The Succession of Imperial Power under the Julio-Claudian Dynasty (30 BC – AD 68)

Introduction

The succession of imperial power makes for one of the most riveting aspects of the history of the Roman Empire. This is largely due to the specificity of the principate, a de facto monarchy officially perceived as a continuation and “restoration” of the Republic¹. The position of the princeps was never inheritable nor were there any legal documents in existence regulating succession. These features fundamentally distinguish the principate from most mediaeval or modern monarchies known to us. Even so, a distinct majority of Roman emperors pursued dynastic policies, undertaking various measures intended to prepare and ensure the succession of their chosen heir. Furthermore, from the times of Augustus onward, a clear tendency of attempting to pass on the purple within one’s family can be observed, thus confirming a dynastic rule.

This dissertation focuses on the succession of imperial power under the Julio-Claudian dynasty, thus encompassing the period from 30 BC to AD 68. There are two reasons why I limit my analysis to the first imperial dynasty. First, the enormous size of the subject matter dissuaded me from my original intention of discussing the problem as it unfolded throughout the principate. Second, after Nero’s death certain new trends appeared with regard to the procedure for appointing the new princeps: to counteract the dynastic principle there was a rising demand for the best to be chosen, with the candidate’s qualifications and merits being decisive rather than his family connections, whereas the Year of the Four Emperors demonstrated it was possible to be made princeps away from Rome and by the legions as well as by the Praetorian Guard and the Senate. Both these tendencies would make themselves known in the future, as successive emperors came into power, and until the end of the principate.

The book has been divided into two parts, with the discussion organized chronologically and thematically. In the five chapters of Part One, I mostly investigate the mechanisms of the succession policies of the Julio-Claudian emperors, where by succession policy I mean primarily those deliberate actions of the princeps ←11 | 12→aimed at determining political succession and ensuring that his chosen successor would assume power smoothly. Under that term I also include any actions of the incumbent emperor taken with a view to increasing the popularity of his anticipated successors, intended to secure them the support of various circles of Roman society, particularly the army and the plebs, as well as dynastic murders used by any current princeps to eliminate potential rivals in the struggle for the throne or to pave the road to succession for his envisioned successor. In Part One, I concentrate on determining the roles played by certain members of the imperial family in the succession plans of the rulers from the first dynasty. I also look into the cursus honorum, the public presentation and honours of the intended successors, which made it possible to establish the hierarchy within the ruling family, and into dynastic adoption and marriages, both of which were important parts of the succession policies of Augustus and his successors.

The next sources to be listed must be Bellum Iudaicum and Antiquitates Iudaicae by Flavius Josephus, active under the Flavii. Those two works, books 2 and 19, respectively, contain the most extensive account of the stormy events surrounding Caligula’s assassination and Claudius’ rise to power. ←12 | 13→

The other type of sources, and of particular importance to the problem discussed in this book, are the epigraphic ones. Of those, the first that ought to be listed are the two inscriptions from Pisa containing the texts of the honorific decrees passed by the authorities of that Italian town for Gaius and Lucius Caesar, Augustus’ grandsons and adoptive sons², which make it possible to see the Pisans’ reaction to the death of the princeps’ intended successors and provide detailed information on their posthumous honours. ←13 | 14→

Then there are three monumental inscriptions worthy of particular notice: the Tabula Hebana, the Tabula Siarensis and the Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone patre. The first two contain the Senate decrees passed after Germanicus’ death and are an invaluable source of information on his posthumous honours, but there is the problem of the Tabula Siarensis being incomplete in places, forcing us to resort to reconstruction; the third inscription contains the text of the senatus consultum passed in connection with the trial of Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, who was charged with contributing to Germanicus’ death, and supplies important information on the relations between the ruling dynasty, the Senate, the equestrian order, the plebs and the army³.

It is also worth mentioning the inscriptions from Aritium (in Hispania Lusitania) and Assos (in Asia province), which contain the text of the oath the people of those two towns swore to Caligula after he was made princeps, and make for an important source of information on the mood among the inhabitants of the provinces regarding Germanicus’ son’s rise to imperial power.

Finally, the Acta Fratrum Arvalium (abbreviated hereafter to AFA) prove invaluable, as they make it possible to reconstruct the various stages of Caligula’s and Nero’s imperial accessions⁴.

The third category of sources I have used in writing this book comprises coins, the so-called official series being the most important⁵. Those include the coins struck in the imperial mint located in Lugdunum until Caligula’s time and later in Rome, as well as those produced in the mint administered by the Senate, also in Rome. Scholars hotly dispute the degree to which their legends and iconography reflected the intentions of the incumbent princeps, and whether coins were a medium of official propaganda⁶. Personally, I fully agree with Carlos Noreña, who asserted that “Each coin minted at Rome was an official document and as such represented an official expression of the emperor and his regime.”⁷ Thus the official coin series is fundamental to examining the succession policies ←14 | 15→of the various principes. Provincial coins also hold considerable significance⁸. Their message usually correlates with that of imperial coins, which demonstrates that the inhabitants of the provinces were familiar with the current hierarchies within the imperial family and the current succession order, as they knew quite well whom and how to honour.

Lastly, iconographic sources need to be mentioned. My analysis includes, without being limited to, the famous relief sculptures of the Ara Pacis, the Boscoreale skyphoi, the gemma Augustea and a number of phalerae depicting members of the imperial family. Still, it ought to be emphasized that any discussion based on this category of sources may only be hypothetical. There are two major reasons for this. First, it is impossible to be certain which members of the reigning dynasty are depicted on those relics; and second, they cannot be dated accurately.

Imperial succession under the Julio-Claudian dynasty has not received treatment to date in the form of a comprehensive monograph⁹. Not that the questions I raise in this book have not been investigated in scholarship before. Since the literature which to varying degrees deals with the topics I discuss here is immense, I shall limit myself to listing the most crucial titles. First of all, there is Alexander Mlasowsky’s extensive paper¹⁰ analysing certain selected aspects of the succession-related propaganda of all the Julio-Claudian emperors. However, his perspective is largely that of numismatic and iconographic sources, with less attention paid to literature and inscriptions. Nor is it possible to accept all his findings. Then one must remember the publications about selected aspects of the succession policies of the rulers from the first imperial dynasty, most of them focusing on Augustus. They include especially the work of Barbara Levick, Peter ←15 | 16→Sattler, John H. Corbett, Glen Bowersock, Mark D. Fullerton, Hartwin Brandt, Frédéric Hurlet, Andrew Pettinger, Tom Stevenson and Robin Seager¹¹. Other works worthy of mention are the monographs by Maria H. Dettenhofer and Beth Severy, both insightful accounts of the building of a dynasty by the first princeps and of the domus Augusta forming as the new ruling elite¹². Tiberius’ succession policy, however, has attracted scholarly attention to a lesser degree, featuring mostly in the works of Fernand de Visscher, Eckhard Meise and Paul Schrömbges¹³. Then there is a similar trend for Caligula and Claudius; of the works dealing with their dynastic policies, one needs to mention those by Edoardo Bianchi and Josiah Osgood¹⁴.

Other than those, publications important to the problems investigated in this book include any that deal with the issues of appointing successors, transferring the imperial power and investing the new emperor under the principate, especially those by Jean Béranger, Léon Lesuisse, Dieter Timpe, Blanche Parsi and John Scheid¹⁵.

The aspects of the Julio-Claudian reign of interest to me are also extensively discussed in the biographies of the several principes and other members of the dynasty, most of them centring on Augustus, of course. Those by Dietmar Kienast, Jochen Bleicken, Werner Eck and Barbara Levick are particularly noteworthy¹⁶, and Levick has biographies of Tiberius and Claudius as well¹⁷. Of Caligula’s biographies, those by Anthony Barrett and Alois Winterling deserve mention¹⁸, and when it comes to Nero, there is Miriam Griffin’s book¹⁹. Biographies of individual members of the imperial family worth listing include the work of Meyer Reinhold and Jean M. Roddaz on Agrippa, Bruno Gallotta’s on Germanicus and Anthony Barrett’s on Agrippina the Younger²⁰. ←16 | 17→

Terminological and Editorial Notes

In this book, I make use of terms such as monarchy, dynasty, co-regent or the throne, which some might consider anachronistic when applied to the Julio-Claudian period. That is because I believe the principate to have been a de facto monarchy, and in my view these terms aptly reflect the historical realities described. Furthermore, the terminology is in widespread use in scholarly literature on the subject.

All the abbreviations of the names of ancient authors and the titles of their works are those used in the Oxford Classical Dictionary.

The abbreviated titles of journals, publication series, catalogues of coins and inscriptions follow the convention used by L’Année Philologique.