCELEBERRIMEIS ITALIÆ VIEIS CONSILIOet sumptibUSeius muNITEIS.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.

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

SENATUS POPULUSQ ue romanus

imp. cæsari divi f. augusto imp. sept.COS. SEPT. DESIGNAT. OCTAVOMVia flaminIAet reliqueiSCELEBERRIMEIS ITALIÆ VIEIS CONSILIOet sumptibUSeius muNITEIS.

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.

105Cf. 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.

106This 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.

107Suetonius,Aug., 30, says that on one occasion Augustus deposited in thecellaof 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).

108In earlier times it had been customary for cities affected by a victory to give crowns of gold to the triumphingimperator. 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.

109The 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 thepatria potestasof 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 hispeculium, 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.

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.

110Cf. 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.

111These 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.

112The 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 withimp. 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.

113These 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.

114Cf. 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.

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.

115Velleius 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.

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.

116Another 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.”

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

118The 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.

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

120Cf. c. 8, Note49. 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 theFasti Consularesfor 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, notes40-45.

The number of consulars, eighty-three, is quite consistent with the facts, as is shown in a careful analysis of theFasti Consularesfor 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, notes40-45.

121This 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.

122Here 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 theRes Gestae. Schmidt believed it to be an epitaph. In this there would be no place for anything save the fortunate events of a life. Ifnil de mortuis nisi bonumbe wise, Augustus might well have adapted the adage to his own case and said,nil de me morituro nisi bonum. But Hirschfeld insists that theRes Gestaeconstitute 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 thatpacavi, “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 theRes Gestaemust be always had in mind. Cf. Introduction. Its deliverances weread populumand they constituted an epitaph.

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 theRes Gestae. Schmidt believed it to be an epitaph. In this there would be no place for anything save the fortunate events of a life. Ifnil de mortuis nisi bonumbe wise, Augustus might well have adapted the adage to his own case and said,nil de me morituro nisi bonum. But Hirschfeld insists that theRes Gestaeconstitute 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 thatpacavi, “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 theRes Gestaemust be always had in mind. Cf. Introduction. Its deliverances weread populumand they constituted an epitaph.

Back to Index Next