• No results found

Velleius Paterculus: the Roman Republic, partVelleius Paterculus: the Roman Republic, part

Velleius Paterculus: the Roman Republic, part

2

In some respects, Velleius Paterculus is to the Tiberian period what Livy was to the Augustan. Shortly afterAD30he published aHistory of Rome, which in scope, though hardly in length (the work comprised only two books), resembles that of Livy and encompasses the founding of Rome down to the year AD 29, fifteen years into the reign of Tiberius.

15

A striking characteristic of this comparatively superficial but very inter- esting History is that it presents Roman history as a seamless whole. There are, to be sure, specific moments of transition, the most significant occurring after the Third Punic War, when in the wake of exp ansion Rome entered a period of unprecedented luxury and idleness. 16 But politically, if one accepts the Velleian view, there was no sharp dividing line between ‘‘Republic’’ and the ‘‘Principate’’ or ‘‘Empire.’’ The Roman state continues with one modification, the rise of the princeps, first Augustus and then Tiberius. Even this – the co-opting of the hallowed Republican term princeps (discussed further below) – supported the

13

So Conte (1994), 382 – 3; Timpe (1986), 68 – 76, paints a different picture of Augustan–Tiberian historiography. Conte counts among the representatives of this Tiberian movement Servilius Nonianus and Aufidius Bassus, although both survived well into the Neronian period. The former’s historical work appears to have begun with the death of Augustus, whereas the latter’s went back to at least the death of Cicero. See Peter (1967), cxxv–cxxviiii; Noe ` (1984),78 – 84. This is not to deny, of course, that there was considerable opposition – or discontent – under Augustus and his successors, but rather that the degree to which it manifested itself in historiography is limited. Further on the question of opposition in the early Principate Raaflaub (1986); Schmitzer (2000),287 with refs. in n. 3.

14

Bloomer (1992),3. 15

On the somewhat unique nature of Velleius’ History, see Schmitzer (2000),29 – 36. 16

Vell. Pat.2.1.1 – 2, replicating the Sallustian view (Woodman [1969],787; Schmitzer [2000],82).

impression of restoration rather than revolution.17 In Velleius’ eyes the chief contribution of the first two emperors was not so much the over- hauling of the political system as the imposition of peace, which allowed the res publica to function in relative tranquility. Some years and several emperors later, Tacitus supplies a corrective to this view, but too often the cynicism of his successor has overshadowed Velleius’ attempt to chronicle the virtues of the Tiberian Republic.18 In Velleius’ eyes, Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Tiberius are neither revolutionaries nor thinly disguised despots but saviors, new exempla for a new society in search of new paradigms

. . .

but not new government.

The book divisions reflect Velleius’ perception of Roman history. Book1 chronicles the founding of Rome, its expansion, and emergence as an international power, concluding with the destruction of Carthage in146 BC. Book2, on the other hand, begins roughly with the Gracchan period

and focuses on the civil discord that gave rise to the war between Caesar and Pompey and, ultimately, the Principate of Augustus and then Tiberius. Structurally, therefore, the work views Roman history as divisible into essentially two parts, one embracing the establishment of the Republic and the period of expansion and the other the century of domestic discord that led to the stabilization of the Republic under the first two emperors. The Principate, never explicitly acknowledged as a ‘‘new’’ form of government, is thus seen to be a means to maintain rather than replace the Republic.

What was the purpose of such a work? 19 In part it see ms designed simply to be a shortened parallel to Livy’s magnum opus;

20

it carries Livy’s History a bit further to include Tiberius within its compass, and therefore situate the climax of Rome’s glory in the Tiberian rather than the Augustan age. Both Livy and Velleius use the past as a foil to the present, but whereas in Livy’s preface, at least, one senses some anxiety about the present, no such concerns surface in Velleius. On the contrary,

17

For the term and its Republican associations, Brunt and Moore ( 1967),55, Syme ( 1939), 10; see also below with n. 27. Velleius’ belief in the continuation of the Republic: Eder (1990),73; Kuntze (1985),155 – 68; Laistner (1947),109; Sion-Jenkis (2000),22,161 – 2,192.

18

Schmitzer (2000),26; cf. Woodman (1977),52 – 4. 19

On this question, Schmitzer (2000),40 – 2. 20

Velleius intended to write another, apparently full-blown History (cf., e.g.,2.96.3,

103.4,114.4), on which see Woodman (1977), on2.96.3.

Tiberius has relieved whatever unease the Augustan regime may have caused. Tiberian Rome is without doubt a better place.

Velleius’ ‘‘renarrativization’’ of Republican history – a process Sturken identifies as the ‘‘defining quality of memory’’ – is of course more condensed than Livy’s, and the ‘‘memory’’ it establishes appears to have the very specific purpose of equipping the emperor with a Republican pedigree, of suggesting that Tiberius embodies all that was good about characters from Rome’s past and has repudiated all that was bad (a man who, in oth er words, took the injunctions of Livy’s preface with some seriousness).21 To that end Velleius writes a history whose meaning lies not so much in the lessons learned from events but in the morals and ethics imparted by the people involved in the events. 22 The same is largely true of Livy, except that Livy devotes considerably more time to detailing events than Velleius; Velleius typically cuts to the chase, focusing on certain key Roman players and their attributes.

23

His undoubted admiration of various Republican icons functions as a foil for the encomium of Tiberius to follow. His favorable portrait of M. Livius Drusus, tribune of the plebs in 91 BC (2.14.2 – 3), conjures a well-born, eloquent, moral man with a praiseworthy goal – the restora- tion of the Senate to its former glory ( priscum

. . .

decus) – thwarted only by the short-sightedness of the very body he was attempting to serve (2.13). In Velleius’ hands, he becomes, in his association with the old status quo, a proto-typical defender of the Republic who in his dying breath is made to wonder if Rome will ever have another citizen such as he (2.14.2).24 Velleius evinces unquestioning admiration for characters

21

On ‘‘renarrativization,’’ Sturken (1997),42 – 3. 22

A common observation in Velleian studies: for summary of the scholarship and discussion of the emphasis on personality, Woodman (1977),28 – 45.

23

That is, he is usually more concerned with Romans than foreigners; we encounter little of the extensive character description one finds of, say, Hannibal or Perseus in Livy (there are occasional exceptions, such as the extended description of Maroboduus at 2.108, which perhaps results from the fact that Velleius had personal experience with him). But as Schmitzer ( 2000),37 – 71 has shown, in the small portion of what survives of Book 1 devoted to pre-Roman history, he very much views Rome’s predecessors through a Roman imperial lens.

24

Discussion by Schmitzer (2000), 151 – 2, who suggests that Velleius’ portrait is conditioned by respect for (or hesitation to criticize) the Livian ancestors of Tiberius. See also Rowe (2002),58 – 9.

such as P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Aemilianus (a man who enjoys

perpetua memoria,2.4.3) or Cato the Younger (2.35), scarcely mention- ing the latter’s opposition to Caesar and passing over in silence his death, an act appropriated by so many other writers as the final stand of

libertas. He is, moreover, able to offer balanced assessments of men such as Pompey (2.29) and Marius ( 2.11.1,12.5 – 6). Several prominent Republican families are singled out for special comment as well: the Domitii (2.10.2), for instance, and the Caecilii Metelli. The latter are served up as an example of a once famous family whose fortuna has now waned (2.11.3; cf. 1.11).

When we finally arrive at the Tiberian portion of the work, therefore, it is difficult to resist the notion that Tiberius looks like a throwback to Republican ideals. Or rather, given his lineage, stressed by Velleius (2.94.1 – 2), it seems quite natural to see the em peror as merely the

continuator of his illustrious Republican family.

25

Moreover, it is of some significance that in Velleius’ eyes the Republic offers ample pre- cedent for Tiberius’ position. Pompey, for instance, is given ‘‘imperial’’ authority to combat the pirates ( paene totius terrarum orbis imperium uni viro deferebatur,2.31.3); nor was he the first to be given such authority – Marcus Antonius had been similarly empowered in 74 BC. This leads Velleius to muse on the wisdom of such a move:

sed interdum persona ut exemplo nocet, ita invidiam auget aut levat: in Antonio homines aequo animo passi erant; raro enim invidetur eorum honoribus quorum vis non timetur; contra in iis homines extraordinaria reformidant qui ea suo arbitrio aut deposituri aut retenturi videntur et modum in voluntate habent. dissuadebant opti- mates, sed consilia impetu victa sunt.

But occasionally the personality [sc. of someone given such authority] can increase or lessen envy, just as it has the potential to mar the precedent. In the case of Antonius, people had calmly tolerated him, for we rarely begrudge honors to those whose power we do not fear; but on the other hand, people are fearful of bestowing extraordinary powers on men who seem likely either to lay those powers down or retain them as they see fit and the restraint of which lies in their

25

Kuntze (1985),35 – 6.

goodwill. The optimates argued against it, but sound advice was

defeated by impulse. ( 2.31.4)

It is therefore not the principleof one-man rule to which Velleius objects; rather, he stresses the need to make the choice wisely. Quintus Catulus – a memory-worthy man – articulates precisely the dilemma in opposing in 67 BC the proposal to entrust Pompey with the war against the pirates:

Digna est memoria Q. Catuli cum auctoritas tum verecundia. qui cum dissuadens legem in contione dixisset esse quidem praeclarum virum Cn. Pompeium sed nimium iam liberae rei publicae, neque omnia in uno reponenda, adiecissetque ‘‘si quid huic acciderit, quem in eius locum substituetis?,’’ succlamavit universa contio ‘‘te, Q. Catule.’’ tum ille victus consensu omnium et tam honorifico civitatis testimonio e contione discessit. hic hominis verecundiam, populi iustitiam mirari libet, huius, quod non ultra contendit, plebis, quod dissuadentem et adversarium voluntatis suae vero testimonio fraudare noluit.

Both the leadership as well as the humility of Quintus Catulus are worthy of memory. When he had expressed his views and opposed the law in an assembly, he remarked that Gnaeus Pompey was indeed a great man, but that he was now too much so for a free republic and that all authority ought not to be granted to one man; and he added, ‘‘If something happens to him, whom would you put in his place?’’ The entire assembly shouted, ‘‘You, Quintus Catulus!’’ Then, over- whelmed by the universal consensus, and by such an honorable tribute on the part of the citizens, he left the meeting. At this point one might marvel at the humility of the man and the people’s sense of justice: Catulus because he no longer opposed the measure, the people

because they were unwilling to deprive him of their genuine respect, even though he was arguing the opposite case contrary to their wishes.

(2.32.1 – 2)

This is how the Republic should work. Valerius Maximus, incidentally, provides an equally laudatory version of this episode in the Facta et dicta memorabilia(8.15.9), suggesting that it was seen to have special relevance.

The scene in fact bears some resemblance to the moment Tiberius accepts the Principate; Catulus’ insistence that power ought not to be given to any one man recalls, for instance, Tiberius’ similar remark to the

Senate, at least as Tacitus describes it (Ann. 1.11.1, quoted above). As I noted at the outset of this chapter, Velleius provides his own version of Tiberius’ accession. Initially, the new emperor urged that he merely be a civis aequalis.26The Senate had other plans:

Quid tunc homines timuerint, quae senatus trepidatio, quae populi confusio, quis urbis metus, in quam arto salutis exitiique fuerimus confinio, neque mihi tam festinanti exprimere vacat neque cui vacat potest. id solum voce publica dixisse <satis> habeo: cuius orbis

ruinam timueramus, eum ne commotum quidem sensimus, tantaque unius viri maiestas fuit ut nec bonis***

neque contra malos opus armis foret. una tamen veluti luctatio civitatis fuit, pugnantis cum Caesare senatus populique Romani ut stationi paternae succederet, illius ut potius aequalem civem quam eminentem liceret agere principem. tandem magis ratione quam honore victus est, cum quicquid tuendum non suscepisset periturum videret; solique huic contigit paene diutius recusare principatum quam ut occuparent eum alii armis pugnaverant.

In my haste I have no time to relate – nor could anyone who had the time – what people feared at this point in time, the anxiety of the Senate, the confusion of the people, the fear in the city, how narrow a path we tread between safety on the one side and destruction on the other. I must satisfy myself with having publicly uttered only this: the world whose destruction we had feared was, we came to realize, not even disturbed. So great was the authority of this one man that there was no need for arms, neither <on behalf of good people> nor

against the bad. Nevertheless there was one struggle, as it were, in the state, that of the Senate and the Roman people locked in a debate with Caesar: they, to persuade him to succeed to his father’s position, he, that he should instead be permitted to live as an equal citizen rather than a princeps set apart. At last he was overcome more by

26

In Velleius’ view the citizens of a ‘‘free state’’ ( civitas libera) must by definition be

aequales. Pompey’s refusal to accept this fact is what tarnished his reputation in the end (2.29.4) and is the reason why Velleius implies that those who believed he represented the interests of the Republic were deceived ( 2.48.4). Tiberius brought

aequitas back to the state (2.126.2, .4).

reason than by the honor, when he perceived that whatever he had not undertaken to protect would perish. To him alone did it befall to refuse the Principate longer than others fought by arms to seize it.

(2.124.1 – 2) Now, when Velleius uses the term principatus in the last sentence, it is clearly in itsRepublicansense, denoting simply a position of leadership in the state (OLD s.v. 1); if one imagines, that is, that Augustus had been the sole princeps Rome had witnessed, then the statement is nonsensical. Roman history is awash with men who sought a similar principatus as well as with ma ny principes, some of whose careers are chronicled by Velleius himself.27

In the Velleian view Tiberius’ position is no different from that of many who have gone before, another continuation of a hallowed Republican tradition of recognizing the leading men in the state. He too is princeps – albeit theoptimus princeps(2.126.4), a title also used, not coincidentally, by Valerius Maximus (see n. 54). With no hint of skepti- cism Velleius declares that Augustus restored the Republic: prisca illa et antiqua rei publicae forma revocata (2.89.3). Thus when on his deathbed Augustus entrusts to his successor hisopera, there is no doubt in Velleius’ mind what that legacy entails. 28 And indeed, Tiberius immediately sets out on his own program of ‘‘restoration,’’ rescuing from the grave – and thus restoring to memory – justice, fairness, and hard work (sepultaeque ac situ obsitae iustitia aequitas industria civitati redditae , 2.126.2). He models his behavior on not only Augustus, but the Scipios as well, in choosing a ‘‘partner in his labors,’’ the soon-to-be-infamous Sejanus

27

Timpe (1986),74; good discussion of Velleius’ use of these terms in Kuntze (1985),

164 – 6. Crassus, earlier regarded as a princeps rei publicaein the wake of the conflict with Spartacus (2.30.6, with, however, Watts’ [1998] app. crit. ad loc.; for the phrase cf. Cic.Rep.1.34.2), aimed at principatusunder the first triumvirate (2.44.2); Caesar acquired principatus(2.57.1); Gaius Gracchus was acivitatis princeps(2.6.2), as was Marcus Antonius (2.22.3); Marius was a princeps (2.19.4); Caesar too ( 2.68.5). Syme (1939),10,311 – 30; Galinsky (1996),74. The adoption and redefining of the term princeps is an informative example of how the Principate co-opts Republican terminology.

28

Note that the aim of the rebellion put down by Germanicus in the early days of Tiberius was a nova res publica (2.125.1): the rebellion’s failure implies the con- tinuation of the ‘‘old.’’

(2.127.1). Velleius goes out of his way to defend the standards by which Sejanus – himself of good Republican stock ( 2.127.3) – was judged, summoning an array of venerable characters from the Republic with whom Sejanus is to be compared: Tiberius Coruncanius, Spurius Carvilius, Cato the Elder, Marius, Cicero, and Asinius Pollio, men who rose from humble srcins (most were novi homines or ‘‘new men’’) to positions of prominence and respect in Rome ( 2.128).

These standards come into play on other occasions as well. Velleius lavishes high praise on the consul of 19 BC, Sentius Saturninus, for his ‘‘Republican’’ conduct during his term in office: he employed ‘‘time- honored severity and great resolve, emulating the old ways and sternness of the consuls’’ ( prisca severitate summaque constantia, vetere consulum more [ac severitate],2.92.2), behavior Velleius praises as ‘‘comparable to the renown of any of the consuls of days past’’ ( factum cuilibet veterum consulum gloriae comparandum,2.92.5) and which should not be ‘‘chea- ted of memory’’ (ne fraudetur memoria,2.92.1). This was the man who, on Caligula’s death, would lead a movement to restore the Republic (see Chap. 1). Similarly, more than once Tiberius is shown to eschew his imperial authority in favor of more ‘‘Republican’’ procedures (e.g., 2.126.1,2.129.2).