STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY By E. G. HARDY, M.A., D.Litt., Fellow and Tutor of Jesus College, Oxford LONDON SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO. LIM New York : THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1906 '^"/it TO MY PUPILS PAST AND PRESENT 169810 Preface When I found that the time had come for a second edition of Christianity and the Roman Government, I at first intended merely to repubhsh that little book in its original form. Wisely or unwisely, however, I have determined to incorporate in the same volume a few other essays, on more or less special subjects in Roman History, which, whatever their own intrinsic value, had cost me considerable labour in past years. To republish old work perhaps may be taken as a sign that either the ability, or the interest, to produce any- thing new has ceased to exist. In my case, I think I may fairly say that it is the ability, and not the interest, which has changed. Fruitful or original work in Roman History is not possible, when inscriptions can no longer be decyphered nor classical texts studied and compared. All that I can do now, on the subject which formerly occupied most of my time, is to appreciate (by means of other eyes) such notable contributions towards the scientific study of Roman History as those which Mr. Strachan-Davidson, Dr. Greenidge, and Mr. Henderson, have made and are making — contributions which promise to render less in- dispensable in the future a knowledge of German works and the German language, at least for Oxford students of the subject. The following studies are presented almost exactly in their original form. I have contrived to remove a few obvious mistakes and inconsistencies ; and I have added a few pages to The Movements of the Legions from a paper on The German Army and Frontier, written before conditions became unfavourable and now probably never to be published. No doubt I should have wished vii Vm PREFACE to do much more to render these essays both useful and worthy of attention but I trust it will be understood that circumstances, preclude even anything like a systematic revision. I have to express my thanks to the editors and pub- lishers of the English Historical Review, ior per- mission to reprint The Movements of the Legions and The Provincial Concilia^ and to Messrs. Macmillan for allow- ing me to incorporate a portion of my Introduction to Plutarch* s Lives of Galba and Otho ; together with three shorter papers from The Journal of Philology. Finally I wish to express my great obligations to my friend Mr. Rolfe, without whose assistance this volume could never have been prepared. He has not only care- fully gone through all the essays, preparing them for press, but has undertaken the entire work of correcting the proofs — a task of no small difficulty considering the intricate nature of the notes. I am convinced that, through his care, the remediable and accidental errors have been reduced to a minimum. E. G. HARDY. Oxford, December, 1905. Contents PAGE I— X. CHRISTIANITY AND THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT I The Attitude of the Republic towards Foreign Cults .... II The Treatment of Judaism . Ill First Appearance of Christianity in the Eastern Provinces - IV Christianity in Rome under Nero . V Christianity under the Flavian Emperors VI Trajan and the Christians VII Persecution for the Name VIII Attitude of Hadrian, Pius and Marcus AURELIUS ..... IX Christianity in its Relation to "Collegia X Two " Acta Martyrum "... XI Legions in the Pannonian Rising . XII Movements of the Legions XIII The Provincial "Concilia" . XIV Imperium Consulare or Proconsulare . XV Plutarch, Tacitus, and Suetonius, on Galea AND Otho I 14 29 41 60 78 96 108' 129 151 "^ 181 236 284 295 / XVI A Bodleian MS. of Pliny's Letters to Trajan 335 IS The Attitude of the Republic towards Foreign Cults The policy of the Roman government towards the Christians is involved in^ot a few difficulties, and though many attempts have been made to give a consistent explanation of the facts which from various sources are supplied to us, none of them can be said to have met with universal acceptance. This is, perhaps, to a certain extent inevitable. Our information, such as it is, comes to us from one of two sources — from Roma n^ writers or from. Christian ; and while it is almost impos- sible iiof'to presuppose a certain amount of bias on both sides, there is this further and special obstacle to our arrival at the truth : that while the heathen writers in the too few and too brief notices which have come down to us treat the matter as one of only a passing and super- ficial interest, our Christian authorities, on the other hand, are men of one idea, to whom Christianity is the one important feature in the history of the time. Add to this that neither on the one side nor the other is there any consecutive account of the spread and fate of Christianity, either in Rome or other parts of the empire, but rather isolated notices which seem to assume on the part of the reader knowledge which we at least, separated from the facts by so many centuries, do not possess. Finally, even assuming that by the synthesis of scattered notices, by inference from indirect evidence, and by the weighing of probabilities with the aid of whatever 1 B t, ' ■' f/TUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY critical apparatus is at our disposal, we can make to a certain extent continuous what we find disjointed, there still remains the fact that the evidence on which we have ultimately relied is on the one side tainted with the hatred, contempt, and mistrust which the unintelligible and therefore unpardonable ** obstinacy" of the Chris- tians produced in the heathen mind, and on the other with the passionate sense of injustice which rankled in and undoubtedly warped the minds of the Christian writers. ^ How is the treatment to which the Christians were subjected during the first two centuries (for to that period we shall confine ourselves) consistent with the toleration with which the Roman government in religious matters has generally been credited ? Was this tolera- tion less complete than we have been used to suppose ? or has the extent, severity, and meaning of the persecu- tions been, as Gibbon was the first to suggest\ exag- gerated or misrepresented ? ^ It is the great merit of Mommsen's article in the " Historische Zeitschrift" ^ — an article which has laid the foundation for a more systematic treatment of the subject — to have pointed out that neither the one question nor the other can be fairly considered as long as we confine ourselves to the case of the Christians alone. Their treatment was only a part — no doubt as time went on always tending to be the most important part — of the general policy of the Roman government in those matters where religious, social, and political interests touched and overlapped. Christianity was not the only foreign cult with which the government had to deal ; it was not the only foreign cult with which it had to interfere ; and while it may be possible, perhaps, at the outset to define generally the 1 The tone adopted by the writer of the Apocalypse is a case in point. Professor Ramsay argues from the extreme bitterness of the Apocalypse that the persecutions of the first century must have been severer than those of the second. His argument is noticed below on p. y^, note 41. 2 See Gibbon's two famous chapters xv. and xvi. 3 Vol, Ixiv. 1890, Der Religionsfrevel nach romischem Recht. THE ATTITUDE OF THE REPUBLIC 3 Roman policy in religious matters, such a definition will carry us a very little way — partly because of the growing indifference to the national religion which was insensibly reflected in the action of the government, but mainly because a " religious policy " tended more and more to become an abstraction, the concrete embodiments of which were modified by diverse political and social considerations, which were never the same in any two cases. In order, therefore, to form a well-grounded judgment on the treatment of Christianity, we have not only to discover from the often conflicting and uncertain evidence what that treatment was, but to connect it generally, if possible, with any underlying principles of Roman policy, and to show how these were or may have been modified by political and social circumstances, really or apparently involved in the nature of Christianity as it developed through the empire, or in the conditions amid which the Roman empire itself had coalesced, and on which its stability seemed to depend. The Roman religion was essentially and before all t things a national religion ; its object was primarily, not \ the honour of the gods, but the safety of the state, of \ which the goodwill of the gods was supposed to be the i necessary condition.^ Its observance was therefore the duty of every citizen, and ,was an even more necessary part of patriotism than service in the army, because the sin of a single recusant might call down the anger of the neglected gods on the whole state. It was, therefore, in early times the duty of the executive to enforce on citizens the observance of the national religion, and, if necessary, to punish its neglect. But the simple state of things which the principle so stated implies was of no long duration. The mission of the Roman state was a mission of conquest, and each fresh conquest, whether within Italy or without, opened out new mercantile communications with foreign nations. Foreigners from| all quarters came to Rome, and with them necessarily] came their gods ; and henceforward Roman policy was 4 See Boissier, La Religion Romaine, vol. i. p. lo seq. 4 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY the outcome of two principles ; different, indeed, but not essentially opposed, the exclusiveness of a national religion, modified, though by no means destroyed, by the comprehensiveness which is inherent in all poly- theism. It is, as we should expect, the latter principle which is the most patent and easy to trace. Gradually the number of deities included in the national religion increased as the Roman citizenship was extended over Italy and as communication with the Greek nation became closer and more continuous. What were origin- ally foreign cults could always be incorporated by the executive — who, however, would never take action without the support of a senatorial decree '^ — in the national worship, and so come under the general super- intendence of the pontifices as " sacra populi Romani ; " the only distinction between these " dii novensiles," ^ as they were called, and the " dii indigetes " being that the former, unless they were identified under another name with one of the old deities, were not allowed within the pomerium. In this way were gradually adopted into the Roman state worship not only such Italian deities as Juno Regina from Veii,^ or Diana from Aricia, but Apollo,® Aesculapius,^ Ceres,^*^ Dis, and — to a great extent through 8 Tert. Apol. 5 : " Vetus erat decretum ne quis deus ab impe- ratore consecraretur, nisi a senatu probatus ; " and 13, " Status dei cuiusque in senatus aestimatione pendebat." 8 Arnobius, iii. 38 : " Ciucius numina peregrina novitate ex ipsa appellata pronuntiat ; nam solere Romanes religiones urbium superatarum partim privatim per familias spargere, partim publice consecrare, ac ne aliquid deorum multitudine aut ignorantia praeteriretur, brevitatis et compendii causa uno pariter nomine cunctos novensiles invocari." Cf. Liv. viii. 9. ■^ Liv. V. 21 : " Te simul, Juno regina, quae nunc Veios colis, precor, ut nos victores in nostram, tuamque mox futuram, urbem sequare." 8 Liv. iv. 25 and 29 ; cf. xxv, 12. ^ Val. Max. i. 8, 2 : " Cura sacerdotum inspectis Sibyllinis libris animadvertit non aliter pristinam recuperari salubritatem posse, quam si ab Epidauro Aesculapius esset accersitus." Liv. X. 47. 10 Val. Max. i. i, i ; Dionys. 6, 17 ; Tac. Ann. 2, 49 ; Cic. pro Balb, 24, 55. I THE ATTITUDE OF THE REPUBLIC the influence of the Sibylhne books" — almost all the Hellenic gods ; so that long before the unification of Italy it was true " cunctas caerimonias Italicis in oppidis et numinum effigies iuris atque imperii Romani esse." ^^ Nor were Greek and Italian cults alone thus received and recognised by the state. The same procedure was adopted as early as 204 B.C. in reference to the Oriental cult of Cybele, whose image, symbolised in a sacred stone, was, in accordance with the directions of the Sibylline books, brought to Rome from Pessinus in Galatia ; and, in consequence apparently of her identifi- cation with the Italian Magna Mater, was ultimately placed in a temple within the pomerium on the Palatine itself." Similarly, in the course of the Mithridatic wars, the worship of the Cappadocian goddess, centring round Comana, was introduced into Rome and identified with the Italian deity Bellona.^'' Manifestly this enlargement of the state worship was due to political considerations ; the narrower circle of " dii indigetes " no longer satisfied a population so varied and heterogeneous as that of Rome was fast becoming. And in the case of an Oriental cult, like that of Cybele, it naturally seemed more advisable, by recognising it as part of the state cult, to place it under the control of the government, repre- sented by the pontifices, and so to sanction its restricted observance by the whole citizen body, rather than, by allowing free scope within a limited number of the population to a worship characterised in its native form by a certain sensuousness and extravagance, to run the risk of a general corruption of religion or morality. But in a population so large and so mixed as that of Rome in the last century of the republic other strange and unfamiliar cults could not but creep in, not recog- nised by the government, and so beyond the control of 11 Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. pp. 42, 52 and 358. 12 Tac. Ann. iii. 71. 13 Liv. xxix, 10 and 14 : xxxvi. 36. 1* Plut. Sull. 9 : A^Yerai 5^ ^erd tovs virvovs ovry Si^XX^ 4>avr)vai debv ^v Tiixdei 'Fufialoi. irapb. KawwaddKuv fiaOovres, etre 5r; Ze\r]vr}u odaav etre ^AOijvdv etre 'Ei'i^oc STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY I i\^ pontifices. With regard to these, the state poHcy seems to have been in the main one of watchful toleration. So far as the public morality WcLS not endangered,^^ and so far as Roman citizens were not led to neglect or to , violate the national worship, these cults were not inter- \fered with. Nor was this a mere laisser-faire procedure, at any rate at first. The government knew its own strength : the executive magistrates were armed with a very wide police authority, which enabled them to step in at once, with or without the support of the senate, whenever public order or public morality or public religion seemed in any way endangered. As might be expected, the occasions for this interference were not wanting. As early as 425 B.C. the aediles, in consequence of the invasion of new sacrificial rites, are ordered to take care " ne qui nisi Romani dii neu quo alio more quam ' patrio colerentur." ^® In 213 B.C. the anxieties of the Hannibalic war had made both men and women more inclined to have recourse to strange and foreign rites, and Roman citizens in the publicity of the Forum and the Capitol had not shrunk from celebrating non-national modes of worship. So open a scandal imperatively called for the interference of the government ; the executive were censured by the senate, and the praetor at the command of the same body issued an edict, " ne quis in publico sacrove loco novo aut externo ritu sacrificaret." ^^ That many other instances of the same sort occurred we may be quite certain, though few of them are recorded. " How often," asks Postumius in 15 Serv. ad A en. iv. 303 : " Sacra Nyctelia quae populus Romanus exclusit causa turpitudinis." 16 Liv. iv. 30 : " Nee corpora modo adfecta tabo sed animos quoque multiplex religio et pleraque externa invasit : novos ritus sacrificandi vaticinando inferentibus in domos quibus quaestui sunt capti superstitione animi : donee publicus iam pudor ad primores- civitatis pervenit, cernentes in omnibus vicis sacellisque peregrina atque insolita piacula pacis deum expos- cendae." 17 Id. XXV. I : " Tanta religio, et ea magna ex parte externa, civitatem incessit, ut aut homines aut dii repente alii viderentur facti," etc. THE ATTITUDE OF THEREPUBLIC 7 188 B.C., " in the time of our fathers and grandfathers were instructions given to the magistrates ut sacra externa fieri vetarent ? " ^^ In all these cases it is probably safe with Mommsen to assume that the particular point which called for interference on the part of the govern- ^ ment was not the celebration of the foreign cult in itself, but the participation in it of Roman citizens or its. intrusion within the limits of the pomerium. But even on this point the_3dgilaji£e_of_the magistrates tended to become relaxed. Even in the use of an adopted cult like that of the Magna Mater this tendency towards greater laxity in course of time declared itself. The cult was at first placed under strict regulations : the priests who conducted the worship were Phrygians, and though a procession with some of the national rites, such as the blowing of trumpets and the clashing of cymbals, was allowed to pass through the city, the worship was stripped of its most extravagant features, and, above all, Roman citizens were forbidden by decree of the senate personally to participate in the ministra- tions of the cult.^^ Dionysius writes, indeed, as if these 18 Id. xxxix. 16 : " Quoties hoc patrum avorumque aetate negotium est magistratibus datum, ut sacra externa fieri veta- rent, sacrificulos vatesque foro, circo, urbe prohiberent, vaticinos libros conquirerent comburerentque, omnem disciplinam sacri- ficandi, praeterquam more Romano abolerent ? ludicabant enim prudentissimi viri omnis divini humanique iuris nihil aeque dissolvendae rehgionis esse quam ubi non patrio sed externo ritu sacrificaretur," 19 Dionys. ii, 19 : Kal S iravrfAjv fxaXiffra l7W7e Tedai'iixaKa Kaiirep fjLvpiwv oauiv eh ttjv t6\iv iXrjXvdorwv evvCjv oh ttoXXtj ava-yKT] (x^^eiv Tous Trarpiovs deovs rots oUodev voixip.oL$, ovdepos els ^r^Xoy eXrjXvOe tCov ^evLKQiv iTnTriSevfji.dro)u i] 7r6Xis 8r)/xoaig., 8 TroXXats ij8r) avv^^rj iradetv dXXot. /cat el' TLva Kara xPV'^fJ'-ovs iireiariydyeTO iepd, roh eavrijs avra Tifxq. vo/xifxoLSj airacrav eK^dWovcra repdpeiav /xvdiKTjv, wairep to. ttjs Idaias Iepd. dvaias jxhv yap avrfj /cat dyQvas dyovcxiv dvd irdu iros oi (TTpaTTiyoi Kara roiis 'Fco/xaiuv vo/xovs ' iepdrai 8e avTrjs dvrip ^pv^ Kal -yvj/Tj ^pvyia ' Kai Trepidyovcriv dva t7]v irbkiv ovtol fir]TpayvpTOvvT€s, ibcTTrep avTo?s ^9os, rijirovs re irepiKelfxevoL rols (TTrjdea'L, Kai KaravXav- fievoL irpos tQv eiroixivwv rd fitjTpi^a fiiXr] Kal TV/JLiraua Kporovvres. Vufxalcov S^ TtDf dvdLyevdov oiire ix-qTpayvprCjv tis oi're KaravXodfxepos TTOpeieraL did ttJs irdXews ttoikIXtju evdedvKUJS aroXriu ovre opyia^wp t^v Oebv TOis ^pvyioL% dpyiaa-jxoh Kara v6,uov Kal \pr](f)L(Tixa ^ovXrfjs. ovTWS ei'Xa/3ws ij iroXis i'xet Tpbs rd ovk iirix<^pta ^61] vepl dewv. 8 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY restrictions were still observed in the time of Augustus. If so, it was perhaps in consequence of the Augustan religious reformation ; but more probably he is describing a state of things which had long since passed away. At any rate it did ultimately pass away. We know from inscriptions that the archigallns or chief priest of Cybele was usually a Roman,^*^ and certainly the cult was cele- brated under the empire with much, if not all, of its Oriental enthusiasm.^^ Li vy's account of the Bacchanalian conspiracy ^^ puts into the clearest light both the action of the government in cases where public morality or public security seemed to be endangered by foreign cults, and also the extent to which such cults might spread even among Roman citizens without attracting the attention of the govern- ment. These Bacchic rites, of undoubtedly Oriental origin, and for centuries common enough in Greece and Asia Minor, were apparently introduced into Etruria by a Greek adventurer, and from there spread with extreme rapidity both in Italy and Rome. At first women only were admitted into the OCaa-oi, or secret associations, which formed the basis of the cult : the initiation took place by day, and the meetings were held only three times a year. But all this was now changed : men were initiated as well as women ; the initiated were to be under twenty years of age. Meet- ings were held five times in every month, and took place under the secrecy of night. The inevitable enormities did not fail to follow, and the Bacchic associations became hotbeds not only of moral corruption, but of 20 See C. /. L. vi. 2183, and other inscriptions collected by Marquardt, p. 369. 21 See especially the description in Apuleius, Met. vii i.27 ; also Mart. ii. 84, 3-4 ; Stat. Theb. x. 170 foil. ; Seneca, A gam 687 foil. : " Non, nisi molles imitata viros Tristis laceret brachia tecum Quae turritae turba parenti Pectora rauco concita buxo Furit, ut Phrygium lugeat Attin." 22 Liv. xxxix. 8 foil. THE ATTITUDE OF THE REPUBLIC 9 civil crimes, such as forgery and murder, and even of political conspiracy. Accident brought this state of things to the notice of the government. The consul whose duty it was to take action laid the whole matter before the senate ; an extraordinary investigation was held, and the cult was put down throughout Italy with energy and promptitude. More than 7,000 men and women were found to be implicated, and of these more than half were executed, while Bacchic associations were forbidden for the future. That political and moral rather than purely religious considerations guided the government action in this matter is clear from the whole account of Livy, and is proved by a saving clause in the senatorial decree abolishing the cult, to the effect that if individuals deemed it incumbent on them to celebrate any Bacchic rites, they might do so on obtaining a licence from the praetor urbanus, so long as no more than five persons, two men and three women, met together for the purpose.^^ This event took place in 188 B.C. A hundred years later the government would have found it perhaps a less easy matter to put down so effectually an intrusive Oriental cult. At least the history of the Isis cult and the attitude of the government towards it tend to favour this supposition. By the last century of the republic popular belief in the national religion was very greatly undermined. The very toleration which characterized it might easily lead to indifferentism ; its frequent re- sort to new modes of worship, especially in times of public danger and anxiety, was in itself a confession of insufficiency and weakness.^* The upper classes, per- 23 See S. C. de Bacchanalibus, in Brun's Pontes Juris Rom. Ant. p. 146 : " Sacra in oquoltod (occulto) ne quisquam fecise velet ; neve in poplicod neve in preivatod neve extrad urbem sacra quisquam fecise velet, nisei pr. urbanum adieset, isque de sena- tuos sententiad . . . jousiset." Cf. Liv. xxxix. iS ad fin. 2* So, on the occasion of a plague in 395 B.C., Dionysius says (x. 53) : Kai TToXXd eveuTepiadr] 'Pw/^a/ots ovk 6vTa iv Ida Trept rifias tCcv de&p eiriT-rjdevfiaTa ovk euirpeTTTJ. Dio Cass. Frag. 24, I (Bekk) : 01 'PojyLtatot TToWas fidxa^ fiaxeo'dfievoi Kai ttoXXol Kai iradovres Kal opdaavTes tuiv /xev irarpiuv iepuv ibXiydprjffay. irpbs d^ rd ^eviKa wj Kal 10 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY meated with the sceptical philosophy of Greece, hardly took the trouble to keep up a decent appearance of belief i^** popular poets scoffed openly at the established religion. More important still was the avowedly poli- tical character of the religion ; it was a state religion, but the state was an oligarchy, and therefore the re- ligion established and supported by the government tended to become a party religion — a religion of the minority — which, if indifferent to its own supporters, was worse than indifferent to the masses and the subject classes. Reasons of a more subjective kind, and there- fore more difficult to trace, came, there is no doubt, in time to be among the attractions towards Oriental cults. The nationaLieligiQlUIiad^itlk appeal to indi- viduals ; it was a state cult, and individuals were no longer bound up in the state, as they had been in " the brave days of old." There was more scope for personal interests and personal aspirations ; greater subjectivity of feeling ; and in proportion as this developed the less satisfying the old religion was felt to be, with its rigid ceremony and its unemotional character. ButJ4: was precia^ljj. here that the Orientals religions exercised their paramount influence^ Mysterious rites of initiation, sensuous music, a worship crowded with symbolism no less awe-inspiring that it was imperfectly or not at all understood ; and, above all, a system of expiatory and purificatory rites, in which there was enough of asce- ticism to satisfy the craving for something personal in religion and enough of licence to attract the crowd in its non-religious moods, all these things made the population of Rome peculiarly susceptible to the in- fluence of cults like the Egyptian. ^^ At what date the worship of Isis was first introduced into Rome is uncertain, probably early in the last century iirapKiaovTi. acpiaiv wpjxr^ffav ; also the passages in Livy already cited, iv. 30 and xxv.'i. 25Cic. De Nat. Deor. ii. 3, 9, 26 See on this, Keim, Rom und das Christenthiim, p. 9 foil., and for the bibliography of the subject see Marquardt, ,Staatsverw. in. pp. 80-1. THE ATTITUDE OF THE REPUBLIC II of the republic. At any rate we know that a collegium of pastophori — the priests who presided at her worship — was estabhshed in the time of SuUa.^^ The cult, however, was not a licensed one ; it was peculiarly un-Roman in its character ; it attracted a large number of citizens ; it intruded itself on the very Capitol, ^^ and, above all, it was believed to sanction grave immoralities. On account of all these reasons we find repeated action taken by the government. In 58 B.C. the cult was excluded from the Capitol by the consuls of the year ; ^^ five years later the private shrines were ordered by the senate to be destroyed ; ^^ in 50 B.C. the temples of Isis and Serapis were destroyed, not without some manifestation of popular feeling ; ^^ two years later we find the same thing happening again, this time in consequence of action taken by the augurs. ^^ So far there had been a consis- tent attempt, clearly not very successful, on the part of the government to put down this cult. But in 43 B.C., amidst the anarchy of the civil wars, a temple of Isis was built by the triumvirs. ^^ From this time the cult, though not formally adopted by the state, was neverthe- 27 Apul. Met. xi. 17 : " Coetu pastophorum quod sacrosancti coUegii nomen est. . . . Collegium vetustissimum et sub illis Sullae temporibus conditum." Cf. Diodor. Sic, i. 29 28 C. /. L. i. 1034. Suet. Dom. i. Tac. Hist. iii. 74. 29Tert. Apol. 6: " Serapidem et Isidem . . . Capitolio pro- hibitos, id est curia Deorum pulsos, Piso et Gabinius consules . . . abdicaverant." 30 Dio Cass. xl. 47 : rois yap vaoi'S avrov o6s iSiq, rives iireiroUvTo Kadekelv t^ ^ovXy edo^ev • ou yap drj tovs deovs tovtovs iiri iroXv ivb- fiLcrav, Kal on ye Kal e^evlKrjcrev, ibaTi Kal drjfioaLg. adrovs ai^ecdai ^|'.J rod ircafXTjpiov acpds IdpixravTO. 31 Val. Max. i. 3, 3 : " L, Aemilius Paulus, consul cum senatus Isidis et Serapis fana diruenda censuisset/ eaque nemo opificum attingere auderet, posita praetexta securim arripuit templique eius foribus infixit." 32 Dio Cass. xlii. 26 : ^8o^e yvu^firj rdv fxai/rewu iravra addis to. re eKeiv7)s [Isis] Kal ret rov HepdwiSos refxevicrfxaTa KaTav ''lovdaluv iP€o}v tQiv irarplup /cat cvvfiOwv Kar' avroiis euwo- peiv. '£716 re o5v avroTs, KaOws Kal oi trpb e/aov i]yeiJ,6v€s, dldwfjLi tt]v affTpareiav Kal cvyx'^P^ XPV<^^^'- '^^'^^ varpiois tdi(T/xo?i lepwv 'iveKO. Kal aylcav ffvvayop.^voi.s, KaOus avroh pd/xi/xov. Ibid, xiv, 10, 17, to the magistrates of Sardis : 'louSalot TroXlrai Tj/jL^repoL irpoffeXddvTei [xoi iiriSei^av eavrods aivodov ^xetJ' lUav /card toi)s trarplovs v6/xovs d7r' dpxv^i fat rdirop i8iov iv (fi rd re irpdyfiara Kal rds Tpbs dXKifiXovs avTiXoylas Kplvovai • tovt6 re alrrfcrafxipois iV i^-rj avroU iroieip, Trjprja-ai Kal iirirpi'^ai ^Kpipa. See also the decrees of the citizens of Pergamus, Halicarnassus, Sardis and Ephesus : Ibid xiv. 10, 22-25. Cf. Suet. Caes. 84, where the Jews especially mourn his death. ^ STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY might and did often occur in Rome, where a large pro- portion of the Jews were apparently of the freedman class, and therefore Roman citizens. Partly owing to this cause, and partly to the different conditions in Rome, where the Jewish communities were brought face to face with the central government, they were treated with less favour, or at least there were more exceptions to their entire freedom from interference in Rome than in the provinces. This, however, was not the case under Aug^ustus. who, in spite of his attempts to infuse fresh life into the national or state religion, not only expressly confirmed and renewed all the privileges granted by the dictator to the Jews in the East,^^ but, as Philo expressly says, left the manumitted Jews in Rome in the undis- turbed practice of their religion, neither expelling them from the city nor depriving them of their citizenship." He even went so far as to order that when the distribu- tion of corn took place on the Sabbath any Jews entitled to the dole should have their portion reserved till the 13 Joseph. A nt. lud. xvi. 6, 2 : ibo^i fxoi. nal rip e/ty ;uaia»' rods ^lovSaiovs xp^o'^at rols IdloLS deafioii /card rbu irarpLov avrdv v6/xov, Kadcbs ixp^vro iwi 'TpKavou d/)Xi^pews deoO v\f>iovTo (piXoaocpiav. 'HTr/o-raro Kal xPVP-ara ffvvayaydvTas dirb tCov dirapxOjv lepd, Kal v^nTovras els'lepO(x6Xv/xa did Twv rds dvffias dva^bvruv. 'AW 6 p-h oijre i^tpKiae ttjs '?up.r]s iKelvovs, oOre TT}v '?(opMiKT]v airruu difteCXero woXiTelav 8ti Kal rrjs ^lovSaiKTJs i)v idvCov deiaidai/xovias ii;6vdei'L^eiv, Toi>s ISiovi Se vdp-ovs (f)v\d(T(T€iu. 18 Hor. Sat. i. 9, 69 ; Ovid, Ars Am. i. 415 ; Pers. v. 179 ; Juv. xiv. 97, etc. i^Tac. Ann. xi. 15. 20 Tac. Ann. ii. 85 : " Actum et de sacris Aegyptiis ludaicisque pellendis : factumque Patrum consultum, ut quatuor milia libertini generis, ea superstitione infecta, quis idonea aetas, in insulam Sardinian! veherentur, coercendis illic latronibus, et, si ob gravitatem caeli interissent, vile damnum : ceteri cederent Italia, nisi certam ante diem profanos ritus exuissent." Cf. Suet. Tib. 36. Josephus. Ant. lud. xviii. 3, 4, describes the whole affair: Ti/3epios AceXei/ei irdv rb ^lovdai'Kbp ttjs 'Piifxrji dire\adrjvaiy k.t.\. 22 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY That the rehgion itself was for the time put down, those who refused to give up their profane rites being banished from Italy, seems clear from the accounts of Suetonius and Tacitus. But it is no less clear that the main brunt of the repression fell upon those who were Roman citi- zens. Of these no fewer than 4,000 were compulsorily enlisted in the army — since as Roman citizens, and so no longer politically Jews, they lost their right of exemp- tion — and sent to Sardinia to put down the brigandage there. The repression was only temporary : according to Philo, indeed, it was due to the personal influence of Sejanus ; ^^ and under Claudius the Jews in Rome were again very numerous. Under that emperor we hear again of their expulsion from the city, perhaps in conse- quence of disputes with the Christians,^^ though Dio Cassius says that, as they were too numerous to be expel- led, Claudius simply put in force against them the regu- lations forbidding unlicensed collegia P But whatever form the repression took it was clearly due to some tem- porary cause. It was getting to be against the spirit of the age to expect that a Jew, from the mere fact of being manumitted, should put off his national religion and con- form to the established cult. Tiberius and Claudius may have deemed it advisable for the moment to assert the state's right to such compliance, but in the absence of some distinctly political or social danger the national religion had no longer sufficient hold on the public mind, and was no longer sufficiently the care of the govern- ment, to justify any permanent reversal of the Augustan policy, or to place the Jews in a position less favourable than that of the worshippers of Isis. There was, however, as Mommsen points out,^* h 21 Philo, Adv. Flacc. ad init., and Leg. ad Caium, p. 1015 ; Mang. 569. 22 Suet. Claud. 25: " ludaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit." Cf. Acts xviii. 2. 23 Dio Cass. Ix. 6 :' roiJs re ''lovSalovs ir\eovda\i]v vfxQp' KaOapbs iyib' airb Tov vvv eh rdi. i6vr] iropeijffofiai. 4* Tacitus, Hist. v. 5 : " Nam pessimus quisque spretis religion- ibus patriis tributa et stipes illuc gerebant. *5 The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 56, 57. Cf. also p. 147. D 34 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY general decay of the old religions the missionaries of the new found the masses not altogether indisposed to give them a favourable hearing, whilst even the more educa- ted classes, though seldom converts, regarded them at any rate at first with no stronger feeling than a somewhat sceptical curiosity. But this favourable or neutral attitude was not destined to be permanent ; by the beginning of the second century it had'^generally given way to an intense and often violent hatred, and the change, whenever it came about — and it probably came about gradually — was due to several causes, the beginnings of some of which we are able to trace at this earlier period and in our chief authority for it — the Acts of the Apostles. That the unpopularity of the Christians was caused by purely religious animosities is of all suppositions the least likely. As Professor Ramsay says, " the ordinary pagan did not care two straws whether his neighbour worshipped twenty gods or twenty-one." ^® But Chris- tianity constituted a social revolution even more than a religious one, or rather its social (to received ideas they seemed anti-social) effects were far more patent and striking than the religious ideas which produced them. And it was this divergence from the social life in its widest sense around them, often amounting to an aggres- sive interference with the established conditions of society, with trade interests, with family life, with popular amusements, with everyday religious obser- vances, with the lax but conventional morality of the time, which gave to Christianity an appearance of misanthropy, of an odium generis humani, which in time was more than repaid by the general execration of paganism. It is important to look, if we can, at the early Christians from the heathen point of view, and above all to avoid any idealisation of the primitive communities. We may grant at once that in matters of morality, and especially in the relations of the sexes, the Christians were far superior to the populations in 46 Op. cit. p. 130. FIRST APPEARANCE OF CHRISTIANITY 35 whose midst they Uved. But it would be a mistake to suppose that it was the loftier elements of Christianity which most strongly attracted converts, or that con- version introduced them necessarily into a higher plane of life or enlightenment. To a great extent it was the tendency to level distinctions of property or differences of social life, the hopes it held out of a shortly coming Saviour, and the idea of a future beyond the grave, in which compensation would be made for the inequalities of the present — which drew the lower classes to Chris- tianity. We cannot judge of the ordinary Christian of Corinth or Antioch, or Ephesus, or Rome, from the leaders and teachers of the sect. The Christians of the Eastern provinces shared the characteristics of the Oriental population ; they were not less fanatical or less ignorant, or less excitable, or less credulous. In the eyes of their fellow-citizens there was nothing about them to justify what seemed the extravagant claims they made on behalf of their religion. They were fanatical, exclusive, and intolerant, and for a religion which, so to speak, to Gentile eyes had nothing to show for itself, no stately temples, no famous shrines, no imposing priest- hood, no impressive ceremonial. \ ^*^ut it was not so much as religious enthusiasts that^ the Christians attracted popular attention. Their fanaticism took certain apparently anti-social forms, which, there can be little doubt, made them the Nihilists \ of the day. In the first place the very belief — and in \ the first century it was a vivid one — of the approaching end of the world and the second coming of Christ ' involved a restless expectation and in some respects a recklessness of action which were quite inconsistent with the ordinary duties, domestic, social, or political, of an orderly subject of the empire. Then, again, the communistic ideas of the sect must have interfered, often in a very exasperating way, with social and family rela- tions. The mere fact that members of a family were induced to leave their relations, to desert the religion of their fathers and to join these enthusiasts, was in itself enough to cause heart-burning and rancour ; but to see 36 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY part of the family property appropriated to the common Christian funds must greatly have embittered these feelings, and inspired the moneyed classes of society at any rate with hatred and apprehension. Again, there was a manifest disinclination on the part of the Christians to marriage and the duties and obligations of married life. This in connexion with the comparatively large number of female converts must often have led to episodes like that in the history of Paul and Thekla, where a maiden of good social standing is induced to refuse the marriage arranged by her parents. Nor did cases of this kind appear accidental and occasional : they rather followed from the maxims of the Founder of the sect — maxims which, imperfectly understood, and obeyed in the letter rather than the spirit, were no doubt constantly in the mouths of His followers. ** It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven . " " Think not that I am come to give peace on the earth. I tell you nay, but rather division." " If any man cometh unto me and hateth not his father and mother, and wife and children and brother ... he cannot be my disciple." " The sons of this world marry and are given in marriage, but they that are accounted worthy to attain unto that world and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage." These and other ** hard sayings " put into practice without discrimination or qualification were tantamount, so far as they extended, to an upheaval of existing social relations, and might well seem to lay the Christians open to the charge of turning the world upside down. Only less intolerable than this disregard of the primary rights and obligations of social and family life was the absolute refusal of the Christians to join in any religious festival, to appear in the courts where an oath had to be taken, to illuminate their doors at festivals, to join in the amusements of the amphitheatre ; their unwilling- ness, if not refusal, to serve in the army, and their aversion to all civic duties and offices. It was this apparently " hostile odium " towards all outsiders which FIRST APPEARANCE OF CHRISTIANITY 37 had made the Jews so generally unpopular as they were, and in explaining the hatred felt for the Christians we must remember that, as Mommsen says, " der Hass der Massen von den Judenauf die Christen sich iibertrug." *^ The Christians to a certain extent, apart from any charac- teristics of their own, inherited, as a Jewish sect or atpeo-i?, the aversion withwhich the Jews were regarded. As has, however, already been said, the intense animosity of the second century was only of gradual growth, and it no doubt grew with the growth of Christianity. Things quite unimportant, when the communities were small and insignificant, would be looked at with very different eyes as the number of converts increased. In the Acts there are only two instances recorded in which there was any manifestation of popular feeling against the Chris- tians on the part of the heathen, and in both cases the rccLson was the same — interference with trade relations, pecuniary loss or the fear of it from the existence of Christianity. At Philippi the occasion of the tumult was a trivial one : the sympathy of the crowd with a few individuals whose hope of gain from the prophecies of a mad soothsayer was disappointed by Paul's action in healing her. Naturally the accusation before the duoviri of the colonia took a somewhat different form, viz. that the apostles were setting forth customs which it was not lawful for Roman citizens to receive ; *^ but that the magistrates did not treat this accusation seriously and only took action at all to appease the mob is clear from their order to release the prisoners without further formality next morning. The affair at Ephesus is a better instance still. Here the workmen who made the silver shrines presented by her worshippers to Artemis, instigated by Demetrius, the head of their guild, took fright at the increasing number of the Christians, not only in Ephesus but throughout the province of Asia, *7 Histor. Zeitschr. p. 418. Cf. Expositor, July 1893, P- 2. *^ Acts xvi. 20 : Kal irpoaayaySpres avrods rois aTpaTrjyols etirop, OOtoi ol dvOpoiiroi iKTapd portant to dwell. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Roman ' Church from Corinth in 58 a.d. Putting on one side the question, as too wide to be discussed here, whether the general drift of the epistle is more appropriate to Jewish or heathen Christians,^ there are several passages which seem to make the latter supposition almost necessary. At' ov iXd^ofxtv X^P'*' '^"^ aTroa-Tokrjv CIS • vjraKorjv iricmo*; ev Tracn rois Wviciv vrrep tov ovo/xaros avrov. €v ots ia-rl kol vfiiis kXtjtoI 'lr)(rov Xptcrrov.* Again : iva Tiva Kapirov (r\^ koX Iv vfuv KaOcos Kal iv rois Aoittois tOvtcTLv : ^ and vfxlv Sk A.eya) Tots Wvicriv.^ So too the salu- tations in cap. xvi. 3-16 are clearly almost all of them addressed to Gentile Christians, many of the names, as Lightfoot has pointed out, being found in Roman inscrip- tions.'' To this it must be added that the Jewish leaders on Paul's arrival at Rome show no sign of sharing in the hostile feelings shown by the Jews towards Christianity in those places where it was regarded as a secession from Judaism, professing, indeed, to have no personal know- ledge of the sect, and only to have heard generally that it was everywhere spoken against.® Nor is it unimpor- tant in this connexion to observe that, if we are to believe Tacitus and Suetonius, neither the Roman iicuTTpiovv elduXuv Kal rrjs vopveias Kal itviktoO Kal tov a'ifiaTos. 3 See an article on the question in the Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theol. 1876, pp. 482-310, " Ueber die alteste romische Christen- gemeinde," by C. -Weizsacker. * Rom. i. 5, 6. ^ Rom. i. 13. 8 Rom. xi. 13. Cf. also xv. 15. 7 Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 171 foil. 8 Acts xxviii. 21-22. CHRISTIANITY IN ROME UNDER NERO 43 government nor the Roman populace regarded the Christians as a Jewish sect, and that they were described, not as Nazaraeans — the name by which they . were known to the Jews ® — but as Christiani, the nick-/ name conferred by the Hellenistic heathen in the East. The earliest intimation of a Christian community in Rome is thought to be contained in an obscure passage of Suetonius :^^ ** ludaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit." This has generally been, taken to mean that there were riots between the Chris- j tians and the Jews similar to those recorded in the Acts, \ and that the government, regarding the whole matter \ as a Jewish disturbance, took the measure of temporary 1 expulsion as a police precaution. One can only say-^ that no such meaning can legitimately be drawn from the words " impulsore Chresto," and that the reference to the expulsion in the Acts " does not in any way bear it out, while the words of Dio Cassius ^^ imply that the measure was taken rather to check the Jewish worship than to put down a riot. In 57 A.D. we apparently have an isolated case of a noble Roman lady, Pomponia Graecina, becoming at Rome a convert to Christianity.^^ She was at any rate " superstitionis externae rea," and though the statement of Tacitus is vague, because, to avoid open scandal, she was handed over to her husband's domestic tribunal, the " continua tristitia," the " cultus lugubris," and the " non animus nisi moestus " all seem to point to her Christianity ; while the discovery of a Christian inscrip- tion of the second century in the Catacomb of Callistus mentioning a Pomponius Graecinus does much to con- firm the supposition.^* By 58 A.D. the community in Rome was sufficiently important for a letter to be addressed to it by Paul, 9 Acts xxiv. 5 ; Tert. contra Marcionem, iv. 8 : " Unde et ipso nomine nos Judaei Nazarenos appellant." 10 Suet. Claud. 25. 11 Acts xviii. 2. 12 Dio. Cass. Ix. 6, quoted on p. 22, note i. 13 Tac. Ann, xiii. 32. 1* De Rossi, Roma soti. ii. 364. 44 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY though numerically it must have been still small when " the brethren " went out to meet Paul on his arrival in Italy to Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae.^*^ Here the narrative in the Acts breaks off, and with the exception of the short, but not unimportant, statement that for the next two years Paul was uninterfered with in preaching to all who visited him*** — from which we may infer (i) the freedom of Christianity from state interference, (2) its still continuing increase — we have no further information about it until it appears in the pages of Tacitus in connexion with the great fire of 64 a.d." That this fire was deliberately caused by Nero himself there was very great contemporary suspicion, which the emperor was not unnaturally anxious to remove. He did his best to assist the homeless multitude by providing temporary quarters in the Campus Martins and even in his own gardens : his measures for the rebuilding of the city were judicious and not illiberal, while the supposed anger of the gods was appeased by various religious rites. " But," says Tacitus, " neither human assistance in the shape of imperial gifts nor attempts to appease the gods 15 Acts xxvii. 1 5 . 16 Ibid, xxviii. 30 : ^Ev^/xeivev S^ dieriav 6\t}v h idlcj) fiLadibfiari kuI dTreS^Xf Tcti/Tos toi)s eia-jropevofiivovs irpbs avrbv, K-qpiacwv ttjv /Satrt- \elap ToO Oeov Kal diddffKWi/ to. irepl toG Kvpiov ^Irja-ov Xpiarov /M€Ta irdcrrjs irapprjaLas AkcoMtws. 17 Tac. Ann. xv. 44 : " Sed non ope humana, non largition- ibus principis aut deum placamentis, decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. Ergo abolendo runiori Nero subdidit reos, et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pila- tum supplicio adfectus erat : repressaque in prasens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per ludaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. Igitur primo correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens baud perinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. Et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus adfixi flammandi, ut, ubi defe- cisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. . . . Unde, quamquam adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos, miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica sed in sae- vitiam unius absumerentur." CHRISTIANITY IN ROME UNDER NERO 45 could remove the sinister report that the fire was due to Nero's own order. And so, in the hope of dissipating this rumour, he falsely diverted the charge on to a set of people whom the populace called Christians, and who were detested for the abominations which they perpe- trated. The originator of the name, a person called/- Christus, had been executed by Pontius Pilate in the\ reign of Tiberius, and the dangerous superstition, though \ put down for the moment, again broke out, not only in 1 Judaea, the original home of the pest, but even in Rome, / where everything horrible or shameful collects and is/ practised." That Tacitus, writing about 120 a.d., and after having himself held the proconsulship of Asia,^® should have some more or less accurate knowledge of the Christians as a distinct sect, is only natural, but what has seemed to some scholars surprising, and even incredible, is that^ as early as Nero's time, when Christianity is thought id have been growing up under the toleration extended to the Jews, it should have been singled out for speciak interference and special repression, especially as a very \^ few years earlier it was certainly uninterfered with. To f avoid this difficulty, it has been suggested by Schiller ^® / and others that the persecution, if such it can be called, / really fell upon the Jews, as the most extreme and ) fanatical religious sect in Rome, though individual / Christians may have been involved in it through being ] confused with the Jews ; and that Tacitus in specifying the former is really antedating the distinction between them, and injecting into the Neronian period a knowledge which was only a reality in his own. That there are difficulties in the account given by Tacitus it cannot be denied, but any such supposition as that given above is rightly regarded by Nissen ^^ as a serious in;pugnment 18 This is proved by an inscription recently discovered : see Cagnat, L'Ann^e Epigraphique, 1891, p. 29, and Bull, de Corresp. hell^n. 1890, p. 621. 1^ Geschichte der rom. Kaiserzeit, ii. 445-450. Cf. Lipsius " Ueber den Ursprung und fruheren Gebrauch des Christenna- mens," p. 17. A similar view is taken by Hausrath. 20 Histor. Zeiischrift, 1874, p. 340. 46 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY of Tacitus* historical credibility. As a rule he follows, for times anterior to his own, contemporary authorities, and if in this instance he has left them and given a different account, drawn from his own knowledge of the Christians, or even from any tradition which may have been known to have existed among them, he has done what no trustworthy historian ought to do. Nor is this theory, that the Christians, so far as they were affected by Nero's action, were taken for Jews, without difficulties of its own. If the Roman community had consisted of Judaeo-Christians, either exclusively or preponderatingly, there would have been the possibility of such confusion, though even so there was the not unimportant distinction between them that whereas the Jews attended the synagogue the Christians did not — a distinction which Mommsen holds was not likely per- manently to escape the vigilance of the Roman police.^^ But if the view taken above of the Gentile character of the Roman Christians is correct, there would be very much less chance of any such confusion, and if it had been the Jews who were sought for, there was a very simple, if brutal means of identifying them, from which we know the Roman government did not shrink on other occasions, ^^ and which would have at once freed Gentile Christians from implication in a charge against Jews. To this we may add that the theory in question does not really explain the facts. We can understand that if the Christians had really been the victims, but were regarded as a sect of the Jews, an historian not accurately aware of the distinction might describe it as a Jewish persecution ; but why, if it really was a Jewish persecution, he should 21 Histor. Zeitschrift, No. 64, p. 423 : " Hierin, in dem Besuch Oder Nichtbesuch der Synagoge, wird dem heidnischen Publikum und insbesondere den Stadtromern der Gegensatz der Juden und der Christen wohl zuerst entgegentreten sein, namentlich wenn, wie dies wahrscheinlich geschah, die Polizei, welche die Synagogen gewahren lassen musste, gegen die Ekklesien ein- schritt." 22 Suet. Dom. 12 : " Interfuisse me adolescentulum memini cum a procuratore frequentissimoque concilio inspiceretur nona- genarius senex an circumsectus esset." CHRISTIANITY IN ROME UNDER NERO 47 avoid the generic term which was well known, and describe the victims as Christians — a term ex hypothesi special and obscure — certainly needs more explanation than this theory gives. Besides, if the Jews had been the victims, would not Josephus have made some mention of the matter ? Would not Dio Cassius have noticed it ? The contemporary historians would, on Schiller's sup- position, have rightly described the victims as Jews : would not some tradition, some trace of the incident have remained in connexion with them ? Similar objections might be raised against Merivale's theory that the Jews, who were themselves accused in the first instance, succeeded, possibly through the court influence of Poppaea Sabina, in diverting the accusation from themselves on to the Christians.^^ If this saves the credit of Tacitus to a certain extent, as far as the descrip- tion of the sufferers as Christians is concerned, it directly contradicts him on another point, for it implies that the Christians — who in this case would certainly have been described as Nazaraei — were selected as scapegoats at the suggestion and through the hatred of the Jews, whereas Tacitus expressly says that they were selected as objects of hatred to the populace on account of their abominable crimes. But in point of fact we are beating the air in combating these theories. I agree with Professor Ramsay ^^ that, in the absence of positively conflicting testimony, we must make the best of the account we have. Nor are the difficulties, after all, insuperable. We are apt to forget in picturing to ourselves ancient Rome, with its huge and mixed population, its thoughts and attention fixed on bread and the Circus, and all the morbid excitements which a regime like that of Nero provided for them, how thorough and efficient, after all, was the police administra- tion of the city, how strict the surveillance over illicit collegia, and above all perhaps how minute and detailed, even in apparently trivial concerns, the despatches must 23 The Romans under the Empire, vi. 448-49. 24 Op. cit.p. 229, 48 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY have been from the provincial governors. These arrange- ments had developed into a system, and it would be a great mistake to suppose that because a Caligula or a Nero spent his time in mad revels or horse-racing or musi- cal performances, the government machinery or the government vigilance was necessarily impaired. Professor Ramsay calls attention to this point in special reference to the Flavian times : ^^ he thinks it impossible that the separate existence of Christianity as distinct from Judaism could long have escaped the vigilance of the government in the provinces, and I am disposed to agree with him, and even to throw back the consequences of this vigilance to the time of Nero and to Rome as well as to the provinces. According to Tacitus, the existence of a sect whom they called Christians, and detested for special reasons, was known to the populace of Rome, and at any rate from this point, if not before, to the govern- ment. If, as is assumed, the Christians were converts from the heathen population and not from the Jews, and if they were in any degree considerable or increasing in point of numbers ; and if — what is an essential point abQut the sect — they were exclusive and even aggressive, eager to make converts and keeping aloof from the things which most interested their neighbours ; above all, if they held secret or nocturnal meetings for the practice of their religious worship — they could hardly fail to become known and to become unpopular. We have already seen that in the Oriental provinces even earlier than this they were mockingly called XpLo-Tcavot by the" Greek populations, and we have seen the social causes at work which were certain to make them in time hated and unpopular. Was Rome likely to be an exception ? ^® On the contrary, were not these tendencies likely to become accomplished facts earlier in Rome than in the provinces ? If each of the Oriental cities had its own stories about the Christians, e.g. Ephesus, or Philippi, or Antioch, these -stories might all well find their way to 25 op. cit. p. 267. 26 A mutilated inscription seems to show that the term Chris- tianus was known at Pompeii, i.e. before 79 a.d, C, /. L. iv. 679. CHRISTIANITY IN ROME UNDER NERO 49 Rome, producing there a cumulative effect. And with regard to the government, probably any sect known to and hated by the populace would become known to it. Then, aga'n, there was every chance that reports from the provincial governors might make some mention of the Christians, while we cannot doubt that a full report of Paul's case must have been sent to Rome by Festus,^'' who certainly knew the term Xpio-Ttaro?, and must have arrived at some idea of the distinction between Christi- anity and Judaism. There is therefore nothing intrinsi- . cally impossible or even improbable in the statement of ] Tacitus, that the Christians of Rome in 64 a.d. were / known as a sect distinct from the Jews, hated by the/ populace, not on account of their religion, but owing to! certain sinister stories about them, and on this account; selected by Nero or Tigellinus as scapegoats on whom the charge of incendiarism might with some probability be fastened. But purely accidental as was this first contact be- tween the Roman government and Christianity, it might quite possibly lead to results both important and per- \ manent. ** Those," continues Tacitus, " who confessed \ the charge were put upon their trial, and then by infor- mation gained from them an immense number of persons was convicted, not so much on the charge of incendiarism as on that of hatred towards civilised society. The , victims as they perished were made to afford amusement I to the crowd. Some being covered with the skins of ■ wild beasts were torn to pieces by dogs : others were fastened on crosses to be set on fire in order that, when daylight failed, their burning might serve to light up the night." The general sense of this passage seems per- fectly clear, taken in connexion with what has gone before, though there has been some difference of opinion as regards the particular phrases " qui fatebantur " — " correpti " — " indicio eorum." " Correpti,' from a comparison of its use in Tacitus,^^ certainly means, not 27 Prof. Ramsay rightly draws attention to the importance of Paul's case. Expositor, July 1893, p. 10. 28 Ann. ii. 84, 4; iii. 28, 5 ; iii. 49, i ; iii. 66, 2 ; xii. 42, 4. E 50 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY " arrested," but " put upon their trial," and this seems to me conchisively to fix the meaning of "qui fatebantur," since the confession, whatever it was, came before the trial. Arnold, arguing that profUeri or confUeri would be the proper words to use of confessing to a religion, explains it as " confessed to the charge of incendiarism," supposing that certain members of the Christian body were induced to make this false confession under the influence of torture. That any Christians would have confessed to such a charge without torture is certainly impossible, but how could they be tortured to elicit a confession of incendiarism before they were put on their trial for that crime ? On the other hand, what would be the natural course for Nero or Tigellinus to adopt after he, as Tacitus expresses it, " subdidit reos Chris- tianos " ? ^^ Surely to arrest all the Christians he could lay hold of. There, was, however, no special mark by which Christians were known. Some of those arrested . might either not be Christians at all, or not openly pro- As regards the reading, I have, against Prof. Ramsay, adopted the emendation convicti, instead of the MS. coniimcti, as making better sense, while the corruption is easily accounted for. The Med. reading — " aut crucibus adfixi aut fiammandi atque ubi defecisset dies," etc., is certainly to some extent corrupt. Per- haps the simplest alteration is to omit the second aut, and to change atque into ut. There would thus be two kinds of punish- ment only — exposure to wild beasts and crucifixion. Neither of these in themselves involved ludihrium, which was added in the one case by dressing up the victims in the skins of wild beasts, in the other by setting fire to them as night came on, clothed possibly in the " tunica molesta." It is to the latter punishment that Juvenal probably alludes {Sat. i. 159), and I do not with Furneaux see anything inconsistent in the two accounts. Otherwise, the passage would, no doubt, be sim- plified if with Nipperdey we regarded the passage " aut crucibus . . . flammandi " as an interpolation. This is, however, never an altogether satisfactory mode of escaping a difficulty, and in this case the interpolation must have been made earlier than Sulpicius Severus^ who evidently found the words. 29 Arnold, Die Neronische Christenverfolgung, p, 20. The inter- pretation given in the text is supported by Nipperdey (see note ad loc), by Aube, Histohe des Persecutions, i. 92, by Renan, U Antichrist, p. 162, and by Nissen, Histor. Zeitschrift, i?>74, p. 340. CHRISTIANITY IN ROME UNDER NERO 5I fessed Christians. A certain number, however, of the bolder sort would at once confess their religion (and as this, by the prejudgment of Nero, was tantamount to confessing the incendiarism, fateri was not improperly used), and were accordingly put upon their trial. So far I am in agreement with Professor Ramsay, who adds another argument against Arnold's view which deserves consideration : viz. that "if so many of the Christians acknowledged the crime . . . their complicity in it would necessarily have been accepted by the popular opinion," ^^ which, on the contrary, was, as we shall see, still convinced of Nero's guilt. I cannot, however, think that he is justified in translating " indicio eorum " by " on the information elicited at their trial." ^^ Of course on Arnold's explanation of " qui fatebantur " " indicio eorum " bears its natural meaning, " on information received from them." The difficulty is that on the explanation given above, " qui fatebantur " are the cream of the Christian society, the boldest spirits of the community, and therefore those least likely to incri- minate others of the sect. This is clearly the difficulty which has led Professor Ramsay to take these words in a non-natural sense which, I am afraid, they cannot bear. We cannot suppose that the Christians of the first cen- tury were all ready to be martyrs any more than the Bithynian Christians of the second century, many of whom, as we know, seceded under Pliny's treatment. It is clear, therefore, that some of those first arrested (not of course necessarily all) furnished the government with the names of those Christians who had so far escaped notice. Possibly they were induced to do this by torture, but more probably the explanation is to be found in the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthian Church, who, clearly alluding to the Neronian persecution, gives it as an instance of the evils arising from strife and jealousy. ^^ There were therefore perhaps divisions among the Chris- tians at Rome, as there were at Corinth, and so high did 30 p. 238. 31 p. 233. 32 See the passage quoted on p. 54. 52 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY this sectarian spirit run that one party was even wilHng to denounce the other to the government. The number of Christians who were arrested and put upon their trial by this means was a considerable one, though " ingens multitudo " is no doubt a rhetorical exaggeration. The turn, however, which the trial took — a trial con- ducted in all probability before the praefedus tirhi — is the most important part of the whole incident. The Christians had originally been singled out, not as mem- bers of a " religio illicita," but as a set of men, obnoxious to the populace, on whom Nero sought to divert from himself the charge of incendiarism. In the course of the trial the proofs of incendiarism must necessarily to * a great extent have broken down, but at the same time ' a good deal of information would be elicited about the sect, which would answer the purpose of the govern- ment just as well ; and which would imply a disposition, a state of mind, of which incendiarism would be a natural result. It would come out, in the first place, that the sect held nocturnal meetings, and the very simplicity of the early Christian worship would have the appear- ance of mystery and secrecy to the ordinary heathen mind. Then there would be stories which, if we are to believe Tacitus, were already abroad of the OiStTroSetoi /Mt^cts and the ©veo-rcia huTTva : these would, no doubt, be repeated and exaggerated ; the stories of child- murder in particular falling in with the current notions about magic and witchcraft,^^ would give some colour to an accusation under that head, while, more important still, the social attitude of the Christians would have at any rate become clear to the government — from one point of view, their isolation and aloofness from all the political and religious interests of the city ; from another, their aggressive and proselytising zeal. Isolated members of the sect would be found in almost every large familia of slaves ; Caesar's own household would be found not to have escaped the taint,^* and 33 Cic. in Vatin. vi. 14 ; Hor. Epod. 5 ; Juv. vi. 522. 34 Philipp. iv. ad fin. CHRISTIANITY IN ROME UNDER NERO 53 while no doubt the noble and the rich would be con- spicuous by their absence, among the lower classes, and especially the servile population, Christianity, with its utter disregard of nationality, would be found a not unim- portant element. To crown all, that characteristic of the religion which seemed to Pliny in itself deserving of the severest punishment, its ohstinatio in the face of interference or repression, the obligation " to obey God rather than men,"^^ would seem to involve an opposi- tion to the omnipotence of the Roman government, which might contain the seeds of real political danger. All these things combined were deemed sufficient to secure a conviction, not so much on the definite charge of incendiarism as of what Tacitus describes as " odium generis humani " ^^ — a wider charge, which might include or might easily be taken to involve the narrower one. That insinuations of magic and witchcraft played, as Arnold suggests, ^^ an important part in these trials seems at least possible. The term " malefica," used by Suetonius of the new religion, often has this special sense, and it deserves notice that in the Justinian code ^® magi- cians are described as " inimici generis humani." The result of the trials was naturally the execution of the criminals, and here again the fact must not be passed over — though I think it is possible to make too much of it — that the mode of punishment was that pre- scribed for those convicted of magic : " Qui sacra impia nocturnave ut quem obtruncarent, defigerent, obligarent, fecerint facciendave curaverint aut crucibus suffiguntur aut bestiis obiciuntur .... Magicae artis conscios summo supplicio adfici placuit, id est bestiis obici aut 3» Acts V. 29. 36 " Odium generis humani " is explained by Holtzmann as "volliger Mangel an aller humanen und politischen Bildung ; " by Schiller {Comment, philolog. in hon. Mommsen. p. 26) as " Exclu- sivitat gegen Andersglaubige ; " by Arnold, much more sugges- tively, as " principieller Widerstand gegen die romische Staats- omnipotenz," p, 23. 37 Arnold, pp. 65, 66 38 Cod. Just. ix. tit. 18 : "[Magi] humani generis inimici cre- dendi sunt." 54 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY crucibus suffigi : ipsi autem magi vivi exuruntur.' ^® Our conclusion therefore is that the account given by Tacitus is both credible in itself and consistent with all that we are able to infer concerning the Christians at this time. It remains to be added that it receives inde- pendent confirmation from other sources. Clement, whose Epistle from Rome to the Church at Corinth is with much probability assigned to the end of Domitian's reign, speaks of a ttoXv 7r\rjOos whose deaths were con- nected with the martyrdom of the great apostles Peter and Paul. He mentions particularly the female victims, and describes their punishment in words which at once suggest the luhidria of Tacitus : Tovrotg rots avhpaa-w ovTws 7roAiT€U(ra/x€KOis (rvvrjOpoLo-Oi ttoXv ttXtjOo^ c/cAcktwv, oItlv€<; TToAAais alKtats kol ^acrdvoLs fj kX^ttttis ij KUKOTToibs 7) uJS aXXoTpioeTTiV/coTTos ■ el 5e cis Xpiariapdi, fii) ai0X"^^<^^^i 5o^a(i^TW 5^ rbv debv iv t(^ 6v6fJLaTL toijti^. ^ Professor Sanday takes this view in the Expositor for June, 1^93. As this was written before I saw his paper, I may cite him as independently confirming this view of the matter. Cf. how Tertullian {Apol. 2) sums up the charge against Christians : " Christianum hominem omnium scelerum reum, deorum, impera- torum legum, morum, naturae totius inimicum existimas." CHRISTIANITY UNDER THE FLAVIAN EMPERORS 63 police supervision which took action when action seemed advisable, but might at any time, without weakening the principle of such action, allow it to rest either wholly or in part during long intervals of time. The police authorities of Rome, and therefore the imperial govern- ment, were onvinced that Christianity involved " odium generis humani." This was sufficient to justify on the particular occasion a considerable number of executions ; it involved the possibility of a continuous series of exe- cutions in the future on the ground of information once for all received ; and it was almost certain that when- ever provincial governors applied for instructions as to their treatment of the new sect, rescripts in accordance with the proceedings in Rome would be sent. In all cases the proceeding would take the form of a cognitio ; there was in no case any necessity to do more than establish the Christianity of the accused, which, after the investigation in Rome, was in itself criminality deserving execution. On the other hand, it was always open to the magistrates to inquire as much or as little as they liked into the particular charges : the hesitation of Pliny, " quid aut quatenus puniri soleat aut quaeri," ^ shows that the procedure varied in this respect. But no doubt, generally speaking, as long as Christianity was comparatively unfamiliar, the special charges would be to a certain extent gone into, while later on this would be thought in fact, as it already was in principle, un- necessary. To sum up : as soon as the Christians were once convicted of an " odium generis humani," they were potentially outlaws and brigands, and could be treated by the police administration as such, whether in Rome or the provinces. I cannot, therefore, agree that the Flavian emperors introduced any new principle, though I quite admit that under their policy proceedings were from time to time taken against the Christians, possibly in Rome, certainly in the provinces. That Titus at any rate was prepared to sanction a continuation of the policy commenced by Nero is, I think, shown by the '^ Ad Trai, 96. i. (^ STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY report given of his speech before Jerusalem in 70 a.d., by Sulpicius Sevenis, whose authority was almost certainly Tacitus. In arguing for the destruction of the Temple he is made to say that the religions of the Jews and Christians would be thereby more completely extir- pated, for these religions, though opposed to each other, had the same origin : the Christians had arisen from amongst the Jews, and when the root was torn up, the stem would be more easily destroyed.® This is a most important passage for proving that as early as 70 a.d. not only the distinction but the opposition between Judaism and Christianity was clearly recognized by the authorities in the Eastern provinces, and that both were regarded as involving possible dangers ; but I cannot think, with Professor Ramsay, that Titus thereby pledged himself to any energetic measures of repression against the Christians any more than against the Jews. The Jewish religion, as we know, was tolerated as before, notwithstanding the hopes thus expressed by Titus for its extermination ; and therefore there seems no reason on this ground, at any rate, to suppose any special inter- ference with the Christians.^ The fact that we have no extant records of interference with the Christians under Vespasian and Titus is no argument, or a very weak one, against the supposition that they nevertheless took place ; ^® but if, as I suppose, they only took place 8 Sulpic. Sever. Chron. ii. 30, 6 : " Evertendum templum . . . censebant quo plenius ludaeorum et Christianorum religio toUeretur .... has religiones, licet contrarias sibi, isdem tamen auctoribus profectas ; Christianos ex ludaeis exstitisse : radice sublata stirpem facile perituram." 8 Prof. Ramsay's inference from the mutiliated passage of Suetonius, Vesp. 15, " Ceterum neque caede cuiusquam unquam . . . iustis suppliciis illacrimavit etiam et ingemuit," that reference is made to the continued punishment of the Christians in Rome, seems altogether gratuitous ; it can neither be affirmed nor denied. 10 Bishop Lightfoot has a good remark in this connexion : " This correspondence of a heathen writer is the sole ultimate chronicle of this important chapter in the sufferings of the early Church. What happened in this case is not unlikely to have happened many times." Ignatius and Polycarp, p. 18. CHRISTIANITY UNDER THE FLAVIAN EMPERORS 65 sporadically through some incidental reasons, local or personal, and in the ordinary course of police adminis- tration, we can quite understand how they fail to be mentioned both by heathen and Christian writers. In reality, as Mommsen says, " the persecution of the Christians was a standing one, like that of brigands, though the regulations touching them were applied now mildly and carelessly, now with severity, while every now and then they were stringently and thoroughly enforced." ^^ It was these latter occasions only which attracted the attention of the Christian writers, and which they were apt to represent as isolated and distinct persecutions instead of what they really were — more clearly marked phases of what was constantly going on. One of these episodes of increased severity occurred, there can be no doubt, under Domitian, both at Rome and in the provinces ; and though, for the reasons given above, I do not think that any new principle was in- volved, yet undoubtedly certain fresh factors made their appearance which tended to make collisions with the Christians more frequent, while very possibly a new criterion was established, at any rate in the provinces, which made the cognitiones more brief, more simple, more summary, and, from the Christian point of view, more unjust. It has already been shown that, apart from political and social considerations, the religious toleration of the Roman government might always conceivably find its limit at the point where Roman citizens were diverted from the national religion by the exclusive claims of one of the monotheistic cults. If actual cases rarely occurred in which the rule of toleration was departed from on these grounds, it was partly because indifference to the national religion was always becoming greater, while the number of citizens attracted by the monotheistic cults was comparatively small ; and in the case of men of rank or standing almost infini- tesimal. But a revival of the national cult on the one hand, or a secession from it of conspicuous or noble 11 Rom. Gesch. v. 523, note. 66 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY personages on the other, might at any time call down the interference of the state ; and if there was added any suspicion of political danger, such interference was almost inevitable. It was such a concurrence of con- ditions which brought about a spasmodic and temporary persecution of Christians in Rome under Domitian in 95 A.D. Dio Cassius ^^ tells us that Flavins Clemens, a cousin of the emperor, and his wife Domitilla were accused of a^cdrr/s : that the former was executed, and the latter banished to an island ; that many others also were accused of the same charge, some being exe- cuted, others stripped of their property, ws cs to, twv 'lovSatcoi/ t^Bt) c^o/ccAA.ovt€9, Acilius Glabrio being men- tioned particularly as charged with the same crime as the rest, and also with having fought with wild beasts in the arena. Suetonius ^^ mentions the death of Flavins Clemens — whom he describes as a man " con- temptissimae inertiae " — as arising " ex tenuissima suspicione," while he alludes to Acilius Glabrio as a suspected " molitor rerum no varum." ^* Eusebius ^^ to a great extent confirms the account of Dio Cassius, mentioning no names, but narrating that Domitian killed a considerable number of noble and illustrious men, and punished many more with banishment and confiscation ; while Melito ^^ couples together, as does 12 Dio Cass. Ixvii. 14 : Kdu r^ ai'riy ^rei AWovs re ToWods /cat ^Xd^iov KXi^fxePTa, VTrareOovTa, Kalirep dvexpibv dura, Kal yvfaiKa Kal ai/TTjv aiTfyevri iavrov ^Xa^iav AofxiTiWav ^■)(pvTa Kar^a-ipa^ev 6 Ao/jutl- audi eiryjv^x^V ^^ aficpoiv ^yKXrffia ddedrTjTOS, i(f>'' ffS Kal &XX01 es ra rdv ^lovdaiuiv ijdr} e|o iAXoi/res iroXXoi KaT€di.Kd(rdr](Tau • Kal oi {xkv diridavov. 61 S^ tCjv yovv ovciQiP iarep-qdriaav ' i] 5^ Ao/xLTiXXa virepu)' piffdr] fidvop els HapSaT^peiav. rbv S^ di) TXa^piwua rbv fierd rod UpaCavov Ap^avra, KaT-qyop-qdevTa rd re dXXa Kal ola oi iroXXot, Kal 6tl Kal drjpiois ifidx^To diriKTCLfev. 13 Suet. Dom. 15 ; " Denique Flavium Clementem patruelem suum, contemptissimae inertiae, cuius filios etiam turn parvulos successores palam destinaverat . . . repente ex tenuissima sus- picione tantum non in ipso eius consulatu interemit." 1* Suet. Dom. 10. 15 H. E. iii. 17 : HoW'^j' ye fxr^v elswoXXovs iiriSeL^dixevos 6 AofieTLavbs d)fi6Tr)Ta ovK oXlyop re tQv iiri ' Pw/xt7S evTraTpibdv re Kal ejn.a-ffp.uv dvbpdv TrXrjdos ov fier^ evXbyov Kplcreojs Kreivas, k. t. X, 16 Euseb. H. E. iv. 26. CHRISTIANITY UNDER THE FLAVIAN EMPERORS 67 Tertullian, Nero and Domitian as the earliest perse- cutors. That Domitian was at any rate to a certain extent inchned to support and revive the national religion is shown by the passages and evidence collected by Schiller ; ^"^ that the principal victims were not only noble Roman citizens but also a possible danger from a political point of view will be clear if we remember that Domitian had no heir of his own, that Flavius Clemens, whose two sons were the destined successors to the empire, was, as the only surviving son of Vespasian's elder brother, Flavius Sabinus, the second personage in the empire, and that Flavia Domitilla, his wife, was a niece of the emperor. That the victims were really Christians is almost certain. Chrfstian tradition, as represented by Eusebius, affirms it,^^ and the words of Suetonius, " contemptissimae inertiae," well correspond to the difficulties of a Christian in the position of Flavius Clemens. Dio Cassius, it is true,* represents them as living a Jewish life, but in view of the manifest bias which makes this writer consistently avoid all mention of the Christians, this evidence is anything but conclusive, while archaeological discoveries have now established the facts, (i) that Domitilla was the owner of the ground on which one of the catacombs was afterwards situated ,^^ (2) that the family of the Acilii Glabriones were buried in a crypt, the centre of a series of catacombs clustered round the tomb of some saint or martyr,^^ whom, con- sidering the evidence of Dio Cassius, it is not altogether rash to identify with the Acilius Glabrio of Domitian. The trial, however, under Domitian took a different form from those in 64 a.d. Slaves and freedmen, immigrants from the East, members of the great city proletariate, might be summarily arrested by the 17 Rom. Gesch. ii. p. 536. 18 Euseb. H. E. iii. 18 : iu irei Trevre KaideKartf Ao/ieTiavoO ixera TrXetffTOjp ir^piov kuI ^Xaovtav AofxeTiWav iayfji€V(i}V 8ta tov \6yov rov Oeov Koi 8ta t^i' fxaprppLav ^v tl)(ov : *^ and, tlBov ttjv yin^aiKa /xeOvovaav ck tov ai/aaro? rail/ dyttoi/ Ktti €K Tou at/xuTOS Twi/ ixaprvpwv 'Irja-ov : *^ while it is equally clear that the immediate occasion of the execu- tion alluded to was the refusal to worship the em- p)eror : koI iS66ri avrfj Sovvai TTvevfia ry etKovL tov OrjpLov tJ^a Kol XaX-^arj r/ €i/y a.d.s The province, which together with Asia was the first to have a temple built to Rome and Au- gustus,^ was under senatorial administration ; but owing to misunderstandings between proconsuls and provincials '' to the prevalence of factions in the cities,^ and to financial discorders,^ Trajan found it advisable in III a.d. temporarily to take the province into his own administration, and to send out a special legatus, with a view to the reformation of abuses^'' and the re-establish- ment of its financial stability. For this purpose he selected Pliny, as one who had some acquaintance with Bithynian affairs," had had some experience of finance,^^ 2 Acts xvi, 6. 3 p. 225. ■* I Pet. i. I (KXeKToTs TrapeiriSi^fjiOLs 5La)fiaiwv v6fx,ovs 7}Kpi.^(aK(j}s avrip. 16 Justin. Apol. i. 68. 1' Quoted in Euseb. H. E. iv. 26, 10. 102 STTTDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY the Christians, ^^ makes no mention of the martyrdom of Polycarp ; while Tertullian considers M. Aurelius as a protector rather than otherwise of Christianity ^^ — a view, as Mommsen points out, not without some his- torical foundation ^° — while making no reference to the severe and widespread persecution which took place in his reign. Taking, therefore, the evidence of the Apolo- gists, and remembering that antecedent and a priori objections to it are to a very great extent removed by the undisputed evidence afforded by the rescript of Trajan, we may regard the following points as estab- lished. (i) The Christians subsequently to as before the rescript of Trajan were punished generally for the name, i.e. not on the technical ground of maiestas (though this may have been the charge in particular cases, especially since the rescript of Hadrian), but for the inherent dis- loyalty to the state involved in their aOeorrj's, and mani- fested in the ohstinatio with which they clung to it. The following passages, among many others, are sufficient to establish this. Justin says : €<^' r^fxthv hi ro ovofia ws eA.cy;(oi/ \a/x^dv€T€ . . . Xpio-rtavot yap elvai KarrjyopovjxeOa . . . iav Se Tts o/xoXoy-qayj eti/ai, 8ta rrjv o/xoXoyiav KoXd- ^€T€ : ^^ and again ws koL ck tov dveTa^Ojxivovs v<^' vfjuov ofioXoyelv ctvat X/Ji(rriavov9, ytyvtotrKOvrcs tw o/x,o\oyovvTL Odvarov ttjv ^rjixiav KiicrdaL : ^^ and once more, KaiTTtp davdrov opia-OevTO^ Kara twv SiSaa-KovTfav rf oAws bixoXoyovvToiv to ovofxa tov XptcTTov.^^ Similarly, in the account of the trial of Ptolemaeus, at Rome : ^* TcXcv- ^® Ibid. loc. cit. : 6 5^ irarfip UT€ avrov, ws fxrjSkv €X.€y\€LV €xoi/T€s dfxapTavovTa. In the persecution at Lugdunum under M. Aurelius, perhaps in consequence of the in- criminating evidence of slaves with regard to the ©uco-Teta SciTTi/a and OtStTroSciot fXL$€L€p6fxeva yevvaius vir^fiepov, (Tri^orjffeis Kal 7rX777as Kai (Tvp/Mods Kal diapirayai Kai \id(av /3o\aj Kai (TvyKXelaeis Kal v&vd^ 6p.av -^/xcr^puv deuv Kadaipirris. PERSECUTION FOR THE NAME 10^ nos inimicum vulgus invadit lapidibus et incendiis ? " ^^ and, again, " Nee ulli magis depostulatores Chris tian- orum quam vulgus," *^ and still more definitely, '* De qua iniquitate saevitiae non modo caecum hoc vulgus exsultat et insultat, sed et quidam vestrum, quibus favor vulgi de iniquitate captatur, gloriantur." ^'^ Tertullian's evidence on this point is, indeed, summed up in his address to the provincial governors as " boni praesides, meliores multo apud populum si illis Christianos inmol- averitis." *® (5) The emperors themselves, when appealed to by the governors, were more inclined to check than to encourage persecution, though their policy in this was purely utilitarian, based on no sort of approval of or sympathy with the Christians, to whose execution they assented without scruple whenever the advantages of such a course seemed to preponderate, but simply on the supposition that the Christians were harmless and some- what contemptible enthusiasts, of whose ohstinatio it was hardly worth while to take notice, while the disturb- ances caused by popular outbreaks against them were not consistent with the good order of the empire. 43 Tert. Apol. zj. 46 Ihid. 35. 47 Ihid. 49. Cf. Justin. Apol. ii. 3, who says that Crescens, the philosopher, accused the Christians as di^eoi /cat do-e/Seis . . . 7rp6s X«P"' *^^^ ijSovrjv rCiv iroWiJov riav Tretr\avqiiivo)v raura irpdrTuv. 48 Tert. Apol. 50. VIII Attitude of Hadrian, Pius, and Marcus Aurelius This certainly seems to have been the attitude of Hadrian in his rescript to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia, in about 124 a.d., the full text of which I append below in a note. ^ Asia was undoubtedly the province in which the Christian difficulty was most urgent and most per- sistent. Here probably the Christians were most numerous, the populace most hostile, and accusers most plentiful ; here, too, all the social conditions most repugnant to and most impatient of Christian ideas of morality were most pronounced and most deeply rooted. Here certainly, sometimes in one city, sometimes in 1 The rescript is found in Greek appended to Justin's First Apology, and in Eusebius H. E. iv. 9, and in Latin in Rufinus' translation of Eusebius. As Eusebius expressly states that Justin gives the Latin version {H. E. iii. 8, 7), Bishop Lightfoot, with much probability, supposes that Rufinus did not translate it into Latin but substituted the original rescript. " Accepi literas ad me scriptas a decessore tuo, Sereno Graniano, clarissimo viro, et non placet mihi relationem silentio praeterire, ne et innoxii perturbentur, et calumniatoribus latrocinandi tribuatur occasio. Itaque si evidenter provinciales huic petitioni suae adesse volent adversum Christianos, ut pro tribunali eos in aliquo arguant, hoc eis exequi non prohibeo : precibus autem in hoc solis et adclamationibus uti eis non permitto. Etenim multo aequius est, si quis volet accusare, te cognoscere de obiectis. Si quis igitur accusat et probat, adversus legem quicquam agere memoratos homines pro merito peccatorum etiam supplicia statues. Illud mehercule magnopere curabis ut si quis calumniae gratia quemquam horum postulaverit reum, in hunc pro sui nequitia suppliciis severioribus vindices." 108 HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS AURELIUS IO9 another, persecution must have been almost continuous and permanent. The proconsuls may have observed, and probably they did so, the principle of Trajan, not to search out offenders, but this in a province so full of sycophants, sophists, and delator es, was but scant pro- tection.^ And not only were real Christians brought before the tribunal of the proconsul. In a case where so little had to be substantiated, where the mere " nomen Christiani " was the gist, nay the whole, of the charge, there was every inducement to make a trade of this sort of delation, to accuse or to threaten with accusation those who were not Christians, and then to exact money for letting proceedings drop. That non-Christians were sometimes accused we know from Pliny's letter ; that attempts to exhort money were sometimes made we know from a case already alluded to as mentioned by Tertullian.^ But clearly such unprincipled conduct, besides running counter to the spirit of the times, des- troyed whatever value there was in the police repression of Christianity, and introduced a spirit of terrorism into the province. It was, I conceive, in some such circum- stances as these, that Licinius Serenus Granianus, the proconsul, consulted Hadrian, who sent the well-known rescript, for the genuineness of which Mommsen has authoritatively pronounced, to his successor, Minucius Fundanus.* The general object of the rescript is clearly enough stated at the outset, " ne et innoxii perturbentur, et calumniatoribus latrocinandi tribuatur occasio." To prevent this, the emperor lays it down that accusers are not to be allowed to make use of any mob-influence against the Christians, and that they must do more than prove the *' nomen Christiani " — they must prove that the accused have acted against the law : "si quis igitur 2 Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. v. 333 foil. 3 See p. 106, note 39. 4 Licinius Serenus Granianus was consul in 106 a.d., C. Minucius Fundanus in 107 a.d. (Klein, Fasti Consulates, p. 56), and according to Waddington {Pastes Asiatiques, p. 197 sq.) they would naturally have reached the proconsulship of Asia about 123-4 and 124-5 respectively. no STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY accusal et probat, adversus legem quicquid agere memo- ratos homines, pro merito peccatorum etiam supplicia statues ; " while, finally, accusers who failed to make good their charges were to be themselves severely pun- ished. It seems to me that this rescript was intended, as indeed it naturally would be, for the special circum- stances of Asia : it does not in any way, as I interpret it, rescind the decision of Trajan that the " nomen " was a crime, but to avoid any miscarriage of justice, such as, with a summary procedure, a large number of accused, a hostile pressure exercised by the mob, might very easily occur, it lays down more stringent conditions for the proof of punishable crime. It is possible, as Professor Ramsay says,^ that there is a studied vagueness in this rescript. I doubt whether this would be reflected in the actions depending on it.® The aOtorrj^ of the Christians as well as their refusal to worship the emperor could, as has already been shown, be brought under the law of maiestas, and it was no doubt to this procedure, in which more definite proof was required and a stricter investiga- tion pursued, that Hadrian's rescript pointed. Though intended primarily for Asia, it may quite possibly have had some influence on the governors of other provinces. It was of course always possible for the Christians to be accused and convicted of maiestas. Justin Martyr affirms that they were accused as aOiOL and ao-c/Jcis,^ and Tertullian in a passage already referred to speaks of them as " rei maiestatis." Punishment for the name only, as there is abundant evidence to show, was executed 6 p. 323. 6 The suspicions cast upon this rescript by Keim [Rom und das Chfistenthum, p. 553), Overbeck {Siudien zur Geschichte der alien Kirche, p. 134), Aube {Persecutions de VEglise, p. 261), and Baur (Die drei ersten Jahrhunderte, p. 442) are met once for all by.Mommsen, who declares that its " grundlose Verdachtigung der beste Beweise ist wie wenig sich die Neueren in den Stand- punkt der romischen Regierung dem Christenthum gegeniiber zu finden vermo'gen." Among recent writers, Hilgenfeld {Berliner phil. Mochenschrift, xv. 663) still maintains Keim's view in spite of Mommsen. 7 Note that dai^eia is technically maiestas and not sacrilegixim. HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS AURELIUS III after Hadrian's rescript just as much as before, but it is quite possible that it gave a certain stimulus towards the employment of the more definite and regular legal procedure.^ Under Antoninus Pius there is reason, as Bishop Lightfoot has shown,^ to believe that there was by no means that complete peace to the Church which Sulpicius Severus ascribes to his reign ,^^ and the cases of Ptolemaeus and Lucius, executed at Rome by the praefectus urbi, LoUius Urbicus, cannot have been unknown to the emperor,^ while the martyrdom of Polycarp at Smyrna is proved by the exhaustive arguments of M. Waddington to have belonged to this reign /^ But if we are to believe the evidence of Melito, as quoted by Eusebius, he, like Hadrian, discouraged the riotous behaviour of the mob, sending letters to the authorities at Larissae, Thessa- lonica, and Athens, and to all the Hellenes (a term which is understood by Professor Ramsay as including Greek cities like Smyrna on the Aegean coast), forbidding any such conduct.^^ With regard to M. Aurelius, the case is somewhat more doubtful, and hie is usually considered a severe persecutor of the Christians, and, indeed the contrast between his reign in this respect and that of his degenerate son and successor, Commodus, has partly led to the general 8 Hadrian's own liberalism and freedom from prejudice in religious matters are exemplified in the story told of him by Lam- pridius {Vit. Alex. Sev. 43): " Christo templum facere voluit, eumque inter deos recipere, quod et Hadrianus cogitasse fertur, qui templa in omnibus civitatibus sine simulacris iusserat fieri quae hodieque idcirco quia non habent numina dicuntur Had- riani, quae ille ad hoc parasse dicebatur : sed prohibitus est ab iis qui consulentes sacra repererant omnes Christianos futuros si id fecisset et templa reliqua deserenda." TertuUian calls him " omnium curiositatum explorator," Apol. 5 ; cf. Dio Cass. Ixix. 5 and 11. 9 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part 11. vol. i. p. 493. 10 Sulp. Sev. Chron. ii. 31, 32. 11 Justin, Apol. ii. 2. 12 Waddington's arguments are summarised by Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part II. vol. i. p. 639 foil. J3 See p. 102, note 18. 112 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY inference that the better the emperor, the greater his severity towards the Christians. It certainly cannot be denied that the Christians were persecuted, and with some severity, in several different parts of the empire during this reign, but I cannot think that there is any evidence which justifies Neumann ^* in ascribing to the emperor a new policy different from, and severer than, that of Trajan, or which can lead us to suppose that the persecutions, such as they were, arose from imperial initiative rather than from the general circumstances of the time and local conditions. In the first place, it must be remembered that as time went on, the practice increased among the Christians of recording the deaths or sufferings of their members — a practice which, when the Churches were less organised, and the consciousness of a common history less pronounced, had either not been commenced or was less completely carried out. Hence we should expect that, quite apart from the actual frequency of persecutions, the number of those recorded would tend to become greater. In the next place, we entirely fail in the records belonging to this reign to find evidence for anything like a general persecu- tion. The evidence of Melito proves a certain amount of persecution in Asia ; ^^ the martyrdom of Justin shows that the Christians in Rome were still liable to be brought before the jurisdiction of the praefectus urbi, while it is known that a number of Christians from the city or Italy were condemned to the mines of Sardinia.^^ The letter of the Churches of Lugdunum and Vienna to those in Asia and Phrygia^^ furnishes authentic evidence for a severe, though not widespread, persecution in Gaul ; and, finally, the first Christian blood was shed in this reign in the province of Africa at Madaura/® 1* p. 28 foil. 15 Euseb. H. E. iv. 26, 5. ^^ Hippolyt. Haer. ix. 12: /tera xp^^ov 5k irifrnv iKcT 6vT(av fmpri- puv, 17 Mapda . . ■. irpoffKaXecrafx^vrj rbv /laKdpiov OvtKTopa . . . Tjpwra, rives elev iv 'Eapdovig. jj.apr6pes. " Euseb. H. £. V. I. 18 Augustin. Epist. xv. and xvi. Cf. Tert. ad Scap. 3 : " Vigel- lius Satuminus qui primus hie gladium in nos egit." HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS AURELIUS II3 while the martyrdoms at SciU, in the same province, though occurring a few months after the death of M. Aurelius, must still be virtually ascribed to his reign.^^ What strikes us, however, most in this list, is neither the extent of the persecutions (which would surely have been much greater if they had resulted from any deliberate policy) nor the number of the victims (which even at Lugdunum apparently did not exceed forty-eight) ^^ but rather the fact that instances of collision between Christianity and the government are now found in the Western as well as the Eastern provinces. This, how- ever, would more naturally be ascribed to the recent growth of Christianity in those parts, and the consequent excitement of the populace against it, than to a new policy on the part of the government. As to the earliest rise of the religion in the Western provinces, we are unfortunately very imperfectly acquainted, but that Christianity could be described in Lugdunum as Kaivrj TLde iriJoTroTe yevouevov, vvv 5tw/ferai rb tQv deocre^Qv yhos Kaivoh iXavvSfxeuov 56yfjiacrL Karci. vr)v ''A.aiav. ol yap apai5eis avKo^avraL Kal tQp dWoTplojv ipaaral Ty]v iK rdv diaray/xdruv ixovrei a^topfx-qv (pavepCjs \riPTti)v t}ixlv rdv -KoKkCiv : but here the quota- tion usually ends, but Athenagoras adds : koX h^oiyjiQo. hiiQiv koX HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS AURELIUS II7 orders all the Christians to be searched out, but it deserves notice that this is the second stage in the pro- ceedings and not the first. The persecution commenced with the usual manifestations of popular feeling, and, there is no reason to doubt, with the usual accusations more or less definite ; then the legate arrived, and apparently in consequence of the charges made ordered a general search for the Christians. If any previous rescript was disregarded, it was rather that of Hadrian than that of Trajan, by which popular acclamations were forbidden to be taken as formal accusations. Another proof that in this reign the Christians were hunted out is often found in the statement of Celsus : vfxijiv Se kTiv TrXaiarat rt? tri XavOdvinv aA./\a. ^rjreiTal 7rpo5 Oavdrov 8lk7]v.^^ But in addition to the uncertainty as to the exact date of Celsus, the statement seems alto- gether too vague and too general to warrant the con- clusion which Professor Ramsay draws from it. Finally with regard to the ** Acta Justini " (which, by the way, belong to quite the beginning of the reign, whereas the harsher policy of Aurelius is usually ascribed to the end of it), I cannot agree with Professor Ramsay that the implication is in favour of the criminals being searched out rather than accused. If the tradition mentioned by Eusebius is untrustworthy, that Justin's death was due to the accusation of Crescens the philosopher, ^^ at least we should expect that any searching out of the Christians, especially in Rome, would have resulted in the death of more than one or two individuals. It seems, therefore, that the prosecutions under M. Aurelius were essentially of the same description as those under his predecessors. He has no hesitation in ordering the execution of those who when accused refused to recant ; but on the other hand, like previous emperors, he seems to have discouraged the severity of provincial governors as at Lugdunum, as well as the eagerness and TTept 7]fj.Qv TL aKexpacrOat. Sttws iravdibfiedd irore virb tQp (TVKOdTOVs X670i»5 i^eraaavTUP Kal ^e^rjXovs dirotp-qpavrup kui d-jrodoKifxaadpTOJp rijv aipea-LP, ovtu drj rrjs re iKKXtjaias i^eucdrjaap Kal t^s Koivojplas etpx^WO-v . 67 Euseb. H. E. v. 23, 2-4 ; avpoboi 5r] Kal (TvyKpoT-qaeLs iTnaK&iruv iirl rairbp iy^POPTO, k,.t. X. 58 Euseb. H. E. v, 24, 9 : iwl to^itois 6 jxkp r^j 'Pw/ia/cji' Tpoearibs BlKTup ddpdcjs T^i 'Acrias irdarjs d/xa racs bixbpois iKKXTjaiais ras napoiKlas diroT^lxveip ihadp irepoSo^oOaas ttjs koiptjs ipibaews TreipaTai. '^ Cf. Vit. Alex. Sev. 22 : " ludaeis privilegia reservavit. HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS AURELIUS 127 But still Severus, who in Rome was quite inclined to follow the example of his predecessors, and to protect the Christians against mob-violence,^*^ must have received some impressions during his passage through Sjnria in 202 A.D., which caused him to take a more serious view of the dangers inherent in Christianity, for his decision that no fresh converts were to be allowed to join that body^^ — even though it may have been, as Neumann supposes, a local rescript, and not, as has often been assumed, a general edict — still makes indisputably a step in advance : a remark which may be made with equal truth, though with the same limitations, of the persecution instituted by Maximin the Thracian, and which was directed, not against the Christians generally, but against the clergy, or, in other words, against the growing organization of the Church.^^ It must suffice to conclude this part of the subject by saying that these tendencies on the one side and the other received their completion by the series of general and systematic persecutions which commenced with the reign of Decius. ^lie general result of the previous discussion has been to^ow that during the first two centuries there was in no sense any systematic persecution of Chr jstian^ty^ /\ It is true that 'a rigorous ana logical appncatioiTof the / principles of the Roman government would have resulted in a proscription of Christianity, but in view of its practically harmless character, and the absence of any dangerous or widespread organization, cases of inter- ference with its members were only intermittent and spasmodic. As we have seen, the Christians might have Christianos esse passus est " — a statement which of course implies no formal recognition of Christianity, but merely practical toleration. 60 Tert. ad Scap. iv. : " Sed et clarissimas feminas et clarissi- mos viros Severus sciens huius sectae esse non modo non laesit verum et testimonio exornavit, et populo furenti in nos palam restitit." 81 Spart. Vit. Sever. 17 : " ludaeos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit ; idem etiam de Christianis sanxit." 62 Euseb. Jf. E. vi. 28, : 5i(>}yiJ.6v iyeipas rods tQv iKKKrjaiCJv dpxovTas fiSvovs j (xvoTav. Basilica, Ix. 32. 46 Dig xxxiv. 5, 20. 4"^ Tac. Ann. xiv. 17 48 Plin. ad Trai. 94. 138 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY usurpaverit ea poena tenetur qua tenentur homines qui hominibus armatis loca publica vel templa occupare iudicati sunt," *® and " Sed permittitur tenuioribus stipem menstruam conferre dum tamen semel in mense coeant, ne sub praetextu huiusmodi illicitum collegium coeat." ^^ So Trajan reluctantly sanctions the eranus at Amisus, provided that it does not tend " ad turbas et inlicitos coetus," " where the word must mean " political." It results from what has been said that the practice of the government in regard to unlicensed collegia was not by* any means so strict and stringent as by the letter of the law it might have been. It has been very truly said : " Der Caesarismus nahm den obern Classen des Associationsrecht und liess es den andern." '^^ It seems to me that this explains a good deal. Apart from the purely religious associations which were, generally speaking, tolerated,^^ there was a distinction more or less broad between the collegia opificum and the collegia sodalicia {eTaLpiKa crva-TyjfxaTa, hetaeHae). About the former we unfortunately know very little. Some of them were of extremely ancient date, and on that ground were expressly exempted from the Lex lulia. But what seems to have characterized them is the fact that their members either belonged to the same trade or calling, such as the pistores, the fabri navales, the caudicarii, etc., or at least combined for some definite public object, such as the purpose of a fire brigade, e.g. the fabri, centonarii, dendrophori. On the other hand, the collegia sodalicia seem to have been more social in their character, to have had no special public utility in view, but to have had common meetings for feasting and recreation, and to have combined either for the special object of a burial *9 Dig. xlvii. 22, 2. 50 Dig xlvii. 22, i. ^i loc. cit. 52 Rodbertus, -Hildebrand's Jahrb. v. 299, cited by Liebenam, p. 32. 53 Dig. xlvii. 22, I : " Sed religionis causa coire non pro- hibentur, dum tamen per hoc non fiat contra senatus consultum quo illicita collegia arcentur." CHRISTIANITY IN ITS RELATION TO COLLEGIA I39 club ^* or of a mutual assistance society, ^^ or of both combined.^^ Probably these two classes frequently overlapped, but still we find that Trajan drew a sharp distinction between them, in refusing to license a fire brigade — collegium fabrum — on the express ground that it might degenerate into an hetaeria : " Quodcunque nomen ex quacunque causa dederimus iis qui in idem contracti fuerint, hetaeriae aeque brevi fient." ^^ While the collegia opificum would probably all be found among the lower classes, this would not be so necessarily the case with the collegia sodalicia, and no doubt from the first the practical policy of the govern- ment would be to enforce the law in the case of those who from wealth or social position might have political influence which combination might make dangerous, but to tolerate the harmless associations composed of poor people and slaves.^^ In the course of time this practical policy appears to have crystallized itself in legislation. Thus Marcian states in the " Digest " : " Mandatis principalibus praecipitur praesidibus pro- vinciarum ne patiantur esse collegia sodalicia, . . . sed permittitur tenuioribus stipem menstruam conferre, dum tamen semel in mense coeant, ne sub praetextu huiusmodi illicitum collegium coeat."^^ The collegia among the lower classes and slaves, alluded to in the last clause, were technically known as collegia tenuio- rum.^^ Mommsen supposes that they were collegia funeraticia, and that they were especially exempted from the provisions of the Lex lulia by a senatus con' sultum at some time between Augustus and Hadrian. ^^ 5* " Qui stipem menstruam conferre volent in funera." Wilm. 319- 55 " Ad sustinendam tenuiorum inopiam." Plin. ad Trai. 94. 56 " Egenis alendis humandisque." Tert. Apol. 39. 57 Plin. ad Trai. 34. 58 As the Christian communities usually were ; cf. Min. Fel. Octav. " de ultima faece collectis imperitioribus." 59 Dig. xlvii. 22, I. 80 Dig. 1.6, " tenuiores per collegia distributi ; " cf. also xlvii 22, 3. ^1 See Liebenam p. 39 foil. 140 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY In the inscription relating to the " Collegium Dianae et Antinoi " — a funeral club at Lanuvium, dating from 133 A.D. — we have apparently a clause from the pre- amble of this senatus consultum : " Kaput ex s. c. populi Romani — Quibus coire, convenire collegiumque habere liceat — qui stipem menstruam conferre volent in funera, in it collegium coeant, neque sub specie eius collegii nisi semel in mense coeant conferendi causa unde defuncti sepeliantur." ^^ The collegium in question was apparently a purely funeral club, though its members were allowed to have common dinners five times a year, but the state- ment of the " Digest " seems to show that there were probably at least two other clauses in the senatus con- sultum, one giving a qualified sanction to religious associations (" sed religionis causa coire non prohi- bentur," etc.), and another sanctioning collegia tenuio- rum for somewhat wider objects than burials alone. By this senatus consultum — which could have had re- ference at widest to the city, Italy, and senatorial provinces — a legal sanction was given to existing ten- dencies, and the senate was perhaps relieved from the constant business of licensing these numerous collegia. ^^ At what precise time the general exemption from the Lex lulia was extended to the provinces we do not know. The action of Pliny in consulting Trajan about a collegium of this description at Amisus shows that it was not in force at that time in Bithynia, and it was possibly not till the time of Severus that it was a general rule through- out the empire — " quod non tantum in urbe sed in Italia et in provinciis locum habere divus quoque Severus rescripsit." ^* The general result of what has been said is to show that within the restrictions laid upon collegia and associations there was still in practice room for Chris- tianity to develop, though it was quite possible at various times for collisions to occur between it and a specially vigilant executive. In this connexion there is no necessity to enter into the question of the early Christian 62 Wilm. 319. 63 cf. Plin. Panegyr. 32. <54 X)i^, xlvii. 22, i. CHRISTIANITY IN ITS RELATION TO COLLEGIA I4I organization. The growth of Trpea-fivnpoi as an order in the community, the differentiation of cttiVkottoi and their original functions and the development from an aristocratic to a monarchical form of government, con- cern the history of Christianity, and not the history of the Roman policy towards it. Whatever was the exact constitution of the early communities, it is beyond all doubt that they had certain general and external resemblances to the collegia or diaaot, or religious associations around them. If they were in any way affiliated to the Jewish synagogues, these latter were certainly regarded as Otaa-oL, and the Christians would therefore be ranked among them too : or again, if Weingarten ^^ is right in supposing that the earliest communities grouped themselves round some leading family, it is still easy to find analogies in the heathen world, where we have a " collegium quod est in domu Sergiae PauUinae " ^^ — a " collegium quod consistit in praedis Larci Macedonis," ^^ etc. The term cV/cXi^o-ta itself was used of Greek associations, ^^ while conversely Eusebius uses the terms o-wayuiyr}, avvoSodXai6v icTTt Sia/SaXilv Xpio-rtavtcr^ou d)? crvvdrjKa<; Kpv^Srjv Trpos dAAr/AoDs 7roiOVfX€vu)v ILptcrTLavoiv irapa ra V€^'o/xtc^/>leVa. Similarly in Minucius Felix they are spoken of as " homines deploratae inlicitae ac desperatae factionis," as holding " nocturnae congregationes " as a "latebrosa et lucifuga natio." ^^ It is probable that by about the middle of the second century the Eucharist was generally separated from the Agape, the latter being given up or maintained according to times and circumstances, but always liable to bring the Christians into trouble as an hetaeria. Tertullian is a not unimportant witness on this point. We infer from his words that the Eucharist was celebrated in the morning, and as a religious service, ®® but that the Agapae, in the African Church at any rate, were still celebrated ; and though Tertullian is conscious of the charge of illegality made against them, he attempts to remove the prejudice and to find with his legal know- ledge a legal basis for the social meetings of the Christians. " Proinde . . . inter licitas factiones," he says, " sec- tam istam deputari oportebat a qua nihil tale com- mittitur quale de illicitis factionibus timeri solet." ®^ The object of prohibiting associations was " ne civitas in partes scinderetur," but to attain this end completely it would be necessary to put down the comitia, the concilia, the contioneSy and even the spectacula. The bases of the Christian union were " conscientia religionis, dis- ciplinae divinitas, et spei foedus." ^^ The Christians should be judged by facts, not theories : " haec coitio Christianorum merito sane illicita si illicitis par, merito damnanda si non dissimilis damnandis." ^^ And he 86 Orig. C. Cels. i. L 87 Min. FeL Octav 8. 88 Tertull. de Cor. 3 : " Eucharistiae sacramentum et in tempore victus et omnibus mandatur a Domino, etiam ante- lucanis coetibus, nee de aliorum manii quam Praesidentium sumimus." 89 Tert. Apol. 38. so 75/^. 39. 91 Ibid. 39 ad fin. 146 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY finally exclaims : " Quum probi, quum boni coeunt, quum pii, quum casti congregantur, non est factio dicenda sed curi." All this clearly enough implies that, in spite of the innocent and harmless nature of the Christian gather- ings, they were as a matter of fact regarded as a factio ilUcita. In another passage he asserts this explicitly : " forte in senatus consulta et in principum mandata coitionibus oppositadelinquimus." ^"^ But it is not only on the general harmlessness of the Christian meetings, and on the innocence of their feasts, which, as he says, " de nomine rationem sui ostendunt," that Tertullian bases his defence of the Christian communities. The " Apologeticus " was written very shortly after the rescript of Severus, by which the formation of collegia tenuiorum was allowed generally throughout the pro- vinces, and there seems to be no doubt that Tertullian attempted to take advantage of this rescript and to vindicate the meetings of the Christians as a " collegium tenuiorum." After saying that the meetings were presided over by " probati quique seniores," he goes on : " etiam si quod arcae genus est, non de honoraria summa quasi redemptae religionis congregatur : modicam unusquisque stipem menstrua die vel cum velit et si modo velit et si modo possit apponit : nam nemo compellitur sed sponte confert. . . . Nam inde non epulis nee potaculis nee ingratis voratrinis dispensatur, sed egenis alendis humandisque et pueris ac puellis re ac parentibus destitutis," etc.^^ There are so many tech- nical terms here, such as area, honoraria summa, slips, menstrua die, and so much similarity to the words in the " Digest " already cited, that we have really no alterna- tive but to suppose that Tertullian is referring to the rescript in question. The Christians, in his view, had the right to be regarded as " licitae factiones," because their objects were the same, though with less admixture of luxury and social enjoyment, as those of the collegia tenuiorum. Nor does there seem any reason to suppose 92 Tert. Adv. Psychicos, 13. 93 Tert. Apol 39. CHRISTIANITY IN ITS RELATION TO COLLEGIA I47 that such a claim on the part of the Christian communities to be regarded as in the eye of the law a " collegium tenuiorum " would be disallowed by the authorities. Such a recognition would not in the slightest degree affect the general relations of the Christians and the government : it was no recognition of Christians and Christianity. In all probability the Christians would describe themselves as " fratres cultores dei," ®* or in some such way : at any rate the designation of Chris- Hani, in face of the name being a punishable offence, would be avoided. And therefore their position as a recognized or tolerated collegium would in no way pre- vent persecution " for the name " or accusation under the law of maiestas.^^ It would merely give the various Christian communities a certain locus standi for their ordinary meetings ; it would facilitate their combination for charitable purposes, making it more possible for them to approximate, without the suspicion of dangerous or anti-social communism, to their principle of having all things in common (" omnia indiscreta sunt apud nos " ^^) ; and finally it would secure to them the right of common burial, and the possibility of possessing common burial-places, which the vast system of the 94 Cf. C. I. L. viii. 9585. Tert. ApoL 39 : " Quod fratrum appellatione censemur." Just. Apol. i. 65 : ^tI rods Xeyo/x^vovs aS€\4)o6s. De Rossi, Rom softer, i. 105 ; Liebenam, p. 273, See also Acts xv. 23 and 36, xxi. 7 and 18, xxviii. 14. Min. FeL Oct. 31 : " Sic nos . . . fratres vocamus ut unius dei parentis homines." 95 So it is quite a mistake to suppose that Gallienus in desisting from the persecution set on foot by Valerian acknowledged Chris- tianity as a " licita religo." All that he did was to restore to the Christian communities the possession of their burial-grounds (Euseb. H. E. vii. 13, 3), which had been taken away by his predecessor {H. E. vii. 11, 10). Naturally, in times of persecution even licita collegia would not be safe from interference if they were known to consist of Christians, and at times apparently the popular hatred of the Christians, instead of expressing itself by the cry " Christianos ad leones," substituted that of " areae non sint." Tertull. ad Scap. iii. 2 : " Sub Hilariano praeside cum de areis sepulturarum nostrarum adclamassent : Areae non sint." 96 Tert. Apol. 39. 148 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY Catacombs round Rome proves to have been so essential an element of early Christianity. Indeed, the undoubted possession by the Christians at the end of the second century of areae or coemeteria of their own seems neces- sarily to imply that in some way or other they had corporate rights, that their communities ranked as juristic persons — a result which could only follow from their being generally or specially licensed. It was M. Aurelius who first granted these corporate rights to licensed collegia. Thus they had the right of manumitting slaves,^^ and of receiving legacies, ®® and no doubt, either then or little later, of owning land.^® From the first the Christians, like the Jewish communities at Rome, would if possible be buried together, but this would only be possible if the richer among them who owned burial-places of their own allowed members of the sect to be buried there too along with their own families. Thus it is proved by inscriptions that Flavia Domitilla owned land which was used as an early Christian burial- place,^^^ and in which there were in later times extensive catacombs. There is similar evidence to support the view that the Acilii Glabriones owned a burial-place in which Christians were buried together ,^°^ while smaller »7 Dig. xl. 3, I : " Divus Marcus omnibus coUegiis quibus coeundi ius est manumittendi potestatem dedit." ^8 Dig. xxxiv. 5, 20. ^ Cf. Dig. iii. 4, I : " Quibus autem permissum est corpus habere collegii societatisve sive cuiusque alterius eorum nomine, proprium est ad exemplum reipublicae habere res communes, arcam communem," etc. 100 Lightfoot, Clement, i. 35 foil. ; De Rossi, Rom. softer, i. 306, ii. 280 and 360 ; C. I. L. vi. 948, 8942, 16246. See also De Rossi, Bullet, di Archeol. cristian. 1865, pp. 17 foil., 33 foil., 41 foil., 84 foil. ; 1874, pp. 5 foil., 68 foil., 122 foil. ; 1875, pp. 5 foil., 46 foil. ; 1877, pp. 128 foil., etc. From De Rossi's investigation it seems that the " coemeterium Domitillae" is to be identified with the Catacombs of the Tor Marancia near the Ardeatine Way. A plot of ground was granted to P. Calvisius Philotas " ex indulgentia -Flaviae Domitillae." A tablet is put up to herself and her f reed-people by Tatia " nutrix septem liberorum Divi Vespasiani atque Flaviae Domitillae Vespasiani neptis " on land belonging to Flavia Domitilla. 101 See De Rossi, cited by Ramsay, p. 262. CHRISTIANITY IN ITS RELATION TO COLLEGIA I49 family burial-places limited to Christian members of the familia are also exemplifications of the same tendency."^ No doubt, one of the first uses which the Christians would make of their de facto recognition as collegia tenuiorum, would be the purchase of ground for burial- places. It is not material to our present subject to decide at what date this took place. We know that Pope Zephyrinus, at about 199 a.d., put Callistus over the cemetery at Rome, i.e. probably made him curator of it ;^^^ and Neumann ^'^^ has inferred partly from this that Pope Victor was the first to register the Christian communities at Rome as collegia funeraticia. His argument seems to me far from convincing. The general licence given to collegia of this kind in Rome dates back at least as far as to Hadrian's reign, and if we find the African Christians within a very few years of its extension to the provinces by Severus taking advantage of it, we may surely suppose with some reason that the Roman Christians had long since set the example of doing this. However this may be, the organization of the Christian communities as collegium tenuiorum or funeraticia, and their recognition as such by the state would only remove, as has already been shown, one particular ground on the score of which they might have been interfered with — an interference which, however fre- quent, could never have been described as religious persecution on the part of the state. It would, how- ever, give a certain protection and sanction perhaps to the Christian meetings, certainly to the Christian burial- places, which might probably remain unviolated and 102 De Rossi, Rom. softer, cristian. i. 109 : " M. Antonius Resti- tutus fecit ypogen sibi et suis fidentibus in Domino." Also Bullet, di Archeol. cristian. 1865, p. 54: " Monumentum Valeri Mercuri et lulittes luliani et Quintilies Verecundes libertis libertabusque posterisque eorum ad religionem pertinentes meam." 103 Hippolyt. Haer. ix. 12 : ^ue^' od (Victor) Koi/Mr](np Zetpvplvos TovTOv fierayayuy aub toO 'Avdeiov is to KOLixrjTrjpiov KaT^aTTjcrev. 104 p. 108. 150 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY secure to them in any but a general and systematic persecution. But when this has been said, all has been said : there was nothing in the partial recognition by the state which would in any way exempt or help to exempt the Christians from whatever measure of perse- cution they were subject to from the Roman government on more general grounds, as a^eoi, as rei maiestatis, or as hoies publica. X Two " Acta Martyrum " It was one of the causes of Pliny's hesitation in Bithynia that he had never been present at any of the " cogni- tiones de Chris tianis." Our knowledge of the Christian question suffers from the same cause. If we only had accounts of one or two Christian trials similar to those given by Tacitus of the cases of Piso ^ and Libo Drusus,^ or by Pliny of those of Marius Prisons ^ or Caecilius Classicus,* we should be in a position to form much clearer ideas of the relations between the Christians and the government. Still there are two documents which at least deserve to be mentioned in this connexion, and which, so far as they go, give some kind of confirmation to the views which have been expressed above. In all cases, civil and criminal, both at Rome and in the provinces, official protocols were made of the cases which came before the judicial magistrates. Instances of such protocols or " Acta " in civil cases are found in the ** Digest " in reference to a case tried before a pro- curator 5 and to a case in the emperor's court,^ while the general rule is stated in the Justinian code from an edict of 194 A.D. : 7 " Is ad quem res agitur acta publica tam criminalia quam civilia exhiberi inspicienda ad investigandam veritatis fidem iubebit." That this rule was extended to such trials as those of the Christians we ^ Tac. Ann. iii. 10-18. 2 Xac. Ann. ii. 27-33. 3 Plin. Ep. ii. II. * Plin. Ep. iii. 9. 5 Dig. xxvi. 8, 21. 6 j)ig^ xxviii. 4, 3. "^ Cod. Just. ii. 1,2. 152 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORV have positive evidence. Dionysius of Alexandria gives an account drawn from such official " Acta " of a Christian trial under Valerian before the praefectus Aegypti ; » and Cyprian's profession of faith was read by his disciples in the " Acta Proconsulis " : " Quid nos discipuli secuti apud praesidem dicere deberemus prior apud acta proconsulis pronuntiasti." » That the Christians, in cases where they had no opportunity of themselves taking notes at the trials of their martyrs, would gladly avail themselves of these official protocols, is what we should naturally expect ; and, as a matter of fact, many instances, according to Professor Ramsay, ^^ are recorded in which they purchased from the clerks {commentarienses) copies of the official shorthand reports of the proceedings. That there was a collection of such accounts before the time of Eusebius we know from several passages of his ** Ecclesiastical History." ^i In the course of time these authentic " Acta " developed or degenerated into the kind of legend with which such collections as that of Ruinart make us familiar. Miracu- lous incidents of all kinds were added, and in most cases almost every trace of the original account is lost, though Le Blant and Ramsay have shown that careful criticism may occasionally detect a substratum of authentic fact. In striking contrast to these miraculous legends are two documents to which attention has recently been called, and which, by the absence of miraculous features and of exaggeration generally, as well as by their consistency with what we know of the period, seem to be early, if not contemporary, records of Christian trials. Both of them relate to the reign of Commodus : one of them to the trial of the martyrs of Scili, in Numidia, under the proconsul Saturninus in i8i a.d., the other to the trial of ApoUonius in Rome between 180-184 a.d. 8 Euseb. H. E. vii. 11,5: avrCsv bk iiraKOvaare tQv utt' afKporipoty \€x&^vT(j)v u)s vTre/nvrjfxarla-dT]. ^ Cyprian, Ep. ]x^vu. 2, p. 834. 10 p. 330. 11 Euseb. H. E. iv. 15, 47 : rots tQv ^.pxaiwv ffwax6eipova XoyiafMov avaKoXiarjade. 154 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY no one whom we can fear save the Lord our God, who dwells in heaven." The holy Donata said : " We give honour to the emperor as the emperor, but fear we render to our God." The holy Hestia said : " I am a Christian." The holy Secunda added : " What I am, that will I also remain." Then said the proconsul to the holy Speratus : " Dost thou likewise continue a Christian ? " The holy Speratus said : " I am a Christian." Likewise also said all the other holy ones. The proconsul said : " Will ye not have a space for reflection ? " The holy Speratus said : " In a matter so approved le there is no dehberation and no reflection." The proconsul said : " What books have you in your satchel ? "^^ The holy Speratus said : " Our holy writings and the letters also of the holy man Paul." The proconsul said : "Ye shall have a space of thirty days, if so be ye may perchance come to reason." The holy Speratus answered thereto : " I am unchangeably is a Christian." The others also with one voice affirmed the same thing. Then the proconsul Saturninus pronounced judgment over them in the following way : ** Inasmuch as Speratus, Mart- zallus, Cittinus, Donata, Hestia and Secunda, as well as the others who have not appeared before us, have professed that they live according to the Christian mode of Hfe, and inasmuch as they remain obstinate in their resolution, notwithstanding that a space was allowed them in which to return to the Roman worship, we give orders that they be executed with the sword." ^^ There is no sign in this account of any departure from the principles of Trajan's rescript. If M. Aurelius in- augurated a severer course, Saturninus at any rate did not carry it out. He clearly had not hunted out the Christians who were brought before him ; he not only 16 iyKplrip. 17 TTolai irpayfiaTelai iv toIs vfxeT^pois dirdKeivTai (TKeveaiv. No doubt the question points to a suspicion of magic. 18 afJ-erddeTOi. 19 fj^ov "ZirepaTou K. t. X. 6i/ d/);^atwi/ fiapTvpioiv (rvvax6€i(Trj<: rjfjuv av ay parjhkv w5 direlv TrpdrrovTos 6 Uepivvios 7}vayKd^€T0 ovx Sti t4 arpaTiuTiKd. TWO " ACTA MARTYRUM " l6l what really happened. ApoUonius, a senator, was accused by an informer — perhaps, as Hieronymus states, by one of his own slaves — of being a Christian. An ordinary Christian would have been tried by the prae- fectus urbi, a senator naturally by the emperor. Corn- modus, however, delegated all such duties to Perennis, and accordingly before Perennis the accused was brought. The prefect, in these somewhat exceptional circum- stances, may naturally have desired to relieve himself of some of the responsibility of putting a senator to death, especially as at the beginning of his reign the emperor, perhaps, with a rather bad grace, made some show of deference to the senate's authority, ^^ and he accordingly not only allowed but ordered ApoUonius to make a statement to him in the presence of the senate, and induced the senate to pass a resolution that the ordinary course of procedure was to be observed in this case, viz, that pardon could only be secured by retractation, ^o Armed with this semi-ofhcial authority,^^ Perennis resumed the trial in his own court, and as ApoUonius persisted in his profession of Christianity and refused to worship the emperor, he was condemned to death, the only concession made to his senatorial rank being that he was beheaded instead of being exposed to wild beasts. ^^ For the rest it is sufficient to point out (i) 39 Schiller, Gesch. der rom. Kaiser z. i. 66t,. *o This seems the best explanation of the words /atjS' dcpeladai AXXojs roi>s aTra^ eh bt-Kaar-qpiov irapidvras kox iJ.7]8afj.ojs ttjs Trpodeaeus /xera^aXKofi^uovs dpX(^tov tto/d' avroTs vofxov KeKparriKOTos ; cf. Hieronym. ad loc. cit. : " veteri apud eos obtinente lege absque negatione non dimitti Christianos." 41 This seems to give exactly the force required by ihaav iirb hbyixaros avyKXrjTov. 42 Professor Harnack gives a different explanation. He sup- poses that the favourable attitude of Commodus towards the Christians under the influence of Marcia had already cc^imenced ; that it was with reluctance that the information of the slave was received ; that Perennis was expected by the emperor to bring the matter to a favourable termination ; that he sought to do this by inducing the senate to pass a resolution exempting ApoUonius from the consequences of his obstinacy, and that it was only because he failed in this that he passed sentence on the accused, to whom he showed his favourable attitude by a lighter l62 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY that ApoUonius was not sought out, but accused ; (2) that it was the mere profession of Christianity apart from any more specific charge which was laid against him, (3) that the worship of the emperor was, as in other cases, used as a test and sign of retractation ; (4) that Perennis, no less than the provincial governors, is anxious to induce this recantation, and so to avoid the necessity of capital punishment. sentence. This account leaves quite unexplained the position of the senate in the matter, and probably antedates by several years the more indulgent attitude of Commodus. XI Legions in the Pannonian Rising MoMMSEN, as is well known, holds the view ^ that after Actium Augustus in his desire to get rid of the huge armies of the Civil Wars, and to keep military expendi- ture within the narrowest possible limits, retained only eighteen legions. Of these twelve, numbered consecu- tively i-xii, were probably taken from his own army, the other six, two numbered 111,2 one iv,^ one v,* one VI 5 and one x,^ from the armies of Lepidus and Anto- nius : — an arrangement which by making xii the highest number on the list and completing the total by duplicate legions, might have been intended to convey the impres- sion that the number of legions retained was less by one- third than was actually the case. This number, eighteen, Mommsen thinks, was not exceeded by Augustus during by far the greater part of his principate, and was in fact only increased, when the rising of the Dalmatian and Pannonian tribes in 6 a.d. seemed for the moment to place Italy and even Rome within measurable distance of being overrun by barbarian armies.'' At this crisis 1 Res gestae divi August! 2nd ed. pp. 70-76. 2 III Augusta : iii Cyrenaica : in Gallica. 3 IV Macedonica : iv Scythica. * V Alauda : v Macedonica. ^ VI Victrix : vi Ferrata. 6 X Gemina : x Fretensis. 7 Momms. loc. cit. p. 72 " Itaque quam supra proposui coniec- turam octo legiones a xiii ad xx creatas esse eo ipso anno 759 propter bellum Pannonicum egregie cum iis conciliatur, quae de rebus per eos annos gestis, dilectibusque institutis tradita accepimus." 163 164 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY Augustus, if Mommsen's view is correct, suddenly rushed to the other extreme, and regardless of his former policy of keeping down the army, enrolled not only numerous corps of freedmen called cohortes voluntariorum, but no less than eight new legions, numbered xiii-xx, thus at once increasing the legionary forces of the empire by very nearly one half. I think it must be admitted that so sudden and so decided a change of policy, involving the addition of at least 40,000 men to the legionary army, can only be accepted on strong and definite evidence. In itself the simultaneous creation of eight new legions seems highly improbable. Certainly on no other occasion in the imperial history did anything similar take place : and the improbability appears by no means less, when this precipitate action is contrasted with the excessive desire which Augustus had hitherto, according to Mommsen, manifested of making his army appear a small one : — a desire which led to the apparently shallow device of manipulating the legionary numbers in the way already mentioned. No doubt the crisis was a severe one : Velleius Paterculus might perhaps be suspected of exaggerating its severity in order to magnify the glory of his hero Tiberius : but we have no reason to doubt his state- ment ® that the rebel army amounted to 200,000 infantry and 9,000 cavalry, while Suetonius ^ does not hesitate to describe the war as ** gravissimum omnium externorum bellorum post Punica." Further than this it seems extremely probable from the statements of Velleius and Dio Cassius that Augustus did on this occasion raise some new legions. Velleius ^^ says " Quin tantus etiam huius belli metus fuit, ut stabilem ilium et firmatum tantorum bellorum experientia Caesaris Augusti animum quateret atque terreret. Habiti itaque dilectus : revocati undique et omnes veterani : viri feminaeque ex censu libertinum coactae dare militem." Dio Cassius ^ says Trc/ATrct toi/ TepixavLKov KaiVot rafjuevovTo. 8 VeU. ii. no. » Suet. Tib. 16, 10 ii. iio-iii. 11 Iv. 31. LEGIONS IN THE PANNONIAN RISING 165 (TTpartwrag oi ovk €vy€V€L<; /xovov dWa kol i^eXevOepov^ Bovs, aXXovs T€ /cat ocrovs irapd re rwv dvhpC)v koL irapa. tQ)v yvvaLKwv 8ovXov Veil. Paterc. c. ii. 112. *i Egypt had at first had three legions, but two were sent against the lUyriari insurgents, and were afterwards replaced by the new legion xxii Deiotariana, Mommsen, Gesch. vol. v. p. 592, and Res GestcB div. Aug. p. yi. *2 Viz., a denarius per diem instead of 10 asses. *3 Tac. Ann. i. 31. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 189 by the younger Drusus, in Germany by Germanicus, who gave his legions the opportunity of retrieving their character by a series of campaigns beyond the Rhine, In this region, however, the defeat of Varus had pro- duced an important change of poHcy. All thoughts of extending the frontier to the Elbe seem to have been given up, and though posts were still held on the right bank of the Rhine, and though Germanicus was allowed to lead his lately mutinous legions again and again into the heart of Germany, Tiberius was not to be led away by the enthusiasm of the younger general into any permanent deviation from the decision of Augustus, and from the year 17 a.d., when Germanicus was re- called, the Rhine remained practically the frontier for nearly seventy years. Eight legions were, however, still retained as the normal military force, from this time definitely divided into two armies, and placed under the legates respectively of Upper and Lower Germany. Legions i and xx were stationed at Bonna,^* v and XXI at Vetera, 11 and xvi at Mogontiacum, and XIII and XIV probably at Argentoratum and Vindonissa. Tiberius rigidly adhered to the maxim of Augustus not to extend the boundaries of the empire, and accord- ingly in his reign the movements of the legions were few and unimportant. In 28 a.d. some hostile move- ments of the Frisii on the sea coast east of the Rhine for a time necessitated the presence of both German armies on the spot, though in what numbers we are not able to say, as it was the custom in such cases to send only vexillationes *^ from the more distant legions. Some years earlier the rising of the Numidian Tacfarinas had necessitated the reinforcement of the legio iii Augusta by the ix Hispana from Pannonia, which i*emained in Africa from 20 a.d. till 24 a.d.*^ In the ** Tac. Ann. i. 16. *5 A vexillatio was a detachment of a legion sent on some campaign at a distance from the headquarters of the legion. Thus, e.g., we learn that vexillationes of the German legions at one time served in Britain (Henzen, 5456). *^ Tac. Ann. iii. 9. iv. 23. 190 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY east, Cappadocia was organised as a province by Ger- manicus in 17 a.d. and the Roman frontier pushed to the Upper Euphrates, but Roman legions were not yet permanently posted in this region. Towards the end of the reign, the death of Artaxias of Armenia and the ambition of the Parthian king Artabanos necessitated a forward movement of the Syrian legions under L. Vitellius, which ended before the old emperor's death in the submission of Artabanos, and the recognition of the Roman candidate Mithridates as king of Armenia. *7 The position of the legions under Tiberius then was as follows : — *» Lower Germany : i Germanica, v Alauda, xx Valeria Victrix, XXI Rapax. Upper Germany : 11 Augusta, xiii xiv Gemina, xvi Gallica. Pannonia : viii Augusta, ix Hispana,*» xv Apollinaris. Dalmaiia : vii and xi (afterwards Claudia). Moesia : iv Scythica, v Macedonica. Spain : iv Macedonica, vi Victrix, x Gemina. Syria : iv Gallica, vi Ferrata, x Fretensis, xii Fulminata. Africa : iii Augusta. Egypt : III Cyrenaica, xxii Deiotariana. Under Claudius more extensive changes were made. In 41 A.D. the Lower German legions were again called upon, this time to check the incursions of the Chauci, a fisher-folk between the Ems and the Weser. Soon after L. Domitius Corbulo was appointed to the com- mand, and would probably have soon extended the Roman frontier to the latter river, had not strict orders come from Rome to withdraw all legions to the Rhine, and to leave the region on the right bank to the pro- tection of the Frisii and Chauci themselves. The cause of this backward policy was the recent acquisition of a new province, and the consequent need of, as far as possible, limiting the army in other quarters. *7 Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. vol. v. cap. ix., points out how the anomalous position of Armenia was the constant cause of disputes between the Romans and the Parthians. *8 Tac. Ann. iv. 5. *» Except for four years from 20-24 a.d. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS I9I The conquest of Britain, attempted by Julius and more than once meditated by Augustus, was hardly an exception to the defensive policy of the latter. In- habited by kindred tribes and dominated by Druidic influences, independent Britain was a constant source of danger to romanised Gaul. Accordingly, in 43 a. d., Aulus Plautius was sent over to conquer the country. Four legions accompanied him, the ix Hispana ^o from Pannonia, the xx Valeria Victrix ^i from Lower Ger- many, and the 11 Augusta °^ and xiv Gemina^^ from Upper Germany. Pannonia, where the frontier was at this time quiet, was left with two legions only. To replace the three taken from Germany the iv Macedonica was moved from Spain to Upper Germany, ^ 3 whilst by the enlargement and division of two already existing legions two new ones were created, the xv Primigenia for Lower Germany and the xxii Primigenia ^* for Upper Germany. The Upper German legions had on two occasions in this reign to repel incursions of the Chatti, which was henceforward the dominant German tribe in this quarter ; first in 41 under the future emperor Galba, and then in 50 a.d. under P. Pomponius Secun- dus.^^ In Dalmatia a conspiracy made against the emperor by the legate Furius Camillus Scribonianus occasioned the bestowal of the cognomen " Claudia " on the two legions vii and xi, which after a momentary vacillation finally preserved their faith to Claudius. ^s In the east a desultory warfare was maintained against Parthia concerning Armenia, though not till the close of the reign did the war assume such proportions as to call for any fresh distribution of troops or for any extraordinary command. In the year 54, however, "o Tac. Ann. xiv. 32. si Xac. Ann. xiv. 34. 52 Tac. Hist. iii. 44. 63 Orelli, 1549. Wilmann, 1429. 5* Primigenia was a cognomen given to that part of the original legion which retained the old eagle, while the other portion retained the original cognomen ; e.g., Deiotariana and ApoUinaris. See Grotefend, in Pauly's Real-Encyclopddie, vol. iv. 895. 55 Tac. Ann. xii. 27. se Dio Cassius, Iv. 23. 192 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY news arrived in Rome that Vologeses had made his brother Tiridates king of Armenia, and Corbulo was immediately sent out by Nero's ministers, Burrus and Seneca, to be governor of Cappadocia. At this time there were still four legions in Syria, vi Ferrata, stationed at Raphanaea, x Fretensis at Cirrhus,^^ xii Fulminata at Antioch, and in Gallica at Samosata on the Euphrates. But the Syrian legions were not to the same extent as those on the Danube and Rhine massed together in permanent camps ; they were needed for police duties in the large and restless cities of Syria, and were accord- ingly more dispersed among the towns and less used to the discipline and training of camp life. Of those legions Ummidius Quadratus, legate of Syria, retained X Ferrata and xii Fulminata, while to Corbulo were assigned in Cappadocia vi Ferrata, ^^ m Gallica, and a vextllatio of the x.^^ Corbulo, however, found his legions demoralised by their long inactivity ; delay was necessary in which to recruit and train them, while an efficient legion from Germany was sent over at his request. «o This was in all probability the iv Scythica, which in 33 was in Moesia,^! but which Claudius may probably have moved temporarily into Upper Germany against the Chatti.«2 With these three legions Corbulo in 58 took the offensive, and in two campaigns took Artaxata and Tigranocerta and subdued the whole of Armenia, leaving a garrison of 1,000 legionaries to sup- port the new king Tigranes. Meanwhile, by the death of Quadratus, he became legate both of Cappadocia and Syria, and as Vologeses was still threatening invasion he sent two legions, probably iv and xii, to Armenia, while he himself with the rest advanced to Zeugma on the Euphrates. Soon after Caesennius Paetus, the new legate of Cappadocia, arrived and took the command ^7 Tac. Ann. ii. 57. 58 ii)id, xiii. 38. ''^ Ann. xiii. 40 : ,Mediis decimanorum delectis. 80 Ann. xiii. 35 : Adjectaque ex Germania legio. 61 C.I.L. iii. 1698. ^2 This is the view taken by Mommsen, Res. Gestcs div. Aug. p. 68. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS I93 of the two legions already in Armenia ^^ and of the v Macedonica, which was now sent from Moesia.^* Paetus, without waiting for this latter legion, which was still in Pontus,^^ and regardless of the undisciplined con- dition of XII Fulminata, which had seen no service with Corbulo, advanced rapidly into Armenia and was soon shut up in Rhandeia. Corbulo, in answer to a request for help, sent 1,000 from each of his three legions, but was perhaps not as expeditious as he might have been to help a rival commander. However, Paetus with his two legions capitulated, and the senate, disowning the conditions made by him, Corbulo was once more in command of all the forces in the east, which were now strengthened by another legion, xv Apollinaris, from Pannonia.66 Sending back the two disgraced legions, xii and iv, into Syria,^? he led the vi and in, V and XV, to Melitene on the Upper Euphrates to meet Vologeses. He, however, at the last moment consented to let Tiridates do homage to Rome for the Armenian throne, and the war ended (63 a.d.) without any essen- tial change in the relations between Rome and Parthia. Meanwhile the place of iv Scythica in Moesia, which had been sent to Corbulo in 54, was supplied by the vii Claudia ^^ from Dalmatia, which being no longer a frontier province could well spare one of its two legions.^^ When, later on, the v Macedonica was also sent from Moesia to Paetus in Cappadocia, the viii Augusta ^^ was transferred from Pannonia to this province, whilst the other Pannonian legion, xv Apollinaris, was, as we have seen, sent just before the peace to Corbulo. To garrison Pannonia, Nero probably moved xiii Gemina from Upper Germany to Poetovio in that province,'^ whilst ^3 Tac. Ann. xv. 6. ^^ Ibid. ^^ Ann. xv. 10. 66 Ann. XV. 26. 67 j^id. 68 Tac. Hist. i. 79, where Titius Julianus, the legate of this legion, was adorned with the consular ornaments for victories over the Roxolani. 69 Josephus, Bell. Jud. 11, xvi. 4. 70 Id. Its legate Minucius Rufus was similarly adorned. 71 It was certainly in Pannonia by the end of this reign. Tac. Hist, ii, II, IQ4 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY the XI Claudia, though probably not moved from Dal- matia/" was ready at hand in case of emergency. At the end of the Parthian war, therefore, the legions were thus distributed : — Lower Germany : i Germanica, v Alauda, xv Primigenia, xxi Rapax. Upper Germany : iv Macedonica, xvi Gallica, xxii Primigenia. Pannonia : xiii Gemina. Dalmatia : xi Claudia. Moesia : vii Claudia, viii Augusta. Syria : iv Scythica, iii Gallica, vi Ferrata, x Fretensis, xii Fulminata, v Macedonica, xv Apollinaris. Britain. : ii Augusta, xx Valeria Victrix, ix Hispana, xiv Gemina. Spain : vi Victrix, x Gemina. Africa : in Augusta. Egypt : III Cyrenaica, xxii Deiotariana. Meanwhile the legions in Britain had had some hard fighting in the year 6i. The east and south were now tolerably secure, and Suetonius Paulinus was pressing forward against the Silures in the west. The winter quarters of the ii Augusta were at Isca Silurum(Caerleon), those of XIV Gemina at Viroconium,^^ those of xx Valeria Victrix at Deva (Chester), the main strength of the army thus lying face to face with the Welsh tribes, while the east was thought to be sufficiently garrisoned by the ix Hispana at Lindum, Camulodunum being held by the veterans whom Claudius had settled there. But in the year 6i, while Suetonius was absent in the west, Boudicca at the head of her own people the Iceni raised a revolt, the Brigantes were induced to join, and soon all the east was in arms. Petilius Cerealis with the IX legion was completely defeated,^* the veterans at Camulodunum cut to pieces, and Verulamium and '2 Tac. Hist. ii. ii, proves that there was still a legion in Dalmatia in 69 a.d. 73 Hiibner {Das' romische Heer in Britannien) argues that the XIV was stationed at Camulodunum. I however follow Mommsen on the strength ( i ) of C. /. L. vii. 1 54 and 1 5 5, (2) of the strategical necessities of the case. 7* Tac. Ann. xiv. 32. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 195 Londinium sacked. Suetonius did his best to remedy the results of his own security, but was only able to muster the xiv legion and some vexillarii of the xx. With these he hastily marched against the enemy, and, mainly owing to the bravery of the xiv legion, he defeated them. It was necessary, however, to send vexillarii from the German legions, '^^ and it was some time before confidence was restored. During all the reign of Nero, but especially towards its close, Moesia was exposed to continual incursions from the Roxolani, Sarmatae, and Dacians north of the Danube. An interesting inscription dating from this reign '^ gives a good idea of what was going on. We learn from it that Plautius iElianus transferred more than one hundred thousand of the trans-Danubian population to the right bank, put down a rising of the Sarmatae, took hostages from the Bastarnae, Roxolani, and Dacians, thus confirming and extending the peace of the province, and this too quamvis partem magnam exercitus ad expeditionem in Armeniam jnisissetJ'' It was, however, found necessary in addition to the two legions vii Claudia and viii Augusta, which we have seen transferred to Moesia, to send iii Gallica as well from Syria 's as soon as it could be spared. In that province the iv Scythica seems to have taken the place of the III Gallica as one of the regular legions,'^ while the other two western legions v Macedonica and xv ApoUinaris were about to be sent back when the long unsettled condition of Judaea at last in 66 a.d. led to an outbreak of fanaticism in Jerusalem. C. Sestius Gallus, the legate of Syria, marched at once into Judaea with XII Fulminata and vexillarii of iv Scythica and vi Ferrata. He was, however, forced to make a disgraceful retreat, and Titus Flavins Vespasianus was appointed 73 Ann. xiv. 32 and 38. ''^ Wilmann, 1145. 77 Viz. legions iv Scythica and v Macedonica. See supra. 78 Tac. Hist. i. 79, and ii. 74. The exact date is not known, but probably before the Jewish war broke out in 66, as the legion is not mentioned in Josephus's account of the campaign. 79 Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. vol. v. p. 533 note. 196 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY the first imperial legate for Judaea. While Mucianus, the new legate of Syria, retained the three Syrian legions vi, iv, and xii, Vespasian at once led forward the XV Apollinaris, while Titus brought up from Alexan- dreia on the gulf of Issus v Macedonica and x Freten- sis,®° of which at that time the elder Trajan was legate. With these three legions Vespasian in 67 captured successively Jatopata, Jappha, Tiberias, Tarichaea, and Gamala. During the winter following the x legion lay at Scythopolis, and the other two at Caesarea.®^ During the next year Jerusalem was gradually hemmed in, and Vespasian would have commenced the siege in 69 but for the events which were meanwhile happening in Italy. Towards the close of his reign Nero had conceived vast designs of oriental conquest. A grand expedition was to have been made against the Alani ®^'' on the Caspian and another against the ^Ethiopians. For the latter vexillarii of the German legions were already sent to Alexandria to co-operate with the two legions already there, ®^ while for the former he had selected XIV Gemina from Britain on account of the prestige it had won against Boudicca,®^ and vexillarii were also taken from Germany and Illyricum,®* though they were soon recalled to put down the rising of Vindex. Appar- ently also the x Gemina was removed at this time from Spain probably for the same purpose, as we find that Galba in 69 had only one ilegion there,®^ though it was again in Spain by the next year.8« The xiv legion had only got as far as Dalmatia when the death of Nero put an end to all thought of the expedition. One fresh legion was created by Nero, though in what year 80 Josephus, Bell. Jud. in. i. 3, iv. ii. Mommsen, loc. cit., points out that Alexandria in Egypt cannot be the place meant. 81 Josephus, IV. ii. i. 8ia See Hist. i. 6 where Mommsen has shown that Alanos, not Albanos, must be the right reading. {Rom. Gesch. v. 394.) 82 Tac. Hist. i. 31, 70. ^^ Tac. Hist. ii. 11 and 66. 8* Hist. i. 6. 85 Suet. Galha, 10. 8« Hist. ii. 58. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS I97 is uncertain. This was called the i Italica,87 and it was probably sent to Upper Germany in the place of the XIII Gemina which, as we have seen, was sent to Pan- nonia. At the time of Nero's death, probably in conse- quence of the rising of Vindex, it was encamped at Lugdunum.88 At the end of Nero's reign, therefore, the legions were as follows : — Lower Germany : i Germanica, v Alauda, xv Primigenia, XVI Gallica.89 Upper Germany : iv Macedonica, xxi Rapax, xxii Primigenia. Lugdunum : i Italica. Pannonia : xiii Gemina and possibly x Gemina. Dalmatia : xi Claudia, and temporarily xiv Gemina Martia Victrix.9o Moesia : vii Claudia, viii Augusta, in Gallica. Britain : xx Valeria Victrix, ix Hispana, 11 Augusta. Spain : vi Victrix. Syria : iv Scythica, vi Ferrata, xii Fulminata. Judaea : x Fretensis, v Macedonica, xv Apollinaris. Africa : in Augusta. Egypt : III Cyrenaica, xxii Deiotariana. Nero's reign had thus involved hard fighting in Syria, Britain, Moesia, and Judaea, but the successful generals were treated with ingratitude or worse. Pauli- nus was recalled, Plautius Silvanus was neglected, Corbulo was ordered to end his own life, and it was there- fore no wonder that the legions were discontented and restless. The first spark was lighted in Gaul, when Vindex, governor of Lugdunensis, roused the Sequani, Aedui, Arverni, and other tribes to revolt, and sum- moned to his cause the governors of Germany and Spain. Galba, then governor of Tarraconensis, was proclaimed imperator by the vi legion, but Verginius, governor of Upper Germany, led his legions towards Lugdunum which still remained faithful to Nero. By him Vindex was put down, but though Verginius refused the solicitations of his legions who wished to proclaim 87 Dio Cassius, Iv. 24. ss Hist. i. 59. 89 At some time before this xxi and xvi had changed places, as we find from Tac. Hist. iv. 70, that xxi was now in Upper Germany. 90 The cognomina were probably added after the war in Britain. 198 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY him emperor, he acquiesced in the decision of the senate which acknowledged Galba. Galba lost little time in marching to Italy, probably recalling to Spain the x from Pannonia, and taking with him to Italy ®^ a new legion, which he levied in Spain, the vii Galbiana,®^ afterwards called Gemina, which, however, was at once sent to Pannonia, where, as we have seen, there had latterly been only been one regular legion. On his arrival in Italy he found a vernacula legio which Nero in the despair of his last days had created from the marines of the fieet.^^ Their request that Galba would confirm the creation and grant an eagle was refused at the time,^* but we learn from two diplomata militaria ^^ that a few days before his death he granted the civitas to those in the legion who had served twenty campaigns,o« and so no doubt confirmed its legionary character.»7 It was called the i Adjutrix and served on Otho's side in the campaigns against Vitellius. Meanwhile the legions of Upper Germany, disap- pointed of their wish to make Verginius emperor and displeased at his recall, showed symptoms of discon- tent, especially the iv Macedonica and xxii Primigenia. Hordeonius Flaccus, a feeble man and an invalid, had been appointed to the post of Verginius, while A. Vitel- lius was sent to the lower province and immediately began to make himself popular with the legions by various indulgences, ^s in which he was especially helped by Valens, the legate of one of his legions. On January I, when the oath to Galba should have been renewed, the I Germanica and v Alauda threw stones at his statues,89 while the xv Primigenia and xvi Gallica 81 Tac. Hist. i. 6. 82 Hist. ii. II, iii. 25, and Dio Cass. Iv. 24. It was probably- called Gemina, because the remains of i Germanica were drafted into it. 93 Suet. Galba, 12. Tac. Hist. i. 41. 9* Tac. Hist. i. 36, ii. 23, 24, 48. »« C. I. L. iii. pp. 847-8. »8 The only legions mentioned in diplomata militaria are the two Adjutrices, which consisted originally of peregrini. Other- wise they refer only to the auxiliary troops. »7 Dio Cass. Iv. 24.! ^ es Tac. Hist. i. 52. »» Ibid. i. 55. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS I99 were also mutinous and threatening. On the same day in the other army the iv and xxii threw down Galba's statues and took the oath to the senate and Roman people only. When this news was conveyed to Vitel- lius, he gave his troops the choice of marching against the disaffected legions or choosing another imperator. The hint was taken, and Valens, legate of the i legion, proclaimed Vitellius at Cologne. The other legions followed, first in the Lower province, then in the Upper. By a prudent release of Civilis, a leading man among the Batavians, Vitellius gained to his side eight cohorts of Batavian auxiliaries formerly attached to the xiv legion, while Junius Blaesus, the successor of Vindex as governor of Lugdunensis, also joined his cause, with the legion lying there, i Italica. ^oo More important still was the accession of the British legions, which might have made a dangerous diversion in his rear. Though not coming over from their province in force, they contributed vexillarii to the army of Vitellius. He determined on a double march to Italy. Caecina with XXI Rapax and vexillarii from the other three legions of Upper Germany was to proceed by the Pen- nine Alps, while Valens with v Alauda and chosen bodies from the other legions was to go by way of Gaul and the Cottian Alps. Meanwhile in Rome, Otho, disappointed by the adoption of Piso, had won the affection of the troops in the city, and on January 18 Galba was murdered. Otho was proclaimed emperor by the praetorian guard, and in March set forward with what troops he had to meet the German armies. There were at Rome at this time a number of legionary troops ; vexillarii chiefly from the armies of Britain, Germany, and Illyricum,ioi whilst the i Adjutrix, organised by Galba, was also at hand. By these and the praetorian cohorts, and 7,000 gladiators Otho was accompanied, whilst 8,000 troops were sent forward from the four legions of Dalmatia and Pannonia, vii, xi, xiii and xiv.^^^ Vitellius him- 100 Tac. Hist. i. 59. "i Id. i. 31. 102 id, ii. n, 24. 200 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY self remained for the present in Germany, and Valens and Caecina, after committing many excesses and cruelties on their march, formed a junction in Italy and confronted Otho's forces.***^ These were commanded by the veteran general Suetonius Paulinus and Marius Celsus, who advised that a battle should be delayed till the Illyrian and Moesian legions, which had acknow- ledged Otho,^°* should come up. Otho was too impa- tient to follow this advice,^*'^ and the battle of Bedriacum, fought about the middle of April, was the result. Among the incidents of the battle we find that xxi Rapax and I Adjutrix were opposed to one another, and that the former, after at first losing its eagle, finally repulsed the latter, io« whilst the vexillarii of the xiii and xiv were surrounded and driven back by an attack of the v Alauda.io''* Vitellius himself meanwhile was recruiting the legions left behind in Germany. With more German soldiers and 8,000 vexillarii from the British legions, ^^^ he fol- lowed his lieutenants into Italy, learning of the success at Bedriacum on his way. Spain had declared for him, and the x legion was ordered by Cluvius Rufus the governor to beat off a threatened attack from the Othonian governor of Mauretania. io« For the con- quered legions Vitellius showed little consideration. Many centurions were killed, ^^^ the legions were scattered throughout Italy or mixed with the conquerors, while the XIV, whose threatening attitude was, most con- spicuous, w£LS sent back to Britain in company with the Batavian cohorts, to keep them in check. This nearly led to a battle between them, and ultimately the legion returned to Britain alone.^^ i Adjutrix was sent to Spain, m and the xi and vii sent back to their winter quarters in Dalmatia and Pannonia, while xiii Gemina 103 Tac. Hist. ii. 31. 10* Id. i. 76. io5 Id. ii. 32. io« Id. ii. 43. 106a For a fuller account of these movements, see my Intro- duction to Plutarch's Galba and Otho. 107 Id. ii. 57. 108 Tac. Hist. ii. 58. los Id. ii. 60. no Id. ii. 66. Ill Id. ii. 67, ill. 44. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 201 was ordered to prepare amphitheatres at Cremona and Bononia for a gladiatorial display.^" In the east, as we have seen, Vespasian with his three victorious legions, x, v, xv, was just about to besiege Jerusalem when the news arrived of the events in Italy. At first the armies of Judaea and Syria acknowledged Galba, and then Otho,"^ but on the arrival of Titus on the scene a change took place. Whatever jealousy existed before between Mucianus and Vespasian was removed by his skill. The oriental legions now began to reflect on their own strength and to compare them- selves with the German legions who had taken on them- selves to appoint an emperor. On the death of Otho the oath to Vitellius, though taken, was taken in silence, and they were evidently ready, if the word were given, to repudiate it. The example was given from Egypt, where Tiberius Alexander the prefect administered to his two legions the oath of fidelity to Vespasian. This was in July, and a day or two afterwards the legions of Syria and Judaea did the same, impelled to it partly by the rumours spread by Mucianus that the oriental legions were to be sent by Vitellius to Germany and the German legions to the east.^i* Vespasian had thus two legions in Egypt, three in Judaea, and four in Syria ; the Illyrian legions, whose vexillarii had been conquered at Bedria- cum, were certain to support him, and of the Moesian legions iii Gallica, which had formerly been in Syria, was looked on as secure, while the other two would probably take the same side.i^s It was resolved that a part only of the eastern legions should be sent against Vitellius, as the Illyrian and Moesian legions were not without reason counted upon for help. Accordingly, Mucianus started with vi Ferrata and 13,000 vexillarii from the other legions."^ The Illyrian legions, however, did not wait for his arrival. The iii Gallica set the example to the other two Moesian legions, i^^ and all three advanced to 112 Tac. Hist. ii. 67. \ "3 Id. ii. 6. n* Id. u. 80. 116 Id. 74. 116 Id. 83. 117 Id. 85. 202 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY Aquileia, at the same time inviting the Pannonian legions, vii Gemina and xiii Gemina, to join them. These at once proclaimed Vespasian under the influence of Antonius Primus, legate of the vii, a man of dis- reputable antecedents but great energy."^ The Dalma- tian legion, XI Claudia, followed more slowly the example of the rest. At the same time Antonius wrote letters to the XIV legion in Britain and the i Adjutrix in Spain, which had both stood for Otho against Vitellius. Vitel- lius, now in Rome, after vainly demanding fresh vexil- larii from Britain and Germany, at last determined to send forward Valens and Caecina^® with the now demoralised German legions. Caecina marched first with V Alauda,^^^ xxii Primigenia, xxi Rapax, and i Italica, and vexillarii of the other four legions, while Valens, after in vain trying to retain his part of the army, remained behind ill. Meanwhile, on the other side a council of war was held at Poetovio, the winter quarters of the xiii legion, and, in spite of what seemed more prudent plans, the advice of Antonius Primus for an immediate advance was adopted ; while in order to protect Moesia from the barbarian tribes the chiefs of the Sarmatae were entrusted with its defence. Aquileia was seized, then Altinum and Patavium, to which latter place the vii Gemina and xiii Gemina were pushed forward, in spite of emphatic orders from Mucianus that no advance should be made beyond Aquileia.^^^ Caecina with his legions was posted near Verona, and by a prompt attack might have overpowered these two Flavian legions. He was, however, meditating treachery towards his chief, and remained inactive. Soon the two Pannonian legions were reinforced by HI Gallica and viii Augusta,^^^ and Verona was sur- rounded. The German legions discovering Caecina's treachery put him in chains and advanced to Cremona, where xxi Rapax and i Italica already formed an ad- vance guard. 123 Antonius, wishing to strike a decisive 118 Tac. Hist. ii. 86. us Id. ii. 99. 120 id, ii. 100. 121 Id. iii. 8. 122 Id. iii. 10. 123 Id. iii. 14. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 203 blow while the Vitellian army was still without a general, advanced with his army to Bedriacum. A cavalry skirmish between that place and Cremona ended in two German legions, xxi and i, being repulsed, and the whole Flavian army advancing to Cremona. A night battle foUowed.^^* Antonius had five legions, two from Pannonia, three from Moesia. On the Vitellian side all the eight German legions were engaged and vexillarii from the three legions of Britain. The battle was confused and obstinate, the vii Gemina losing no less than six of its chief centurions. Victory, how- ever, remained with Antonius. After the rout of Cremona, the conquered legions were dispersed through Illyricum, and the victorious army continued its advance towards Rome, strengthened by the xi Claudia, which had so far kept aloof.^^^ The news of the victory at once brought over to the victorious party Spain with its three legions, x Gemina, vi Victrix, and i Adjutrix,^^^ and Britain, where Vespasian was remembered as having once been the legate of ii Augusta. In Moesia, however, the Dacians took the opportunity of passing the Danube, and would have destroyed the legionary camps had not Mucianus appeared on the scene with vi Ferrata, which he was leading, as we have seen, to Italy .^^^ At Rome Vitellius for the moment roused himself and advanced against the enemy, but returned to the city without attempting to strike a blow. Antonius, joined now by Petilius Cerealis, hastened forward eager to anticipate Mucianus, and Rome was forcibly entered, the praetorian camp stormed, and Vitellius murdered. On the subsequent arrival of Mucianus at Rome, serious events in Germany at once claimed his attention ; but his first act was to weaken the influence of Antonius by sending back his former legion VII Gemina to Pannonia and in Gallica from its temporary winter- quarters at Capua to Syria.^^® Before long more serious considerations involved 124 Tac. Hist. iii. 22-25. ^^^ Id. iii. 50. 126 Id. iii. iii. 44. 127 Id. 46. 128 Id. iv. 39. a04 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY greater changes. At the mouth of the Rhine the Batavi had never been made a regular part of the empire, though they had had to furnish auxiharies. Eight cohorts of the Batav ian forces had been attached to the XIV legion in Britain, and had been among the forces present at the first battle of Bedriacum on the side of the Vitellians. They had not, however, heartily joined the German legions, and it was only from motives of prudence that Vitelhus had freed Civilis, one of their chief men, from imprisonment on a charge of treason."® The tribe remained disaffected after his release, and Antonius before his invasion of Italy took advantage of this and wrote instructions to Civilis by an appear- ance of revolt to detain the German legions in their province. With this aim Hordeonius Flaccus, now commanding in both provinces, was in secret agree- ment.^^'' Accordingly the levy ordered by Vitellius was refused by the Batavians, who persuaded the Caninefates to take up a similar attitude, and at the same time Civilis sent a message to stop the Batavian cohorts who were at Mogontiacum under orders to proceed to Rome.^^^ Meanwhile an attack was made on the winter-quarters of the Roman auxiliaries stationed on the Lower Rhine. At so decisive a step Hordeonius was alarmed, and sent two legions, v Alauda and xv Primigenia, against Civilis. They, however, reduced in numbers and largely composed of recruits, were obliged to retreat to their winter-quarters at Vetera."^ Hordeonius himself was at Mogontiacum with the two legions of Upper Germany ,^^^ and when the Batavian cohorts obeyed the summons of Civilis, making no attempt to stop them himself, he ordered i Germanica stationed at Bonna to do so. The legion, however, unsupported by Hordeonius, was repulsed, and the cohorts joined their countrymen. Thus reinforced Civilis advanced to besiege Vetera, a large camp intended 129 Tac. Hist. i. 59. "o Id. iv. 13. lai Id. 15. "a Id. 18. 133 The other two (xxi and i Italica) had marched entire with Caecina. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 205 for two full legions but now guarded only by 5,000 men. 13* To relieve the place Hordeonius sent forward Didius Vocula, legate of the xxii Primigenia, with that legion and the iv Macedonica. The soldiers, suspecting their leaders of collusion with Civilis, after threats of mutiny proceeded as far as Bonna, where, joining the I legion, still smarting under its recent repulse, they broke out into open violence .^^^ Obedience was for the time restored and an advance made to Cologne, where Hordeonius resigned his command to Vocula. Novaesium was next reached, where the xvi Gallica was stationed, and once more the demoralised troops broke out into mutiny, and Herennius Gallus, the legate of the legion, was killed.^^^ It was not, how- ever, only the legionaries with their dogged fidelity to Vitellius who were to blame. Vocula, instead of advanc- ing at once with his four legions to the relief of Vetera, remained stationary at Gelduba, and while he thus gave ground for suspicion to his jealous troops, he allowed Civilis to send attacking parties against the Ubii, the Treveri, and even as far as Mogontiacum itself. At this point news arrived of the Vitellian defeat at Cremona, and the legions sulkily took the oath to Vespasian. Civilis, however, who had hitherto nominally fought for Vespasian, now threw away the mask, and still refused to disarm. An attack on Gelduba was victoriously repulsed by Vocula,^^^ who even then, however, neglected the chance of relieving Vetera, and when he did advance there, he contented himself with strengthening its defences while he took 1,000 men from the two besieged legions and added them to his own army."^ Then, finding his men more and more mutinous, he retreated again to Novaesium, upon which Vetera was finally cut off and surrounded. Not unnaturally after this specimen of generalship another mutiny followed. Hordeonius was murdered, and it was only after a 13* Tac. Hist. iv. 22. 135 jd. iv. 25. i36 jd. 27. 137 Id, iv. 32. 138 /^. 35. 206 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY temporary separation of the lower and upper legions that the two of Upper Germany, xxii and iv and I Germanica of the lower army, followed Vocula back to Mogontiacum.139 A fresh danger now threatened the Roman cause. The news successively arriving of the destruction of the Capitoline temple, the death of Vitellius, the invasion of Moesia by the Dacians, and of native risings in Britain, induced the Gallic cantons to think of throwing off the Roman yoke. Under the lead of Classicus and Tutor, the auxiliaries of the Treveri and Lingones suddenly deserted Vocula, who, suspecting nothing, had once more advanced to Cologne, and joined their cause to that of Civilis. Again Vocula withdrew to Novaesium ; but the legions, since Vitellius was dead, preferred even a foreign empire to Vespasian,"^ and by a final mutiny, Roman soldiers as they were, they took the oath of fidelity to the so-called Gallic empire, Vocula paying the penalty for his vacillation with his life. The v and XV legions in Vetera, now deprived of all hope, capitulated and took the same oath ; but their com- pliance did not save their lives, and they were annihilated with fire and sword.^*^ Of the other four legions two, XVI and i, were sent to garrison the city of the Treveri,"^ while the other two, iv and xxii, were probably kept by Civilis in Lower Germany. At this point, however, the tide began to turn. Jealousy broke out between the Gallic leaders and Civilis, who had not himself recognised the Gallic empire, while the Sequani in Gaul formed the centre of a Roman party there. Mucianus meanwhile, having provided for the safety of the other provinces by dispersing the conquered Vitellian legions through Illyricum and sending the i Italica entire to Moesia to support the vi Ferrata, had turned his eyes on Germany, and apparently as a first step sent back xxi Rapax to Vindonissa. Before mentioning his further dispositions it will be as well ^39 Tac, Hist. 37. 140 jd. iv. 54. Ki Id. 60. 1*2 /^. 62. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 207 once more to take a bird's-eye view of the present posi- tion of the legions. Lower Germany : (v and xv destroyed) xxii Primigenia and IV Macedonica under Civilis. Upper Germany : xxi Rapax. Gaul : I Germanica, xvi Gallica at Trier. Pannonia : vii Gemina and mixed troops of Vitellians. Dalmatia : garrisons of Vitellians. Moesia : i Italica, vi Ferrata, and Vitellian troops, i^a Italy : xiii Gemina, xi Claudia, vii Claudia, viii Augusta. Spain : vi Victrix, x Gemina, i Adjutrix. Britain : 11 Augusta, xx Valeria Victrix, ix Hispana, xiv Gemina. Syria : in Gallica, xii Fulminata, iv Scythica. Judaea : x Fretensis, v Macedonica, xv Apollinaris. Africa : in Augusta. Egypt : xxii Deiotariana and in Cyrenaica. To strengthen his demoraHsed forces VitelHus had apparently followed the example of Nero and created an irregular legion from the fleet at Misenum.^** This legion Mucianus in the name of Vespasian formally enrolled under the name of the 11 Adjutrix.^*^ It was necessary to send an overwhelming force into Germany, where the Roman army at this time was almost non- existent, and one of the first acts of Mucianus, on arriving at Rome, was to provide for the security of the Rhine frontier. Annius Gallus and Petilius Cerealis were chosen as legates, the former of Upper, the latter of Lower Germany : ^^^ while light legions were ordered to march into Germany. Of these, only one (xxi Rapax) belonged to the old German army.^*' Three belonged to the victorious army of the Flavians (vii Claudia from 143 Tac. Hist. iii. 46. 1** This is clear from Hist. iii. 55, where a legio e classicis is mentioned at a time when the i Adjutrix was certainly in Spain. Conf. Hist. ii. 67 and 86. 1*5 Dio Cass. Iv. 24 ; and a military diploma dated March 7, 70, granted to the veterans of the 11 Adjutrix, C. I. L. iii. 849 and 907. i*« Id. iv. 68 1*7 Probably a small division of legion may have been left behind at Vindonissa : but, if so, it had taken no part in the rising of Civilis. 208 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY Moesia, xi Claudia from Dalmatia, and viii Augusta from Moesia)."^ One was the ii Adjutrix, a legion raised by Vitellius from the classiarii of Ravenna, and presented with its eagle by Vespasian. Of the other three, one was the famous xiv Gemina, which was to cross over from Britain, and the remaining two were vi Victrix and i Adjutrix from Spain.^*® The news of the approaching legions increased the wavering of the Gallic states. The Treveri and Lingones were precisely the tribes which had stood aloof from Vindex ; and the other Gauls were not willing now to acknowledge them as leaders. Co-operation might still have given the insurgents a chance of at any rate temporary success : but, while Civilis Wcis occupied in the forests of the Belgae, the Gallic leaders behaved as if the victory was won, and neglected even to defend the passage of the Alps.^^^ The first troops to arrive were xxi Rapax from Vindonissa, the auxilia of Noricum under Sextilius Felix, and an ala Singularium raised by Vitellius. By them, the Treveri were defeated near Bingen ; and when Cerealis and others, collecting the few soldiers still garrisoning Mogontiacum, arrived at Augusta Treverorum, he found that the two Vitellian legions I and XII had already taken the oath to Ves- pasian.^*^ Meanwhile Civilis and Classicus, the Gallic leader, concentrated their scattered forces ; and, some- 1*8 The MS. reading is vimxjviij, which most editors give as XI and VIII ; but clearly the numbers of three legions underlie the symbols ; and the third can only be vii Claudia or xiii Gemina, since the other Flavian legions are otherwise accounted for. 1*9 Id. iv. 68. The second Spanish legion is pma in the MS. This, by most editors, is given as Decima, no doubt owing to a mistaken inference from v. 19, where the Decima ex Hispania appears with PetiUus. But pma clearly represents prima. The legion i Adjutrix has by many been supposed to have remained in Spain till the rising of Saturninus under Domitian ; but Ritterling has shown {West Deutscher Zeitschrift, 1893, pp. 107-8) that some of its monuments in Germany date back respectively to yz a.d. (Br. 1141), 74 a.d. (Br. 1288), 76 a.d. (Br. 1 142), etc.; and this, together with the MS. reading pma, appears to be conclusive. 150 Jd. iv, 151 Id. iv. 70. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 209 what against the will of Civilis, who wished to wait for the trans-Rhenan tribes, determined to attack Cerealis at Trier before the legions, which were on the march, had arrived. Their army, consisting (in addition to the veteran Batavian cohorts) of Lingones, Ubii, Bructeri, and Tencteri,^^^ came unexpectedly upon Cerealis. The Vitellian legions found themselves completely demora- lized ; and it was only by the valour of xxi Rapax that a threatened defeat was turned into a victory. Cerealis then marched into his own province to relieve the Agrippinenses. His army still consisted only of xxi Rapax, some remnants probably of the other Vitellian legions ,^^^ and probably some auxiliaries ; and he was unable to prevent some minor successes on the part of the enemy. But by this time the legions were begin- ning to arrive ; and, while i Adjutrix, viii Augusta, XI Claudia, and vii Claudia, formed the upper army under Annius Gallus, the ii Adjutrix and vi Victrix joined Cerealis, and xiv Gemina from Britain (after reducing the Nervii and Tungri) was also added. Civilis was now at Vetera ; and it was near this camp that the decisive battle was fought. The contest was main- tained for some time with varying success till two alae succeeded in attacking the enemy from the rear. Only the failure of the fleet to co-operate with the army, and a storm of rain at nightfall prevented the annihila- tion of the Batavian army. On the following day xiv Gemina was sent to the upper province,^^* from which in all probability vii Claudia had been hastily recalled to Moesia, where the legate Fonteius Agrippa was about this time defeated and killed. ^55 Xhe place of XIV Gemina was taken by x Gemina from Spain .^^® The war, however, was by no means finished : although Cerealis began to post his legions in their permanent 152 Tac. Hist. iv. 77. 153 Jd. V. 16, " praevectus ad Germanicum exercitum." 154 Id. V. 19. 155 Josephus, Bell. Jud. vii., 4, ad. fin. See Ritt. W.D.Z., 1893 p. 114- iB« Tac. HisU v. 19. 210 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY camps, II Adjutrix at Batavodurum, x Gemina at Arenacum,^*' and the other two legions at Novaesium and Bonna.!*^* The two former camps, as well as his auxiliary camps at Grinnes and Vada, were simultane- ously attacked ; and it was not without difficulty that the enemy was beaten off. Then, as a last resource, Civilis attempted to get together a fleet, but soon desisted from what was a hopeless struggle. The insula Bata- vorum was ravaged by the victorious Romans ; and Civilis determined to make overtures for peace. The final arrangements, as well as the campaign which Annius Gallus must have found necessary in the upper province, 169 were contained in the lost portion of the fifth book of the Histories. At the beginning of the Flavian era, therefore, Ger- many was garrisoned by an entirely new set of legions. Of the old ones, the four, whose eagles had remained in Germany and had therefore been disgraced by taking the oath of allegiance to the Gallic empire, were cashiered. I Germanica never occurs again, iv Gallica was re- placed by a new legion iv Flavia Firma : xvi Gallica, by XVI Flavia Felix. As to the fate of xv Primigenia, there is some uncertainty. There is no evidence of its existence after this date : but, if four legions were cashiered and only three new ones raised (ii Adjutrix, IV Flavia Firma, xvi Flavia Felix), there would be a diminution in the number of the legions, which we hardly should have expected. ^^^ Of the remaining four whose eagles had accompanied the legions to Italy, I Italica and probably v Alauda were sent to Moesia ; while XXI Rapax and, as we shall ultimately see, xxii Primigenia were returned to Germany, though at first to the lower instead of to the upper army. By this time Vespasian was on his way to Rome from Egypt, where he had remained for some time. Titus was left to conduct the Jewish war, and in the 157 Tac. Hist. V. 20. ^^a Jd. v. 22. 169 See Frontinus, Strategematica IV iii. 14. 180 See note on p. 213. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 211 spring of 70 a.d. the long-delayed siege was begun. In addition to the three legions which had served under Vespasian, Titus led up the xii Fulminata from Syria and some vexillarii from the two Egyptian legions .^^^ With these the siege was pressed, ending after five months' obstinate resistance in the fall of the Jewish capital. On the conclusion of the Jewish and German wars a re- arrangement of the forces was to a certain extent necessary. In the east Judaea could no longer be left without a regular legion, while the events which led to Corbulo's campaigns had shown the advisability of placing legionary rather than auxiliary forces in Cappadocia. Accordingly the x Fretensis was left in Jerusalem,^^^ whilst the xii Fulminata was led by Titus to Melitene in Cappadocia on the Euphrates .^^^ Syria was still garrisoned by four legions, the vi Ferrata sent back from Moesia, the iii Gallica ordered away from Italy, as we have seen, by Mucianus, the iv Scythica and a newly organised legion called xvi Flavia Firma, which Vespasian formed out of the remnants of the XVI Gallica now disbanded on account of its behaviour in the German war.^^* On the Danube frontier important reinforcements were needed. Both the Dacians and Sarmatae were becoming more and more threatening, while the Mar- comanni were showing signs of restlessness on the Pannonian frontier. It was therefore decided to leave Dalmatia henceforth without a legionary force, but to place no less than seven legions along the Danube between Carnuntum and its mouth. Probably from this time Carnuntum, Vindobona, Brigetio, Viminacium, Singidunum, and Durostornum became legionary camps. To Moesia were sent back vii Claudia, after its short sojourn in Germany, the v Macedonica from Judaea, i«5 and a new legion, iv Flavia Felix, which had been 161 Hist. V. I. 162 Josephus. Bell Jud. i. 2. 1^3 Josephus, ib. vii. i. 3. i^* Dio Cass. Iv. 24. 165 Conf. Orelli, 3453, where a centurion of that legion is rewarded by Vespasian. 212 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY created in place of iv Macedonica also disbanded. »«« We have seen already that the I Italica had been sent hither by Mucianus. To Pannonia two of its old legions were restored, xiii Gemina, which was probably moved from its old headquarters Poetovio to Vindobona on the frontier, i«7 and the xv ApoUinaris, which for the last seven years had been in the east, was stationed at Carnuntum,i«8 while in all probability the v Alauda, which had marched almost entire into Italy, ^^^ was also sent to this province. I'o From Spain the vi Victrix and i Adjutrix had been sent against Civilis, while, as we have seen, x Gemina was likewise sent somewhat later to Lower Germany, and their place was now filled by the vii Gemina, of which traces are found in the province from this time onward, especially at Leon its headquarters. Britain had sent the xiv Gemina into Germany at the same time, but the province was not yet completely con- quered, and four legions were still necessary. Accord- ingly the II Adjutrix, probably on the occasion of Petilius Cerealis being transferred to Britain, was sent over from Lower Germany to that province ; and as numer- ous inscriptions prove, was posted together with xx Valeria Victrix at Deva (Chester) : whilst the ix Hispana was moved on to Eboracum. For Lower Germany, whilst the i Germanica was disbanded, three legions were considered enough after the reduction of the Batavi (unless we follow the view that xv Primigenia was not disbanded but still remained in the province I'l), the VI Victrix being stationed at Novaesium, the x Gemina at Noviomagus,"^ and the xxi Rapax at Bonna : but at some date prior to 89 A.D., when we shall certainly find it in the province, xxii Primigenia was transferred probably from one of the Danube pro- 168 Dio Cass. Iv. 24. i^? C.I.L. iii. 580. 168 C.I.L. iii. 482. 169 Tac. Hist. i. 61. 170 This is quite uncertain. It was probably the legion des- troyed by the Sarmatae under Domitian, Suet. Dom. 6, which was almost certainly a Pannonian legion. "1 See note on p. 213. 172 Orelli, 3551, 2008, 2098. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 213 vinces to the Lower German province.^^^^ In Upper Germany the Chatti were always a source of danger, while the Marcomanni or Suevi might if necessary be attacked from this quarter .^^^ The four legions in this province were xiv Gemina and i Adjutrix at Mogontia- cum, the xi Claudia at Vindonissa, and the viii Augusta perhaps at Argentoratum.174 For the present, there- fore, there were four legions in Britain, eight along the Rhine, seven on the Danube, and six in the east, while Spain and Egypt had two legions each, and A-frica one. Lower Germany : vi Victrix, x Gemina, (xv Primigenia.i^sj XXII Primigenia, xxi Rapax. Upper Germany : xiv Gemina, xi Claudia, viii Augusta, i Adjutrix. Britain : 11 Augusta, xx Valeria Victrix, ix Hispana, 11 Adjutrix. Pannonia : xiii Gemina, v Alauda, xv Apollinaris. Moesia : vii Claudia, iv Flavia Felix, i Italica, v Macedonica. Spain : vii Gemina. Syria : vi Ferrata, iv Scythica, xvi Flavia Firma, in Gallica. Judaea : x Fretensis. Cappadocia : xii Fulminata. Egypt : XXII Deiotariana, in Cyrenaica. Africa : iii Augusta. 17 2'^ Ritterling, De Legione X Gemina, p. 68. 173 Tac. Hist. V. 19. 1^4 it was here in Ptolemy's time. 175 Mommsen {Rom. Gesch. v. 130) assumes that xv Primigenia and V Alauda were disbanded after the affair of Civilis. There are several reasons against this view, (i) This would have reduced the number of legions to 28, and the frontier relations of the empire, after so much recent danger and confusion, were such as certainly did not admit of a diminished army ; (2) in the case, at any rate, of the v the main portion of the legion did not share in the disgrace, as it was in Italy {Hist. i. 61), and we know that the two legions in Vetera only amounted to 5,000 men, while these bravely held out until the desertion of the other legions left them no hope ; (3) one legion was certainly de- stroyed by the Sarmatae in Domitian's reign (Suet Dom. 10), but none of the other legions can be shown to have disappeared at that time ; (4) the two new legions of Trajan, xxx and 11 placed in Lower Germany and Egypt, make the supposition of Mar- quardt {Staatsverw. ii. 450) and Grotefend (in Pauly, Real- Encyclop. p. 896) very probable that Trajan amalgamated once more the two double legions xxii and xv which were also in those two provinces. There is, however, no evidence for the existence of xv Primigenia after the affair of Civilis. 214 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY An important change which accompanied this Fla- vian redistribution of the legions was the virtual exclu- sion henceforth of Italians from legionary service. Their pride of birth and feeling of superiority seem to have been the causes of frequent acts of insubordination and excess, and the lamentable fiasco of the Batavian war made a reform of some kind inevitable. An inci- dental result of this was the necessity to recruit the African army henceforth from the east instead of from the west, as the exclusion of Italy threw a heavier burden on the other western provinces. These arrangements seem to have preserved peace on the frontier during Vespasian's reign. Under Domitian was commenced a fresh policy in Upper Germany, afterwards pursued and completed by Trajan. Instead of keeping to the Rhine as the frontier, the Neckar valley and the region called Decumates Agri were gradu- ally taken into the empire. This tendency to push forward the Roman frontier across the Rhine in Upper Germany was certainly developed by Domitian, whose war with the Chatti, undertaken in 83 a.d.,i'6 was, there is no doubt, infinitely more important than the ex parte statements of Tacitus ^7? would lead one to suppose. The war was an aggressive one ;i78 and necessitated an increase in the Upper German army. Legion xxi Rapax was almost certainly sent for from the lower army : 179 while a vexillatio of ix Hispana 176 Its date is fixed (i) by the title of Germanicus which first occurs in 84 a.d. {Eck. vi., 378, 397), (2) by the fact that in this year the Uzipii, not before within the empire, were enrolled as auxiliaries (Agric. 28), and (3) the triumph was before recall of Agricola {Agric. 39). Compare also coins with Germania capta dating from 84 and 85 {Eck. vi. 380, Cohen, 139, 351, 483, 488, 503). 177 Agric. 39, Germ. ^y. See also D.C. 67, 4. 178 Suet. Dom. 0. 179 That XXI Rapax formed part of the upper army shortly after this time appears from the inscriptions of Mirebeau : that it was at Freiburg in about 83 or 84 is made very probable by Bergh's explanation of Br. 141 6, identifying the Sosius Senecio of the inscription with Pliny's friend who was consul in 99 a.d.. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 21^ took part in expeditione Germanica ; i^o and the fact that this legion is specially mentioned by Tacitus as being weakened at this time ^^^ makes it probable that this was the expedition alluded to. That the war was followed by some extension of the empire, and with new frontier arrangements, appears not only from expressions in contemporary poets,^^^ but from state- ments (unfortunately not always unambiguous) of Fron- tinus, who probably himself took part in the war/®^ '^he first of these statements merely says generally that Domitian " contusa immanium ferocia nationum, provinciis consulit." The second passage is more important : " Limitibus per centum viginta milha passuum actis, non mutavit tantum statum belli, sed subjecit ditioni suae hostes, quorum refugia nudaverat." The third statement is, " Imperator Caesar Augustus Germanicus, eo bello, quo victis hostibus cognomen Germanici meruit, quum in finibus Ubiorum " (the name is no doubt corrupt) " castella poneret, pro fructi- bus locorum, quae vallo comprehendebat, pretium solui jussit," etc. There can be no doubt then that these, passages all refer to the war against the Chatti, and that therefore the limites and the castella had direct reference to that war. From 83 A.D., as we have seen, the lower army was composed of three legions, vi, x, and xxii : while the upper army had five, i, viii, xi, xiv, xxi ; and it is no doubt to this period that the tegulae are to be referred, found at Mirebeau near Dijon, and containing the names of these five legions.^®^ Another tegula found in the same place contains the names only of viii, xi, xiv, XXI : from which Ritterling has inferred with some and whose military tribuneship would therefore naturally fall about fifteen years earlier. 180 Orelli, 3569. isi Agric, 26. 182 cf. Mart. ix. ii. 3 : ix. vii. i. Stat. Silv. I. i. 51 : V. ii, 133- 183 Frontin. Strateg. I. i. 8 : I. iii. 10 : II. xj. 7. 184 See Hermes xix. 437, where Mommsen refers them to the yeax 70 a.d,, when Cerealis was assembling his army: but cf. Ritterling, W.D.Z. 1893, p. 116, 2l6 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY plausibility that, at some time between 83 and 89 (when the rising of Saturninus caused further changes), I Adjutrix was removed from Germany. i8« It is quite probable that this was the case. In 87 a.d., Cornelius Fuscus was defeated and killed by the Dacians ; i*® and the eagle of a legion was lost.^^^ It was almost certainly at this time that Domitian created a new legion, i Minervia/ss which, however, he sent, not to the Danube, where veteran legions were required, but to make up the legions in Lower Ger- many : 189 while i Adjutrix may have been sent to reinforce the army of the Danube, ^^o At any rate toward the end of 88 a.d., an event happened which caused important changes in the German armies. The legate of the upper province was L. Antonius Saturninus, who (taking advantage of the fact that his legions were discontented and disgusted with the building operations on the limes) caused himself to be proclaimed imperator by the two legions at Mogontiacum.i^i The two legions were xiv Gemina and xxi Rapax.is2 pew details of the rising are known from historians. Great alarm was felt in Rome.193 Domitian himself started for the seat of war/^^ probably with some praetorian 185 His argument depends mainly on the supposition that when detachments were sent as vexillationes from more than one legion in a province, each legion contributed a share (see loc. cit. p. 117, notes 38 and 39. 186 juv. iv., 1 12, Suet. Dom. 6. 187 D.C. Ixviii. 9. The legion destroyed on this occasion was probably v Alauda. 188 D.C. liv, 23. 189 It was v^certainly there in 89, See below. 190 Ritt. De Leg. X. Gem. p. 72 argues, from an inscription published in B.J. yj, p. 70, that i Minervia was created not later than 33 a.d. Schilling, however, proves the insufficiency of his argument ; and shows that new legions were as a rule created to supply the loss of old ones. 191 Suet. Dom. 7. " L. Antonius apud duarum legiorum hiberna res novas fnoliens." 192 For inscriptions relating to xxi Rapax at Mainz, see Br. 1057, 1206-7. 193 piut. Vit. Aemil. Paul, 25. 19* Frontin. Strateg I. i. 3. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 217 cohorts ; but almost immediately received intelligence that the rebellion was put down.i^s Saturninus had entered into communication with some Germans across the Rhine, probably the Chatti ; and only the sudden melting of the ice prevented them from crossing the river and joining him.i^^ Meanwhile Appius Maximus Norbanus, the legate of some neighbouring province, had arrived on the scene ; and Saturninus in the battle which followed was defeated and killed. ^^^ Very different views have been held, both as to the legions which joined Saturninus, and as to the province from which Appius Norbanus marched against him. That the two legions at Mainz joined him seems clear from the words of Suetonius ; ^^^ but this alone would not account for the panic at Rome, or for the hasty departure 6i Domitian. There were two other legions in the province, at Argentoratum and Vindonissa ; and, if these had remained faithful (to say nothing of the Lower German army and the Pannonian legions, which could easily have stopped his march in Italy), there could have been no occasion for panic. Besides, on occasions like this, the legions of a province usually made common cause : all wanted a share in the prestige of making an emperor ; and all too had the same cause for disaffection. Whether legions viii and xi had actually time to join his standard may perhaps be doubtful ; but tha£ they were considered, both by Saturninus and Domitian, a part of the rebel army must certainly be assumed. * From whence did Appius Norbanus march ? There can only be two alternatives — from Pannonia or from Lower Germany. ^^^ Momm- ies The date is fixed by the Acta Frat. Arv. Henz. p. cxxi-ii, which show that Domitian started from Rome on January|i7, 89, A.D., and that the victory was celebrated on the 24th or 2Sth. 196 Suet. Dom. 6. 197 That Appius Maximus Norbanus put down the rising is proved by D.C. Ixvii, 11 : Aur. Vict. 11 : Mart. ix. 84 : and by C.I.L. vi,, 1347 where Appius Maximus Norbanus is called * Confector belli Germanici.' 198 Suet. Dom. 6. 199 Bergk, depending on Mart. ix. 84, thinks he was procurator 2l8 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY sen, ^00 followed by Lieb,^**^ considers that the reference in Martial ^°* is conclusive in favour of Pannonia.*®' It must be admitted that, in the absence of positive and negative arguments against it, the passage (though still not easy to explain) is somewhat in favour of this view. But it must nevertheless be given up. The argument from Martial depends on the supposition that Norbanus marched through Noricum and Raetia, and that the battle took place somewhere near Vin- donissa. But in this case he would have had to march more than twice as far as Saturninus : while some days would have elapsed before the news of the rising could have reached him, after which he would have had to collect his legions. It is hardly conceivable that, if Saturninus was marching on Italy at all, he could not have crossed the Alps before the arrival of Norbanus at Vindonissa. The natural plan for Norbanus would be to march to North Italy to intercept the rebel army, as the Pannonian legions did in 69 a.d. ; but then this passage from Martial has no bearing on the subject. Again, there would have been no more than three legions in Pannonia at the time ; and, considering the unsettled state of the Danube frontier and that the Dacian War was barely over, we can hardly believe that the whole Pannonian force would be employed elsewhere ; and, even if we add the Raetian auxiliaries, this army would not be a match for the united forces of Upper Germany : while to suppose that two of the German legions joined him is an assumption without evidence, and in itself unlikely. In the next place, the German allies of Saturninus were already only separated from of Raetia, an officer not belonging to the senatorial cursus honorum at all: Asbach. that he was legate of Lugdunum : Schiller, of Aquitania, both inermes provinciae. 200 Rom. Gesch. v. p. 137. 201 Dig Legaten p. 213. 202 ix. 84. ' Cum tua sacrilegos contra, Norbane, furores staret pro domino Caesare sancta fides, haec ego Pieria ludebam tutus in umbra, ille tuae cultor notus amicitiae. Me tibi Vindeli- cis raptum narrabat in oris, nescia nee nostrae nominis Arctos erat.' 203 See also Domazewski in W. D. Kor. ii. jt,. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 219 him by the river, at the time when the battle was fought ; ^°* but it is scarcely conceivable that the Chatti who, till the thaw came, might have joined Saturninus anywhere between Mogontiacum and Vindonissa, would have marched all the way from their own home on the right bank of the river — it is scarcely conceivable, indeed, that they would have joined him in a march southward at all. Finally, it is impossible to leave out of account the army of Lower Germany. If that had joined Saturninus, Norbanus with the Pan- nonian army would certainly have been unable to put down the rising as promptly as it was put down. And if, on the other hand, it was against him, Saturninus by every rule of prudence and strategy must have been prevented from marching towards Italy, until he had won over or conquered the lower army. Fortunately we are not without evidence on this point. The Lower German legions at this time were I Minervia, vi Valeria Victrix, x Gemina, xxii Primi- genia ; and, with regard to all of them, Ritterling ^"^ has pointed out that in certain inscriptions they are described with the letters P.F.D. after them. Thus we have i Minervia P.F.D.,206 vi Valeria Victrix P.D.,207 X Gemina P.F.D.,208 xxii Primigenia P.F.D. 209 Now in no inscriptions earlier than Domitian's reign are any of these legions styled P.F. : while in inscriptions and tegulae of Trajan's reign the letters are assigned to all of them. 2 10 There are only three other legions which are styled pia fidelis before Trajan's reign, vii Claudia P.F., XI Claudia, P.F., 11 Adjutrix, P.F. ; and, of these, the two former received the title owing to their fidelity towards Claudius in the rising of Camillus Scribonianus in Dalmatia : 211 while no other legions except these 20* Suet. Dom. 6. " Cum ipsa dimicationis hora resolutus repente Rhenus transituras ad Antonium copias barbarorum mhibuisset." 205 De Leg. X Gem., pp. 11 and seq. : W. D.Z.K. 1893, pp. 203 and seq. 206 Bonner Jahrbuch S7 p. 70. 207 Brambach 982. 208 Br. 651. 209 5*'. 673. 2ioRitt. De Leg. X Gem. pp. 120-1. 211 B.C. Ix. 15. 220 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY four are styled P.F.D. That D. stands for Domitiana is'jboth probable in itself, and receives some support fromjthejanalogy of legions vii and xi which have the letters C.P.F. after them, and from that of viii Augusta which is styled 212 pja Fidelis Constans Commoda. It seems, therefore, in the highest degree probable that these four legions received the honorary title Pia Fidelis Domitiana for some important service rendered in Domitian's reign ; and the analogy of the grant to legions vii and xi, as well as the fact that there was no war in Lower Germany at the time, seem to point unmistakably to Saturninus.213 But not only were these four legions styled P.F.D. In Br. 684, we have Classis Germanica,2i4 P.F.D. 215 In Br. 678, we also have coh. II Arturum, P.F.D. 2 16 And in Br. 676 we have coh. II C.R.P.F.D.217 While finally two alae, the ala Indiana and the ala i Singularium, and at least two other cohorts, I C.R. and coh. v Nucensium certainly belonging to the lower army in Flavian times are styled P.F.^^® When it is remembered that, out of all the other auxili- ary forces of the empire, only one ala and five cohorts are styled P.F., the fact that at least two alae and four cohorts in Lower Germany are so styled, together with the legions and the fleet, seems to make it almost certain that it was the lower army which defeated 212 wilm. 1459. 213 The fact that D. is not found in connexion with the legions in later times is of course due to the damnatio memoriae passed on Domitian by the senate. If Ritterling's view is correct, all the inscriptions which have this letter date between 89 and 96 A.D. It appears from an inscription, as Mommsen points out in W.D.Z. Kor. 5. 171, that on March 23, 86 a.d. leg. XXII was not called P.F. 21* The fleet, it is well known, belonged to Lower Germany. 215 See also B.J. 71, p. 107-9, and 78, p. 137. 216 That this belonged to Lower Germany is proved by Br. 666, C.I.L. ii. 702, and W. D.Z.K. iv. 222. 217 For this part' of the lower army see C.I.L. ix. 2958, and B.J. 77, p. 19. 218 Ritt. adds : Ala 11 Flavia mil., coh. iii Delmatarum, and coh. II Hispanorum ; but their attribution to the lower army is only conjectural. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 221 Saturninus, and that Appius Maximus Norbanus was its legate. In all probability a second war with the Chatti was the necessary completion of these events. ^^^ Norbanus most likely succeeded Saturninus as legate of the upper army ; ^^^ and it is probable that the two legions at Mainz which commenced the revolt, xiv and xxi, were removed from the province and sent to Pannonia.^^^ But XXII Primigenia seems to have been sent for to Mogontiacum for the lower army. 222 it was in Upper Germany before Domitian's death ; 223 and is proved to have been there in 97 a.d. by a comparison of Hadrian's cursus honorum 224 ^^^ith Spartian, Hadr. 2, 5 : while the upper army was also strengthened for the time by vii Gemina, which Trajan hastily brought up from Spain. 225 For the last six years of Domitian, the Danube was the scene of the greatest dangers ; and the German provinces were probably left with three legions each : I Minervia, vi Valeria Victrix, x Gemina, in the lower, 219 Thus Suet. Dom. 6 says " De Cat this Dacisque . . . dupli- cem triumphum egit ; " and the interval between the war of 83 A.D. and the Dacian war was too great for the triumphs to have been celebrated together. 220 This is how Mommsen explains the tegulae found at Mire- beau-sur-Beze in the territory of the Lingones marked leg. viii Aug. L. Appio leg. (Hermes 19 p. 438). 221 XIV Gemina was certainly in Pannonia before the end of the first century {W.D.Z. Kor. 1891, 88). It is perhaps in favour of the supposition, that xiv Gemina was removed as early as this from the province, that it has left no traces on the limes, Freiburg being the farthest point eastward where its tegulae are found. With regard to xxi Rapax, that probably was the legion destroyed by the Sarmatae in 92 a.d. (Suet. Dom. 6). 222 Br. 1626 from Alpirsbach, where it is styled P.F.D. See also a tegula Br. 1377 g. 31. 223 C.I.L. iii., 550. 224 Wilm 937. 225 Pliny, Paneg. 14, speaks of legiones : but, if the view taken above as to i Adjutrix is correct, there could have been only one legion in Spain after 70 a.d. Traces of the presence of VII Gemina are found in Br. 896, 15 12, and Henz. 6701, though it is not certain that they belong to this period. 222 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY and XXII Primigenia, viii Augusta, xi Claudia, in the upper province. ** To Britain Julius Agricola had been sent as legate in 78 A.D., and he at once and energetically pushed on the conquest of the northern part. After the subjuga- tion of the Silures, the camp at Viroconium, where the XIV legion had been placed, was probably given up, though Isca Silurum and Deva were still garrisoned, the former by the 11 Augusta and xx, the latter by Valeria Victrix and 11 Adjutrix, and the ix Hispana was at Eboracum. In 84 Agricola, after conquering up to the Firths of Forth and Clyde, was recalled, though the same considerations which had made the conquest of Britain advisable might have been urged for bringing both Ireland and the north of Scotland within the empire. Domitian, however, whether from caution or jealousy, decided against further conquest, and, either at this time or shortly after, the defensive policy in Britain which Agricola's recall implied was marked by the withdrawal of one of the four legions, the II Adjutrix, which was transferred to Pannonia. Here a war broke out about this time against the Suevi or Marcomanni, who, forming an alliance with the lazyges, a Sarmatian tribe, invaded Pannonia. Our only knowledge of this war is derived from two inscrip- tions, 227 which mention distinctions gained in bello Suevico et Sarmatico by the 11 Adjutrix and xiii Gemina under Domitian ; and one sentence in Suetonius, ^28 which mentions the destruction of one legion. This we have already seen ground for believing was the v Alauda. To strengthen the frontier in this part Domi- tian, therefore, probably moved the i Adjutrix from Upper Germany to Brigetio in Pannonia. In 86 a more important war was begun. Decebalus, the new king of the Dacian tribes, crossed the Danube into Moesia and defeated and slew Oppius Sabinus the 226 From 89 A.D. no hiberna were allowed to contain more than a single legion. Suet. Dom. 7, " Geminari legionum castra prohibuit." 227 Henzen, 6766 and 6912. 228 Domit, 6 ; Tac. Agric. i. 41. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 223 legate. Domitian hastily collected an army, which Cornelius Fuscus, prefect of the praetorians, commanded, but they shared a similar fate. Then Tertius Julianus assumed the command, drove the Dacians across the Danube, and defeated them at Tapae. In this victory the V Macedonica was probably engaged.^^^ The results of this victory were greatly modified by a defeat vvhich Domitian himself met with from the Marcomanni and Quadi in Pannonia. However, a peace was made, and while Decebalus became nominally a vassal of Rome, Rome became with greater reality tributary to the Dacian.^^^ There were, therefore, at the end of Domitian's reign four legions in Moesia, i Italica, vii Claudia, iv Flavia Felix, v Macedonica, and four in Pannonia, xiii Gemina, i Adjutrix, xiv Gemina Martia Victrix, and ii Adjutrix, while there were three in Upper Germany, the xi Claudia, the viii Augusta, and the XXII Primigenia, and three in Lower Germany, the X Gemina, the vi Victrix, and the i Minervia: (or four if we allow the disputed existence of xv Primigenia. To- wards the close of Domitian's reign Moesia was divided into an upper and a lower province, 231 pJrobably for the sake of keeping a more effective check on the Dacians through two independent commanders. During Nerva's short reign the Suevi and Sarmatae seem to have re- peated their invasion of Pannonia. We learn from an inscription ^^^ that the i Adjutrix distinguished itself, and it was a victory from this quarter which Nerva was celebrating when he adopted Trajan.^^^ Under Trajan important frontier changes took place, and for the first time the traditional policy of Augustus was essentially modified. When Nerva's death left him sole imperator, he was governor of Upper Germany, engaged in carrying out the new frontier policy there 229 Henzen, 6490. A certain J. Brocchus, tribune of the v Macedonica, is rewarded for services in the Dacian war, the emperor's name being omitted, which would seem to point to Domitian. 230 PHny, Paneg. 12. 231 Henzen, 5431. 232 Henzen, 5439. 233 PUny, Paneg. 8. 224 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY begun by Domitian. Taking in the Neckar valley, he completed a military road from Mogontiacum, through Heidelberg, to Baden, in the direction of Offenburg,^^* to assist communications with the Danube provinces ; at the same time proceeding with the German limes which ran through Freiberg, Worth, and Miltenberg to Lorch, where it joined the Rhaetian limes. To this fresh frontier line it is true that no legions were pushed forward. The castles were probably garrisoned by small detachments only, but the frontier line of Upper Germany was considerably shortened by the change, and from this time it was possible to decrease the number of legions on the Rhine. In particular Vindonissa was quite placed inside the line of defence, and probably the XI Claudia, hitherto posted here, was at once trans- ferred to the newly created province of Lower Moesia, thus leaving Upper Germany with two legions, of which one at least as late as Ptolemy's time was at Argentora- tum. Leaving Germany thus thoroughly secured, Trajan had a most important work to do on the Danube. The disgraceful state of things in which Domitian had left the fortunes of the empire here had at once to be re- trieved. The details of the two Dacian wars of Trajan are obscure, though no doubt much may be reconstructed from inscriptions, and above all from the column of Trajan at Rome. Into this, however, it is beyond our plan to enter here. At this time Trajan would have no less than ten legions along the Danube. The i Adjutrix was at Brigetio, the i Minervia (probably now removed from Lower Germany) at Vindobona with the XIII Gemina, and the ii Adjutrix at Acumincum ; the VII Claudia at Viminacium,235 the iv Clavia Felix at Singidunum, the i Italica at Durostornum, the xi Claudia perhaps at Novae, the v Macedonica (perhaps not till the end of the war) at Troesmis, and xiv Gemina at Carnuntum. Of these ten legions probably all served ^ in one or other of the wars which followed. In the 23* Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. vol. v. 139. 235 C.I.L. iii. p. 264. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 225 first war certainly two armies marched into Dacia, one from Pannonia under Q. Glitius Agricola, and one from Moesia under M. Laberius Maximus. Only five legions, however, are actually known from inscriptions to have taken part in the wars, i Italica,^^^ vii Claudia, 237 xiii Gemina,^^^ i Minervia,^^^ v Macedonica,24o and iv Flavia Felix.^^^ As the result of the war Dacia was made into a pro- vince, and the xiii Gemina was removed from Pannonia and posted first perhaps at Sarmizegethusa, but after- wards at Apulum in the north. At the same time the great camps in Lower Moesia, especially Troesmis, were now, if not before, completely established, while Pan- nonia was like Moesia divided into an upper and lower province. ^*^ To supply the place of the xiii Gemina, Trajan transferred the x Gemina from Lower Germany to Vindobona, and, possibly sending back i Minervia supplied with it the place of the x Gemina in Lower Ger- many.^*^ The xv Apollinaris which had hitherto been at Carnuntum was probably now moved to Cappadocia to strengthen the eastern frontier.^** After the Dacian wars, therefore, the legions were as follows : — Lower Germany : i Minervia, (xv Primigenia, ) vi Victrix. Upper Germany : viii Augusta, xxii Primigenia. Britain : 11 Augusta, xx Valeria Victrix, ix Hispana. Upper Pannonia : xiv Gemina, x Gemina, i Adjutrix. Lower Pannonia : 11 Adjutrix. Upper Moesia : vii Claudia, iv Flavia Felix. Lower Moesia : 1 Italica, v Macedonica, xi Claudia. Dacia : xiii Gemina. 236 Henzen, 5659. Or. 3454. 237 Or. 3049 : Henz. 6853. 238 Henz. 6853. 239 Henz. 5448, 5930, Or. 3454. 240 Henz. 5451. 241 Or. 3049 ; this inscription, however, does not make it quite plain whether the legion served in this war or not : but see Dierauer, Gesch. Trajans, p. yj. 2*2 Spart., Hadr. 3., proves that in 107 Hadrian was legate of Lower Pannonia. The lower province was of much less importance, and only had one legion. 243 This was certainly in Lower Germany at the beginning of Trajan's reign. Brambach, C. I. Rh. 660, 882. 344 CJX. iii. p. 583. Q 226 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY Spain : vii Gemina. Africa : in Augusta. Egypt : III Cyrenaica, xxii Deiotariana. Cappadocia : xii Fulminata, xv Apollinaris. Syria : iv Scythica, in Gallica, vi Ferrata, xvi Flavia Firma. Judaea : x Fretensis. Before the Dacian wars were over another province was added to the empire. On the death of Agrippa II, the last tetrarch of the Idumaean dynasty, his territory was added to Syria, and this brought the empire into direct relations with the turbulent and plundering Arab tribes beyond, whom the Idumaean kings had hitherto had to keep off. It now seemed advisable to annex this region, a task which Cornelius Palma, legate of Syria, accomplished in 104. The country was made into a province under the title of Arabia, and the iii Cyrenaica was removed from Egypt and posted hence- forth at Bostra.245 Pefhaps at this time a new legion was created for Egypt, the 11 Trajana, while at some time previous to 107 A.D. Trajan seems to have abolished the two duplicate legions xxii Deiotariana and perhaps xv Primigenia, creating in the place of the latter another new legion, the XXX Ulpia Victrix, which was posted at Colonia Tra- jana a little below the old camp of Vetera. This left the number of legions twenty-nine, though at the time when the xxx was formed the xxii was probably not yet disbanded ; and so the number thirty was com- pleted by its creation. If Trajan's policy of advance on the Danube was justified by the attitude of the barbarian tribes, his aggression on the Parthian frontier was open to much greater objections, and was far more mixed with motives of personal ambition. Of the details of the Parthian war we are imperfectly informed. Armenia was again the cause of the war, and Trajan determined at last definitely to reduce Armenia to the form of a province. 2*5 More accurately Arabia was administered by the legate of Syria until Trajan's Parthian war, when the province was definitely organised. Cohen, ii. 226, MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 227 Starting from Antioch he marched to the Euphrates, and without difficulty occupied Armenia, and in later campaigns, in order to make the frontier scientific, and to bar the way to Armenia against the Parthian armies, lie made two other provinces beyond, which he called Mesopotamia and Assyria. To carry out these suc- cesses Trajan, as we have seen, had nine legions in the east, but of these, as Pronto tells us, the Syrian legions were again as demoralised and inefficient as Corbulo had found them in Nero's reign, and accordingly Trajan summoned vexiUarii from the Pannonian legions to help him. Of the oriental legions probably most were engaged in the war, though we only have epigraphical evidence of the part taken by x Fretensis,^*^ xvi Flavia Firma,^^^ vi Ferrata,^^^ and iii Cyrenaica.249 Whatever new arrangements of the legionary forces those fresh conquests would have involved, the need for making them was obviated by the death of Trajan, and the relinquishment of the newly created provinces by Hadrian. Under Hadrian the legions were mostly kept in the positions which they occupied at the close of Trajan's reign. For this, indeed, there was an additional reason in the fact that from this time the legions were, as a rule, recruited from the provinces in which they were stationed, an arrangement which would manifestly render undesirable any but the most necessary changes of station. Economy and greater facility in recruiting were no doubt partly the causes of this change, but there was also the desire to have all recruiting carried out in the imperial provinces, since senatorial provinces, being garrisoned by no legions, were henceforth excluded. Mommsen has shown with great force that the change gradually led to a primacy of the Illyrian nation, since from this time the premier place in the Roman armies was held by the legions posted along the Danube. The reign of Hadrian was, with few exceptions, a peaceful 2*8 De la Berge, Essai sttr le rigne de Trajan, p. xlvi. 247 Henzen, 6749. 248 Henzen, 5456. 249 Orelli, 832. 228 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY one. The emperor adopted on the frontier the poUcy, advantageous at first as long as it was backed by an efficient army, but terribly liable to degenerate, of sub- sidising the barbarian tribes, and so partially hand- ing over to them the protection of the frontiers. By this means the Roxolani were prevented from over- running Dacia and Moesia, while the tribes of the Cau- casus were many of them united by a similar bond to Rome. Besides this a more systematic fortification of exposed points of the frontier was a feature of Had- rian's reign, nowhere so well exemplified as in the wall and vallum between Carlisle and Newcastle. These precautions did not entirely prevent troubles with the barbarians. The Alani, encouraged possibly by the king of the Iberi, after overrunning Media and Armenia, threatened to invade Cappadocia, and made it necessary to mobilise the two legions, xii Fulminata and xv Apollinaris, stationed in that province.^^^ In Britain too trouble was experienced. At the beginning of the reign we learn from Spartian ^^^ that there was dis- affection, and later the Brigantes seem to have risen, and in all probability to have surprised the camp of the IX Hispana at Eboracum and annihilated the legion. 252 It at any rate disappears about this time, and its place was taken by the vi Victrix from Lower Germany, which from later inscriptions we know to have been placed at Eboracum, while an inscription informs us that vexillarii of the German legions were obliged to take part in a British expedition during this reign.^^^ A more serious rising took place among the Jews. There had been smouldering disaffection here since the conquest by Titus, and Hadrian determined to 260 The account of this mobihsation is given in Arrian's "E/cro^ts /far'AXai'tDi'. See Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. v. 405, and Pel- ham, Arrian as Legate of Cappadocia, p. 10. 251 Spart, Hadrian, 5. 252 Fronto, p. 217. Faber : Hadriano imperium obtinente quantum militum a Britannis caesum, quoted by Mommsen, loc. cit. iy\. Conf. also Juvenal, xiv. 196. 253 Henzen, 5456. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 229 turn Jerusalem into a Roman colony with the name of iElia Capitolina. He at the same time moved another legion, VI Ferrata, into the province. This provoked another desperate rising. What was probably on Hadrian's part a measure of precaution, was inter- preted by the Jews as an attempt to extirpate their religion. In the course of the campaign 900 villages and 51 fortresses are said to have been destroyed, and 180,000 men to have perished. Probably all the three Syrian and the two Judaean legions were engaged, though the only detail we get from inscriptions is that a veteran of the iii Gallica distinguished himself, and that the legate of the iv Scythica temporarily took charge of Syria while the governor was commanding against the rebels. 254 Either at this time or a little later the iii Gallica was transferred to Trachonitis,255 on the border of Arabia, but still within the province of Syria. This was the position of the legions then at the date of the inscription found on a column at Rome belonging to some period between 120 and 170 A.D.^se Britain : 11 Augusta, vi Victrix, xx Valeria Victrix. Lower Germany : i Minervia, xxx Ulpia. Upper Germany : viii Augusta, xxii Primigenia. Upper Pannonia : 1 Adjutrix, x Gemina, xiv Gemina. Lower Pannonia : 11 Adjutrix. Upper Moesia : iv Flavia Felix, vii Claudia. Lower Moesia: i Italica, v Macedonica, xi Claudia. Dacia : xiii Gemina. Cappadocia : xii Fulminata, xv Apollinaris. Phcenicia : iii Gallica. Syria : iv Scythica, xvi Flavia Firma. Judaea : vi Ferrata, x Fretensis. Arabia : iii Cyrenaica. Egypt : II Trajana. Numidia : iii Augusta. Spain : vii Gemina. For sixty years after Trajan's Dacian war the Danube 5^54 Orelli, 3571. 255 Pauly, Real-Encyclopddie, Z77. 256 It was after the transfer of vi Victrix to Britain, and vi Ferrata to Jerusalem, and before Noricum and Raetia were garrisoned by legionary troops, as the names of the two legions afterwards posted here are added as a supplemennt. C.I.L. vi. 3492. 230 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY remained undisturbed except by petty raids, and while the great military camps along the river grew into impor- tant towns, civic life and prosperity developed in the interior of these provinces. But in i68, pushed on probably by movements of free tribes behind, the Mar- comanni, Quadi, and lazyges broke into Noricum, Raetia, Pannonia, and Dacia with a rush, and even penetrated over the Julian Alps into Italy. The Pan- nonian legions were naturally those principally engaged, and the enemy not acting in concert, and under no settled leaders, were soon driven back from the territory of the empire. The i Adjutrix under its capable legate Pertinax cleared Raetia and Noricum, 257 while the iv Flavia Felix,258 the 11 Adjutrix,^^^ and the vii Claudia 259 from Upper Moesia are mentioned in inscriptions as having distinguished themselves in this war. No doubt also the Moesian legions, whose frontier was not so immediately threatened, sent vexillarii after they had received back the detachments which they had previously sent to the Armenian and Parthian war.26o In the course of the war which, with some interruption caused by a rising in Syria, went on for seventeen years, two new legions were formed, 11 and iii Italica, which were posted in Noricum and Raetia, hitherto guarded only by auxiliary troops under a procurator. Step by step the perseverance and resolution of M. Aurelius drove back the enemy, compelling first the Marcomanni, then the Quadi, and lastly the lazyges to submit, and when the second war was begun in 178, no doubt the emperor had determined on completing the policy of Trajan by the addition of two new provinces, Mar- comannia and Sarmatia. His death, however, and the succession of his unworthy son, put an end to this scheme, but incomplete as the results of the war were left, they were yet sufficient to assert the supremacy of Rome in this quarter, and when the Roman frontier 257 Capitolinus, Pert. 2. 258 Pauly, Real-Encyclopadie, 878. 259 Or. 3445. 2«o Mommsen, Rom. Gersch. v. 210, note I. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 23I was finally violated by the Goths, it was from the Lower not the Middle Danube that they proceeded.^^^ The same tendency to return to Trajan's frontier policy which Marcus showed on the Danube, he had already shown in the east, where quite early in his reign the affairs of Armenia had again led to a serious Par- thian war. The Cappadocian and Syrian armies had been successively defeated, and it was by sending for important reinforcements from the Moesian and German legions,^^^ and employing two of the ablest Roman generals, Statins Priscus and Avidius Cassius, that victory at last fell to the Romans. Armenia was again brought within Roman influence, while the western portion of Mesopotamia was once more annexed to the empire. No details with respect to the legions are known, except that, as on so many previous occasions, the Syrian legions proved quite inadequate to meet a resolute enemy. From an inscription in Africa we learn that one of the Syrian legions (vi Ferrata ?) was sent temporarily into that province to help to put down a rising of the Mauri.^^^ Since the accession of Vespasian the legions on the frontier had been content to accept the . decision of Rome, and had set up no military emperors of their own. On the murder of Commodus, however, a new period commenced. The disgraceful purchase of the empire from the praetorians byDidius Julianus aroused the anger and disgust of the powerful armies of Britain, Upper Pannonia, and Syria, each consisting of three legions. Syria was governed by Pescennius Niger, Upper Pannonia by Septimius Severus, and Britain by Clodius Albinus. The two former were proclaimed emperor by their troops, but Septimius was the most prompt, and by coming to a temporary understanding with Albinus, he kept the British legions out of the 281 Mommsen, v. 215. 262 Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. v. 406 : and Renier. MSlanges d'Epigraphie, 123. 263 Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. v. 635. ^32 STUDIES IK ROMAK flIStORV contest, while the other legions of the Danube pro- vinces, as well as those of the Rhine, declared for him.^** One of his first acts constituted an important change in the Roman army. He disbanded the old praetorian cohorts, and with them the custom of enlisting them chiefly from Italy. Henceforth they were to consist of picked veteran troops taken from the regular legions, while the number was increased to 40,000. Like Trajan, he constantly used these troops in his oriental cam- paigns. Meanwhile Pescennius had possession of the eastern provinces and Egypt with their nine legions, while he was supported by Arab chiefs and princes of Mesopo- tamia, and indirectly by the Parthian king. Severus, however, after securing the corn traffic from Africa by sending thither one of his legions, marched with detachments from the west across Thrace to Byzantium, which he besieged. Three battles followed in Asia, at Cyzicus, Nicaea, and Issus, and then after Niger's death, and while Byzantium was still being besieged, Severus marched into Mesopotamia and took possession of the whole as far as Chaboras,^^^ making Nisibis the capital of the extended province, and creating two new legions to garrison it, i and iii Parthica, while a third legion, II Parthica, probably enrolled at the same time, was posted in Italy, hitherto without a military force. 266 But Albinus was still to be reckoned with in the west, and Severus hastened back to Europe. At Viminacium he heard that his rival had been declared Augustus by his troops, and so leaving Caracalla in Pannonia, he himself, still with vexillarii from his numerous legions, pushed up the Danube into Upper Germany and so into Gaul. What troops precisely the rival emperors had we have no means of knowing. Dio Cassius, probably with considerable exaggeration, reckons the numbers on each side at 150,000 men. Albinus cer- 2«* Roberts, Les Legions du Rhin ; also Cohen. 2«5 Mommsen, Rom, Gesch. v. 410. 2«« Numerous inscriptions relative to the legion are found at Albano. MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 233 tainly had his three legions in Britain, and probably the two legions from the Lower Rhine and the vii Gemina from Spain. Severus may have had some of the Danube legions or those of Upper Germany or Raetia or Noricum entire, but it is not likely that he left the frontier in any part too weak for efficient defence. The battle near Lugdnuum was the first of importance since Cremona in which Roman legions were opposed to one another, and it may be regarded as the omen and beginning of the disunion and anarchy in the empire which ultimately opened its gates to the barbarian invaders. News of disturbances in the east soon recalled Severus to that part. In Arabia the legion quartered there, III Cyrenaica, had declared for Albinus,^^? while the Parthians had invaded Mesopotamia and besieged Nisibis. No doubt western legions were again taken into Asia for the campaign which followed. The oriental legions, never very trustworthy, had all been in favour of Pescennius, and his successful rival would certainly not have trusted to their support alone. We have, however, meagre details, but the result was that Mesopo- tamia was again secured, and Armenia thus lost the ambiguous position between the two empires which had produced so much friction during the past two hundred years. 268 While Severus thus returned to Trajan's policy on the eastern frontier, but with greater or at least more permanent success, he also followed in his steps in regulating that of the Lower Danube. The numerous inscriptions in Dacia prove that he was almost a second founder of that province. He did not indeed do any- thing to support its outlying position by fresh annexation to the westward, but he reorganised the province itself, and above all strengthened it by an additional legion, the V Macedonica, which he moved from Troesmis to Potaissa.269 Obscure as the details are, it is probable 267 Spart. Sev. 12. 268 Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. v. 411. 269 C.I.L. iii 160 and 172. 234 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY that the step was caused by the beginnings of that movement to the north-east of Dacia which was soon to bring the Goths on to the Roman horizon. The last years of his hfe Severus spent in Britain, where from Eboracum, the capital of the province, and the headquarters of the vi Victrix, he conducted several expeditions against the northern barbarians, while both inscriptions and the partly inaccurate statements of historians seem to prove that he restored the wall and vallum which Hadrian had built from the Solway to the mouth of the Tyne. His rule was more obtrusively based on military force than that of any of his predecessors. The legions had now at any rate thoroughly learned the lesson that imperators could be created elsewhere than at Rome. Under Severus himself, in spite perhaps of some want of military skill, they were under strict disci- pline and in efficient condition, but under Caracalla the decline had already begun. The abolition of the distinction between citizens and peregrini by opening the legions absolutely to the whole Roman world may have contributed to this, although this was only a development of what we have seen to have been long the actual practice. A more powerful cause was the gradual extension of the system of vicarii, which, begun under Trajan, received ever wider application, until, contrary to the old maxim, the Roman armies became filled with the barbarian coloni settled within the empire from all parts of the frontiers, and only formally distinguished from those of purely servile birth. A greater mischief still lay in the tendency which now made rapid strides for the great military provinces to struggle for the privilege of appointing their own commanders to the empire. That this result had not happened before was due to the era, unique perhaps in the history of the world, of the *' good emperors," when for a hundred years a judicious system of adoption seemed to have united the practical advantages and security of heredi- tary power with the more ideal claims of elective empire. Here we take leave of the Roman legions. After MOVEMENTS OF THE LEGIONS 235 the death of Severus a period of decline and anarchy soon set in ; there were always stronger and more determined enemies from without, more divided counsels, less efficient and worse disciplined troops within the empire. Up to the reign of Alexander Severus, however, no serious changes had taken place in the number and disposition of the troops, and in the time of Dio Cassius, who gives a complete list, 270 they were still distributed as follows : — Lower Germany : i Minervia, xxx Ulpia Victrix. Upper Germany : viii Augusta, xxii Primigenia. Britain : 11 Augusta, vi Victrix, xx Valeria Victrix. Upper Pannonia : x Gemina, xiv Gemina. Lower Pannonia : 11 Adjutrix, i Adjutrix. Upper Moesia : vii Claudia, iv Flavia Felix, Lower Moesia : xi Claudia, i Italica. Dacia : xiii Gemina, v Macedonica. Noricum : 11 Italica. Raetia : in Italica. Spain : vii Gemina. Cappadocia : xii Fulminata, xv Apollinaris. Judaea : x Fretensis, vi Ferrata. Syria : iv Scythica, xvi Flavia Firma. Phoenicia : in Gallica. Arabia : iii Cyrenaica. Africa : in Augusta. Egypt : II Trajana. Mesopotamia : i Parthica, in Parthica. Italy : 11 Parthica. 270 Dio Cassius (Iv. 24) does not mention the xxii Primigenia : he apparently thinks that there was another legion of the same name as the xx Valeria Victrix in Upper Germany. As a matter of fact the xxii Primigenia remained in Germany as late as the time of Carausius. See Marquardt, Staatsverw. ii. 452. The most accessible authorities for the whole subject are Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. vol. v., Hermes, xix., and C. /. L. iii. ; Marquadt, Staatsverwaltung, vol. ii. ; Hiibner, Hermes, xvi. ; and Grotefend in Pauly's Real-Encyclopddie, vol. iv. To which add Tac. Ann. iv. 5 ; C. /. L. vi. 3492 ; Dio Cassius, Iv. 24 ; Rit- terling De Legione X Gemina ; and (for the British legions up to Nero) an article by Mr. Henderson in Eng. Hist Rev. 1903, XIII The Provincial Concilia from Augustus to Diocletian It has frequently been made a reproach to the imperial system of provincial government that it provided no regular means of communication between the central power on the one hand and the municipal units on the other — that, in fact, no representative system was ever developed. The reproach is true in substance, but at the same time it leaves out of account the institution of provincial assemblies — an institution of which, indeed, it is easy to exaggerate the importance, but which was, nevertheless, based on representation, and though to all appearances primarily of a religious rather than a political character, did, it is certain, involve political consequences, neither insignificant nor accidental. The very fact that these assemblies can be traced in almost every province of the empire, that their organisation appears to have been based, making allowance for certain differences of detail, on the same general plan, and that they remained in the active discharge of their functions during the whole of the first three centuries, and were destined to live on under somewhat changed conditions in the post-Diocletian period — this certainly seems to establish a prima facie reason why the origin, the organisation, and the object of these assemblies should receive soine investigation. This is, however, attended by considerable difficulties. The allusions in classical texts are few and brief, and we are in conse- quence obliged to have recourse almost entirely to epi- THE PROVINCIAL CONCILIA 237 graphical evidence ; and it cannot be pretended that with the materials, considerable as they are, at present at our disposal, a complete and entirely coherent account can be given. In what follows I do not pretend to much original work. The materials, such as they are, have been thoroughly worked by French and German scholars, and though I have searched the collections of inscriptions, both Greek and Latin, with some diligence, and, where the evidence is conflicting, have not hesitated to exercise my own judgment, I desire at the outset to express my obligations to the following authorities : Marquardt, " De conciliis et sacerdotibus provinciali- bus ; " " Ephem. Epigraph." i. pp. 200-214, and also ** Staatsverwaltung " i. pp. 503-516 : Monceaux, " De communi Asiae Provinciae ; " Pallu de Lesser t, ** L'As- semblee Provinciale dans I'Afrique Romaine ; " Giraud, " Les Assemblees Provinciales dans 1' Empire Romain ; " Desjardins, " Gaule Romaine," and " Revue de Philo- logie," vol. iii. ; Boissier, " La Religion Romaine ; " Bernard, " Le Culte d'Auguste et la Nationalite Gau- loise ; " and Mommsen, " Romische Geschichte " v., pp. 84-89, 242-244, and 317-322. I have said that these assemblies were primarily of a religious rather than a political character : they were, in fact, intimately associated with the Caesar-worship which forms so marked and, in some respects, so peculiar a feature of the first three centuries. I do not propose to trace back the origin of this worship with any minute- ness, but as its political importance as manifested in the provincial assemblies depended entirely upon the nature and strength of the feelings to which it appealed, a brief resume of its main features and the more marked stages in its development seems a necessary preface to my subject. The apotheosis of human beings after death contained nothing in itself contrary to the ideas of Roman religion : indeed, it may be said to follow with strict logic from its principles. In every human person there was inherent a divine element, and this, set free by death, became properly an object of worship to the survivors. Out of this primitive belief arose the 238 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY worship paid to the dead members of each Roman household. The Manes of the dead were Dii Manes — a title so familiar in funeral inscriptions — which were propitiated by gifts, and invoked by prayers to preserve their living kindred. 1 So Cicero lays it down as a thing not to be questioned that the rights of the Dei Manes are to be kept sacred, and the dead held to be divine ; 2 while TertulHan asks, not without contempt, " What do ye in honour of your gods which ye do not equally confer on your own dead ? " ^ Nor was a more personal aspect wanting to this conception, and it is interesting to find how the poignancy of grief brings to the same level of emotion the statesman and the freedman. For when Cicero resolves to place his dead daughter in the assembly of the immortal gods,* and to build a shrine in her honour, ^ he merely repeats the devotion of the freedman Aphthoros, who raises a tomb " to his sacred goddess Primilla Medica, with whom he has lived for thirty years." ® Again, both among the Greeks and Italians divine honours were paid to the founders of cities and the patriarchs of tribes. Theseus was a god to the inhabitants of Attica ; Latinus became Jupiter Latiaris to the Latin stock ; Semo Sancus, by the same spontaneous euhemerism, was worshipped by the Sabines ; Romulus was the god Quirinus to the cen- tralised Roman people. But though this may account for the worship of the divus Julius, or the divi Augusti, it still leaves unexplained that of the living emperors. This latter depended on elements of less native growth, and only became, as we cannot doubt it did become in time, part and parcel of the Roman faith by means of importation from oriental or Hellenic sources. For these we need go no farther back than to the time of 1 Henzen, 6206 ; C.I.L. viii. 2803, Serva tuos omnes. See also Varro, cited in -Augustine, Civit. Dei, viii. 26 : Omnes mortuos existimari manes deos et probat per ea sacra quae omnibus fere mortuis exhibentur. 2 De Legg. ii. 9, 22. 3 Apolog. 13. * Consolat. 62, 216. 6 Ad Att. xii. 36. « Wilmanns, 241. THE PROVINCIAL CONCILIA 239 Alexander the Great, who, following oriental examples, was worshipped as a god during his lifetime, "^ not only by his oriental subjects, but, with hardly any resistance, by the Greeks themselves. His successors followed the example so given, and the Ptolemies in Egypt, Lysima- chus in Thrace,^ and the Seleucidae in Syria were regularly, while they were feared as kings, worshipped as gods. Prone to flattery and helpless against their tjrants, these populations, as Giraud well puts it, *' divinised their kings, only to make them more human." With this worship of living rulers the Romans were made familiar by their intervention in Greek and Macedonian politics, and the generals and proconsuls, who at home were merely the magistrates and executive of a republic, found themselves in the provinces honoured with sacrifices, and placed in the new and embarrassing position of deities. Already Marcellus seems to have tasted this experience at the hands of the Syracusans,^ and soon Flamininus received similar honours from the Greeks,^*^ Mucins Scaevola and even Q. Cicero from the province of Asia,^^ and in fact, as we learn from Sue- tonius,^^ it was a usual thing for temples to be erected to the proconsuls. This was at first submitted to in order to avoid giving offence to the provincials, but the precedent was from the point of view of Roman custom a dangerous one : such tendencies are prone to spread, and the Roman mob, always superstitious and excitable, could hardly avoid being influenced by the crowds of resident foreigners from the east, to whom this apotheosis of living persons was a familiar spectacle. The political tendencies which again and again resulted in placing the destinies of the state in the hands of a military dictator made a reality of what had before been a possibility. If the statues of Scipio Africanus were all but placed in the cella of Jupiter Capitolinus," libations were actually offered to Marius after his defeat of the 7 Strab. xiv. 953. 8 C.I.G. 2, 2741. 9 Cic Very. ii. 2, 21, 50. ^o Plut. Flamin. 16- 11 Cic. loc. cit. and ad Quint, frat. i. 10, 32. 12 ^^g. 52. 13 Liv. xxxviii. 56. 240 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY Cimbri " while before the statue of Marius Gratidianus, the mere inheritor of a famous name, incense was burnt and wax tapers lighted.*'^ Already, then, we have the way paved for the Caesar- worship with which we have to deal. In part it was by no means contrary to the spirit of Roman religion ; in part it was not unprepared for by previous events. It is not difficult to understand the impression created on his contemporaries by Julius Caesar, and we are not surprised to find that he received during life, temples, altars, and a flamen to superintend his worship ^^ or even that he was formally addressed as Jupiter Julius." The formal apotheosis by decree of the senate after his death ^® partly, no doubt, reflected the policy of the triumvirs,^® but was principally a concession to the enthusiastic persuasion of the populace that he was a god,^° a persuasion increased by, though not wholly founded on, the various portents which followed his death. ^^ By this time the precedent was fully estab- lished, and we find Sextus Pompeius laying claim to a divine descent from Hercules, while in the east Antonius was figuring as the god Dionysus and committing extravagances which perhaps helped to decide Augustus to maintain the more sober attitude which he adopted. ^^ This attitude was indeed the easier in that he was from the first invested with a certain suprahuman glamour as Divi Filius — a glamour which was increased when in 27 B.C. the title of Augustus was formally given to him by the senate : ws koI ttAciov tl rj Kara avOp(i)7rovs WV.23 With this the emperor, so far as he himself was concerned, seems to have remained content — at any rate within the range of Rome and Italy. Enthusi- astic admirers might, no doubt, persist in saying : "He will always in my eyes be a god," ^^ and almost certainly even by the time the " Georgics " were written, i.e. by 1* Plut. Mar. 27. 15 cic. de Offic. iii. 20, 80. i« Suet./tdir}77, p. 109. 133 C.I. Gr. 1420. 134 C.I.L. iii. p. 525. "S /6. p. 432- i3« Ephem. Epigraph, i. p. 207. 256 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY a development of the provincial assemblies in a somewhat different line from the other provinces. At first the temple of Rome and Augustus was at Pergamum, and in all inscriptions which clearly date from the time of Augustus it is here that the kolvov was held.^^^ But provincial temples were subsequently erected in a number of other cities in the province. Tiberius gave permission to Smyrna to build a temple to himself, his mother, and the senate"® in 26 a. d., while Cyzicus must have gained a similar permission, since we find the city deprived of its freedom for neglecting to complete its temple to Augustus."® Other cities followed suit, and in each city which possessed a provincial temple the KOLVOV TTj^ 'Aortas was from time to time held. Thus we find it in Sardes,^^° Philadelphia,"^ Cyzicus,"^ Perga- mum,"^ Smyrna,"* Ephesus,"*^ Laodicea,"^ and some place, possibly Synnada, in the highlands of Phrygia."^ In what order the kolvov was held in these cities, or whether there was any strict rotation at all, we have no means of deciding, though the fact that it seems to have been held two years running in Pergamum, in 97 and 98 A. D., puts a certain difficulty in the way of the rotation theory."® Other questions, too, concerning Asia admit of only doubtful answers, and I shall not attempt them here ; e.g. whether the term vcwKopos was, as Mommsen 137 Conf. especially C.I. Gr. 3902 b, iv t<^ yvfiuiKc^ dywui r!^ iv Uepyd/JUfi TU)v ' Vtaixalwv 'Ze^aaTuiv. 13* Tac. Ann. iv. 15. There is no doubt that this temple was a provincial one, though not dedicated to Rome and Augus- tus. As we have already seen, other cults were joined to this in the provinces, and the senate under the empire is often the practical expression, as Mommsen points out {Staatsr. iii. p. 1259), for the older and now unmeaning phrase of " republic," and therefore a temple to the emperor, the empress-mother, and the senate meant very much the same thing, though in more concrete terms, as " Rome and Augustus." See coins in Eckhel, ii. 547, with 6ebv (r6yK\r)Top on the reverse, and also Sc/Sao-TTj ffiyKKriTos H/xvpvalwv with head of Tiberius on other side. 139 Dio Cass. Ivii. 24, and Tac. Ann. iv. s^. 140 c.I. Gr. 5918: 141 Jb. 3428. 142 lb. 3674. 143 lb. 1720. 144 lb. 3208. 145 Eckhel, ii. 521. i4« Wood, Discoveries at Ephesus, p. 54. 147 Aristid. xxvi. 345. 148 Cohen, i. 466 ; ii. 3. THE PROVINCIAL CONCILIA 257 thinks, applied to cities which had a provincial temple, or whether Monceaux is right in giving a purely muni- cipal meaning to the word,"^ and also whether the term firjTpoTroXei^ was co-extensive with the seats of the KOLvov ; if so, then the kolvov in Lycia must have been held in Tlos, Xanthus and Patara, which are described as the firjTpoTToXciq of the Lycian people .^^*^ At the meeting of the concilium its proceedings were presided over by the priest of the altar of Augustus ,^^^ an official who was apparently designated a year before- hand at the previous meeting.^^^ In the west his title was either sacerdos : e.g. sacerdos ad templum Romae et Augusti ad confltientes Araris et Rhodani, or sacerdos trium provinciarum Galliarum, sacerdos provinciae Panno- niae super., etc.,^^^ or flamen, e.g flamen provinciae His- paniae citer.^^^ flamen provinciae Lusitaniae}^^ The difference, however, appears to be a mere matter of terminology, and indeed in Tarraconensis we find indis- criminately the titles sacerdos ^^^ and flamen of the province. In the Greek provinces the title is invariably ap)^ip€Vi^ara<;), and had three times gone as legate to Anto- ninus Pius.^''^ M. Aurelius Diadochus while apxtep^vq rrj<; *Ao-ias vawv ruiv iv Ilepydfjuo waS ap^tcpcv? tov avrov ^P^^^^^ Trj<; TrarptSos (Thyatira) Kal 8ta ^tov fSovXapxo'i,'^'^^ while an dp^i€/)€U5 iv Toj AvKLOiV Wvci is described as iv rfj Trarpioi Tracras ra? apxo.<; T(Xi(Tas atros t€ kol ol ivpo- yovoL ai'Tov Tvah e/c Trarpos 7rdvT€<;}'^'^ This was a tendency, however, which only became marked in the course of time. Theoretically there were no restrictions on the 168 C.I.L. V. 7259, 169 Ephem. Epigr. ii. 77. 170 C.I.L. iii. 1209. 171 Ephem. Epigr. ii. 258. See also C.I.L. ii. 4223 ; iii. 3368. 172 C.I. Gr. 4016. 173 lb. 394. ^ 174 lb. 4289. 175 C.I. Gr. 297, dpxL^p^a, 'AOrj 8k vtto *Hp(i)8ov CTTt tt/a^iepews ^lXlttttov TpaXXiavov. These twO 206 C.I. Gr. 4196. 207 Wadd. 1224. 208 c. I. Gr. 4198. 209 Wadd. 1480. 210 C.I.L. iii. 167. 211 Wadd. ad no 885. 212 Perrot de Galatia provincia, p. 150. 213 Rom. Gesch. v. 320. 21* Cited in Dig. xxvii. i, 6, 14. 215 Edited in Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, n seq. a63 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY passages show that the same person in the same year is described as d/);(ifp€vs and as 'Aa-Ldpxrj^, though it deserves notice that where he is alluded to as president of the games he is *A€cr;s is found in the first half of the first century,^^* yet it is not till the second 2i« Wood, Discoveries at Ephesus, pp. 60, 68. 2" C.I.L. iii. 296. 218 Galen, to Hippocr. de Part, xviii. 2. 219 C.I.L. ii. 35. 160, 4198. 4233. 220 C.I. Gr. 3677 : UXuHov A.ip. Vp6.Tov ^Aaidpxov kol 'louXtas Aip. ^AaK\T]TrioS(Jl)pas rrjs yvvaLKbs adrov dpxiepelai. 221 Dio Chrysost. ii. 148 R. 222 c.I. Gr. 3421. 223 Jb. 4016, 4031. ^24 Strab xiv. 699, and Acts of the Apostles, xix. 31. THE PROVINCIAL CONCILIA 263 and third centuries that it becomes the common term in inscriptions, and this may perhaps be taken to mark the growing secularisation of the institution, especially in the east, where the religious observations were quite thrown into the shade by the splendour of the games.^^^ The extension in Asia of the provincial temples and state cult to other cities besides Pergamum, its original seat, involved the necessity of other apxt^pels in addition to the priest-president of the Asian kolvov. While the latter was dpxtepcus riys *Ao-ta5 or 'Aa-tdpxrjs simply, the former occur under such titles as apx^fpevs 'Acrtas vacov to>i/ iv rEcpya/xo),^^^ Or vawv tcov iv '^jxvpvT],^^'^ OV vaov Tov €v tjc€aio kolvov Trj<; *A(nas ^^^ aS a proof that the provincial temples had attached to them a number of musicians and trained artistes The priesthood was no doubt in all the provinces an annual office. This is proved in the west by such expressions as exado flamonio,^^^ consummato honore flamoni provinciae,^^^ oh honorem sacerdot qui statiias sihi anno xpleto posuit,^^^ while in the east we find the asi- archate held two or three times by the same person.^"^^ But if the office was not for life, the honour was, and we constantly find ex-provincial priests described as flaminales ^^* or sacerdotales ; ^*^ while it is not impossible 233 Wadd. 755. 234 c.I.L. iii. 267. 235 c.I. Gr 2090. 236 Wood, Discoveries at Ephesus, p. 68. 237 CJ. Gr. 4016. 238 Wadd. 1723 c. 238 Wood, op. cit. i. 240 C.I.L. ii. 2195. ^^^ lb. 2223. 242 C.I.L. viii. 4580. 243 C.I.Gr. 4075, 3190, etc 244 C.7.L. ii. 983. 4248, etc. 245 C.I.L. iii. 4183. Bernard, p. 58. C.I.L. viii. 1827, 2543. THE PROVINCIAL CONCILIA 265 that the title flamen perpetuus, apparently ascribed in a few inscriptions to the provincial priest, is a less correct mode of expressing the same thing. In Asia at any rate it seems clear that the asiarchs retained their title, since St. Paul, we learn from Acts xix. 31, knew several asiarchs in Ephesus, who must therefore have answered to the flaminales viri of the west. Important as the provincial assemblies would seem to be if we judged by their universal existence, their elaborate organisation, and the outward splendour of their meetings, it appears to be none the less the case that they had no necessary or essential place in the machinery of the imperial government. Their primary object was to keep up in the provincial populations the sense of their connexion with and dependence on Rome and the Augustus. For this end external pomp and splendour, dignified titles, and a representative organisation were eminently helpful, but it was probably only as a matter of convenience, and the result of a gradual development, that they were put to any directly political uses. It is quite in accordance with this that the legal position of the concilia seems to have been left entirely undefined. The duties and obligations of the provincial governors are exhaustively treated in the '* Digest," ^^^ but there is not a word to show that the provincial assemblies were bodies which they were bound to respect, and with which they might conceivably have relations or colli- sions. The senate after the death of Maximinus issued a proclamation which was sent to all the legally consti- tuted authorities in the empire ; but no mention is made of these assemblies, ^*^ and even the matters which were from time to time transacted by their means might apparently have found other organs of execution. Thus Titus sent a letter to the kolvov of the Achaeans on the exposure of children, but Domitian chose rather to write to the proconsuls on the same subject.^*® Anto- ninus Pius sent a rescript to the kolvov t7J @paKa)v on the right of appeal to the emperor.^®^ Hadrian writes to the con- cilium Baeticae on the punishment to be inflicted on cattle-lifters (abigei),^^^ while Antoninus Pius fixes for the KOLVOV of Asia the number of physicians, sophists and grammarians for whom immunity from public duties may be claimed in the various classes of cities.^®* Looking at the miscellaneous character of these rescripts, we cannot avoid the conclusion that it was a mere matter of convenience as to what subject the emperor should put into the hands of the concilium, and what he should transact with the governor, though clearly imperial questions of all sorts were beyond the range of the provincial assemblies. There was, however, one kind of communication between the assemblies and the emperor which, developing probably from unim- portant and informal beginnings, became in time a really important political instrument in the hands of the provincial deputies, and a means by which the emperor 287 piin. ad Traj. 6$. 288 Philostr. Vit. Soph, i, 2i I2. 289 Dig. V. I, 37. 290 Dig, I i6^ 4^ 5. 291 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 13. 292 Dig, xlix. 1,1. 2»3 Dig. xlvii. 14, I. 294 Dig. xxvii. i, 6, THE PROVINCIAL CONCILIA 273 was helped essentially in securing good government throughout the empire. Even in republican times we find instances of particular states sending legates with formal laudationes of the governor. So Mamertina took this course in the case of Verres,^^^ who systematically collected laudationes irom. the civitatesoi theprovince.^^^ Similarly Flaccus received testimonials of this kind from various parts of Greece.^^^ The example was followed probably from the commencement by the provincial assemblies, who in sending their annual congratulatory message to the emperor would add a complimentary decree in honour of the governor of the province. That this was at first very much a matter of routine, and by no means of necessity a fair gauge of the provincial feeling, is shown by the restriction which Augustus put upon the practice, evidently with a view of making it a real help in administration. He forbade the provincials, Dio Cassius tells us,^^^ " to give any honour to their governors either during their office or within sixty days after its termination, because certain provinces by framing testimonials and laudations had been the cause of considerable harm." This rule of Augustus, however, gave a certain official value to these testimonials, where the conditions laid down were complied with, and the absence of any such testimonial would imply a certain censure on the part of the province, which might produce an unfavourable result on the governor's future career. But more than this was implied by the imperial sanction to this custom. The next and obvious step was for the provincials to formulate complaints against bad and oppressive governors, and this too we gather that they began to do in the reign of Augustus himself, since accord- ing to Suetonius he appointed a commission of consulars for the hearing of the provincialium appellationeSy one for each province.^^^ This, however, can only have been 295 cic. in Very. ii. 5, 13. ^96 Jd. ib. ii. 26, 64. 297 Cic. pro Flacc. 26, 63. 298 Dio Cass. Ivi. 25. 299 Suet. Aug. 33 : et provincialium {appeUationes delcgahat) consularihus viris quos singulos cuiusque provinciae negotiis praeposuit. 274 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY a temporary measure, and throughout the empire we find that the prosecution of provincial governors, whether by the action of the concilium or otherwise, took place under the lex lulia de repetundis of 59 B.C., and before the supreme senatorial court. If the view taken above of the growth of this function of the assemblies is correct, we must guard against the use of language which would suggest that the accusation of provincial governors was the main object which Augustus had in view when he organised them.^°^ It was rather a custom which grew up and justified its existence by its convenience, since instances of pro- vincial maladministration like that of Licinius in Gaul ^^^ must soon have convinced Augustus of the practical necessity of some systematic and easily applicable means of becoming aware of such cases. That the tentative and uncertain beginnings of this political activity of the concilia would by frequent use harden into something like a definite privilege, it is easy to understand, and a striking passage of Tacitus proves that in Nero's time, and probably long before, it had put a weapon into the hands of the provincials which made them a real force to be reckoned with by the governors, and that the necessity of showing complaisance to the influential members of the assembly was at once galling to the senatorial order generally and suggested to them all sorts of corrupt ways of securing a favourable testi- monial from their province. Claudius Timarchus, an influential Cretan, was accused of having said in sua potestate situm, an proconsulibus qui Cretam obtinuissent grates agerentur. Paetus Thrasea in the discussion of the affair in the senate, after proposing that Timarchus should be expelled from the province, continued : " Let us take some steps worthy of the good faith and dignity of Rome against this newly developed pride of the provincisds, whereby, without withdrawing any means 300 The language both of Marquardt and Mommsen is a httle uncertain on this point. 301 Dio Cass. Uv. 21. THE PROVINCIAL CONCILIA 275 of self-protection from the allies, the false impression may be removed that our characters are to be tried before any tribunal except that of our fellow-citizens. In former days, indeed, not only praetors or consuls, but even private citizens were sent out to inspect the pro- vinces and to report on the obedience of each, and the nations trembled at the opinion of a single citizen. But now it is we who court and flatter foreign states, and as a vote of thanks comes to depend on the whim of indi- vidual provincials, the more readily are accusations resolved on. By all means let the provincials bring their accusations, and retain the right of displaying their power, but let fictitious testimonials extorted by prayers be checked no less than corruption or cruelty. ... It is surely a degradation to us to collect votes like candidates at an election, and the sooner the practice is checked, the greater equity and firmness will charac- terise our provincial rule." This remonstrance was not without a temporary effect, and a decree was passed, ne quis ad concilium sociorum referret agendas apud senatum pro praetoribus prove consulibus grates neu quis ea legatione fungeretur.^^^ That the system of testi- monials, however, was in existence in Trajan's time is proved by Pliny in the " Panegyric," ^^^ and in that of Alexander Severus by Lampridius.^^* Several inscrip- tions testify to these provincial testimonials. Thus the province of Dacia dedicates an honorary titulus or statue in the following terms : '* Through the favour of the gods and the concord of the emperors (Marcus Aurelius and L. Verus) it has happened that P. Furius Saturninus, legate of the Augusti from his first arrival till his departure from the province, has treated one and all with such generosity and so lightened their burdens that the province, bounden and devoted to his auspicious 302 Tac. Ann. xv. 20-22. 303 Cap. 70 : Provinciis quoque in posterum et iniunarum metum et accusandi neccessitatem remisisti ; nam si profuerint quihus gratias egerint, de nullo queri cogentur, 304 Lamprid. Alex. Sever. 22, praesides provinciarum quos vere non factionihus laudari comperit . . . muneribus adiuvit. 276 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY name and conspicuous virtues, has caused this to be set up." ^"* We also have a decree of the kouov of Asia dating from the reign of Augustus, in accordance with which a proclamation is to be made in the gymnastic contest of the Roman AugusH at Pergamum that " Asia crowns Paulus Fabius Maximus, the proconsul, and that the decree of the province should be set up on a white marble slab in the temple of Rome and Augustus." ^"^ Similarly the concilium trium provinciarum Galliarum sets up an inscription to L. Aemilius Frontinus, legatus Augustipro praetor e provinciae Lugdunensis ; ^"^ while the same concilium sets up an equestrian statue by the altar of Caesar to Tib. Antistius, integerrimo abstinentissi- moque procuratori trium prov. Galliarum primo unquam equiti Romano a censibus accipiendis?^^ On the subject of accusations brought by the pro- vincial concilia against the governors, very considerable light is thrown by the famous inscription of Thorigny, which was found in the fifteenth century at the village of Vieux, near Caen, was then transported to the chateau of Torigny-sur-Vire, and then to St. L6, where it remains at the present time.^^^ The inscription, together with a statue of solid marble, was set up by the concilium of the Tres Galliae in honour of T. Sennius Solemnis, a member of the concilium, and probably sacerdos of the province, in the town of the Viducasses, his native place. As priest of Mercury, Mars, and Diana, he had provided spectacles of all kinds during four continuous days, while he was distinguished by an honourable character and a creditable military career. But more than this, the decree goes on to say he was also the friend and client of Tib. Claudius Paulinus, legatus Augusti pro praetore provinciae Lugdunensis, under whom he subse- quently served with the sixth legion in Britain.^^^ He was also the most approved client of Aedinius Julianus, procurator of Augustus in the province of Lugdunensis. 305 C.I.L. iii. 141 2. 306 c.L Gr. 3902 b. 307 Bernard, p. 98. 308 Jd. 99. 309 Bernard, p. 107, and Marquardt, Ephem. Epig. i. p. 205 310 C.I.L. vii. 1045. THE PROVINCIAL CONCILIA 277 The decree concludes : Tres provinciae Galliae primo unquam monumentum in sua civitate posuerunt : locum or do civitatis Viducassium lihere dedit. Positum XVIII Kal. Jan. Pio et Proculo consulibus, i.e. in 238 a.d. in the reign of Maximinus. On the two sides of the base on which this decree occupies the main position are the copies of two letters, one from Claudius Paulinus to Solemnis accompanying a number of presents which are enumerated, the other from Aedinius Julianus, now praefectus praetorii, commending Solemnis to Radius Commianus, apparently some imperial official, either legatus or procurator, in Lugdunensis. As it is this letter which forms the most important part of the inscription, I will quote it in extenso : " Aedinius Juhanus to Badius Commianus, health. When I was acting as quinquefuscalis ^^^ in the province of Lugdunensis, several good men were brought before my notice, and among them Solemnis, a native of the state of the Viducasses, priest of the province, whom I began to love as well for his principles as for his weighty and honourable character. In addition to this, when they attempted to set on foot an accusation in the concilium of the Gallic provinces against my predecessor, Claudius Paulinus, at the instigation of certain deputies who thought themselves injured by him, Solemnis opposed their motion by means of a formal appeal {provocatione interposita) on the ground that his city, when it elected him, among others, their deputy, had given him no mandate about an accusation, but had, on the other hand, spoken of Paulinus in terms of praise. By this means it came about that all desisted from the accusation." From this letter several inferences may be drawn, (i) It seems clear that the civitates gave some special mandate to their deputies as to the course they should pursue in reference to a testimonial to the governor or an accusation against him. (2) The question was debated 311 Julianus was procurator, but was acting as vice-legate, and so had the five fasces of the imperial governors. See Dio Cass. liii. 13 ; Ivii. 17, and C.I. Gr. 4033. 278 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY in the concilium after the departure of the governor affected, and so in this case under JuHanus, not under Paulinus himself. (3) It was the interest of the suc- cessor to discourage, and if possible to prevent, the accusation of his predecessor. (4) This might be done by means of securing the influence of leading men in the concilium. (5) Thus the door must have been opened to intrigue and corruption of all kinds, and it certainly strikes us as extremely undesirable that a sacerdos of the province should be in the position of client to the gover- nor on whose administration the concilium had to express its judgment, while the fact that this clientela is men- tioned as a credit to Solemnis in the decree of the conci- lium itself shows that there was nothing out of the way or irregular in the relationship. (6) Although it has been argued that the words provocatione interposita imply that the sacerdos or president of the concilium had a right of veto in such cases, it seems more probable that Solemnis merely used the influence which his position gave him to induce the other deputies to give up the accusation. Indeed, a right of veto, if it existed, would have been so liable to be at the governor's disposal that the privilege of accusation would have become very much of a farce. This important document, with the light it throws on the proceedings of the concilium, is supplemented in respect to the actual carrying out of the prosecutions at Rome by a number of instances recorded by Tacitus and Pliny. Thus in 22 a.d. C. Silanus, proconsul of Asia, was accused a sociis (i.e. by the concilium) of repetundae, and we learn that the provincial deputies sent by the province to accuse him were facundissimi totius Asiae. He was tried before the senate, the emperor himself presiding, condemned, and relegated to the island of Cythmus.^^^ Next year a procurator of the same pro- vince, Lucilius Capito, was also prosecuted, accusante provincia, for having usurped judicial power beyond his department and for enforcing his decisions by means of the military.^^^ He was also condemned, and it was on 312 Xac. Ann. iii. 66-69. ^^^ ^^- iv. 15 THE PROVINCIAL CONCILIA 279 account of these two successful prosecutions that the cities of Asia decreed to Tiberius, his mother, and the senate, the temple which was subsequently built at Smyrna. Under Claudius, Junius Cilo was accused by the Bithynians of pecuniary corruption. The case was apparently heard not by the senate but by the emperor himself, and Cilo only escaped punishment owing to the excessive vehemence of the provincial deputies and the connivance of Narcissus. Pouring out their complaints with oriental effusiveness, they drowned one another's voices, and Claudius, asking Narcissus what they said, was told that they were expressing their gratitude to Cilo. " Oh, then," said the emperor, " he shall remain in the province for two years more." ^^* In the same year Cadius Rufus, proconsul of Bithynia, was condemned accusantibus Bithynis, on a charge of repetundae and expelled from the senate. ^^^ Under Nero we have no fewer than seven cases. Cestius Proculus, Cretensibus accusantibus, was acquitted ; ^^^ P. Celer, accusante Asia, while he escaped conviction owing to the emperor's favour, was never up to his death acquitted ; ^^'' Cossu- tianus Capito, one of the piratae Cilicum,^^^ was accused by the provincials, and with such success and energy, that he attempted no defence, and was condemned ; ^^^ Eprius Marcellus, accused by the Lycians, was enabled by profuse bribery to escape.^^*^ Pedius Blaesus was expelled from the senate, accusantibus Cyrenensibus, for tampering with the treasury of Aesculapius and corrupt administration of the mihtary levy.^^^ Vibius Secundus, a Roman knight, and doubtless procurator of the pro- vince, was condemned on a charge of repetundae, accu- santibus Mauris, and expelled from Italy ; ^^^ while Tarquitius Prisons was condemned on a similar charge, Bithynis interrogantibus.^^^ Under the Flavian emperors Antonius Flamma was condemned on the accusation of 314 Dio Cass. Ix, 33. 3i5 Tac. Ann. xii. 22 ; Hist. i. yy. 316 Xac. Ann. xiii. 30. 3i7 /^. xiii. ^^. 318 juv. Sat. viii. 94. 3i9 Tac. Ann. xiii. ^2. 320 Id. Ibid. 321 Id. xiv. 18. 322 Id, xiv. 28. 323 Id. xiv. 46. 280 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY the Cyrenenses, and Baebius Massa, procurator of Baetica, was condemned on the accusation of that province.^** Under Trajan we have three cases described by Phny, who indeed took a conspicuous part in all of them, in which provincial governors were accused by the concilium of the province. In loi a.d. Caecilius Clas- sicus, proconsul of Baetica, was accused by the whole province on the score of violence and corruption in his administration. The legati provinciae secured Pliny's advocacy of their case. Classicus himself anticipated conviction by a voluntary death, but his subordinates were made responsible for their share in carrying out his orders, and several of them were condemned and pun- ished, and the unlawful spoils of Classicus were restored to the provincials.^^^ In 103 or 104 a.d. Julius Bassus, proconsul of Bithynia, was accused by the province, legati being sent by the concilium to conduct the case. One of these, Theophanes, is described as fax accu- saiionis et origo. Pliny was this time on the side of the accused, and attributed the prosecution to the in- trigues of factious provincials like Theophanes. He was obliged, however, to admit that Bassus had, contrary to the lex Julia, received presents in Bithynia, and the accused was condemned to refund the money, while his acts were rescinded.''^^^ He was, however, neither ban- ished from Italy nor removed from the senate. Finally, a year or two later, Varenus Rufus, also proconsul of Bithynia, was accused by a deputation from the concilium, Pliny again being engaged in the defence.^^^ The case, however, as far as we know, was never tried, and after the inquiry had been sanctioned by the senate in a preliminary discussion, and the trial was about to commence, another legate, Polyaenus, arrived from the concilium, carrying a decree to the emperor by which proceedings were to be stayed and the accusation dropped. The matter was then referred to the emperor, whose decision we do not know. The dropping of the 324 Plin. Ep. iii. 4, 4 ; vii. 33, 4. 325 PHn. Ep. in. 9. 328 Plin. Ep. iv. 9. 327 Plin. Ep. v. 20 ; vi. 5, 13 ; vii. 6. %^: THE PROVINCIAL CONCILIA 281 accusation was, it is probable, due to influences similar to those of which we have inferred the effects from the inscription of Thorigny. From this summing up of the known provincial pro- secutions it appears that the privilege was not confined to any one part of the empire. Spain, Mauretania, and Gaul in the west, Crete and Cyrene in the centre, and Asia, Bithynia, Lycia, and Cilicia all give examples, though it is noticeable that out of sixteen Ccises, four came from Bithynia and three from Asia. This fact shows that, however much the Augustan cult may have been overshadowed in these provinces by the splendour and frequency of the games, their Koivd exercised at least as much political activity as those in the west. Another point which deserves notice is that only two out of fourteen cases tried resulted in an acquittal. To enter into any account of the procedure under the lex Julia which characterised these senatorial trials does not belong to the present subject, 3 28 but one or two points revealed in Pliny's account throw some light on the course taken in such cases by the provinces, (i) As soon as the accusation was resolved upon, an inquisitor was appointed by the concilium to collect all the neces- sary evidence, and when this was forthcoming, he as well as certain legati of the province were sent to Rome to conduct the case in its name. That this and not any financial function was the role played by the inquisitor Galliarum, whose existence is attested by several inscrip- tions,^^^ is proved by Pliny,^^^ who, in describing the trial of Classicus, mentions Norbanus Licinianus, legatus et inquisitor, electus a provincia ad inquirendum, and who by some means had gained possession of certain incrimi- nating letters written by Classicus himself .^^^ (2) Arrived at Rome, the legati applied to the senate for senatorial advocates to assist them in the case, sometimes, if not 328 See my introduction to Pliny's Correspondence with Trajan, p. 38 seq. 329 Wilm. 2218, and Bernard, pp. 92, 93. 330 Epist. iii. 9, 29-31. 331 In this view of the inquisitor I follow Giraud, p. 142. 282 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY always, s}x;cifying those whom they desired to have, and in such cases as a rule the senate met their wishes. Thus the legati of Baetica, says Phny,^^^ questuri de proconsulatu Caecilii Classici, me a senatu petierunt.^^^ But (3) the legati themselves took part in the case, although their vehemence was sometimes prejudicial to the cause,^^* and the flights of rhetoric, in which especially those from the eastern provinces indulged, were not always appreciated by the senatorial court. ^^^ (4) It was not always merely an unsympathetic audience which the legati had to fear. Their duty was an un- popular one, and any excess of zeal or technical mis- conduct of the case was liable to be visited with rancorous severity. Thus Norbanus, a legate of Baetica against Classicus, was accused of praevaricatio, and in the middle of the trial, contrary to all rule and all equity, was compelled to answer on the spot not only to this charge, but to a number of others which had nothing to do with the case. He was condemned and relegated to an island.^^^ Similarly in the trial of Julius Bassus, Theophanes, the fax accusationis et origo, only escaped a prosecution for misconduct of the case through the refusal of the consuls to put the proposition to the vote.^" (5) On the other hand the accusers had a certain advan- tage in being privileged to compel the attendance of witnesses, which the accused, strange as it may seem, was unable to do ; and the fact already pointed out that acquittals are so rare is a proof that in spite of senatorial sympathy with the accused, of which Pliny himself makes no secret,^^^ the presence of the emperor in the background was sufficient to ensure substantial justice. Here this account of the provincial concilia must end. We can trace their existence by means of inscriptions in 332 Epist. iii, 4. 4. 333 Conf. also Epist. ii. 11, 2 ; vii. 33, 4. 334 Dio Cass. Ix. 33. 335 Plin. Epist. V. 20, 4 : Respondit mihi Fonteius Magnus, unus ex Bithynis, plurimis verbis, paucissimis rebus. 336 Plin. Ep. iii. 9, 31, 32, 337 Jd. iv. 9, 21. 338 Id. a, II. THE PROVINCIAL CONCILIA 283 a large number of provinces up to the end of the first half of the third century. With regard to many points in their organisation and functions we are, owing to the nature of the evidence, uninformed. That their exis- tence had an important effect in producing that state of contentment and loyalty' towards Rome and that participation in Roman civilisation which were such powerful factors in the success and duration of the empire, there is every reason to believe ; but that they were, or were designed to be, important aids in provincial administration, or that they were interposed in revolu- tionary movements,^^^ or played a distinctly political ro/^, there is no evidence whatever to show. Representative no doubt they were, but examples of the representative system of government they were not. Such a system was not only alien from, it was contradictory to, the whole imperial scheme. The history of the concilia by no means ends with Diocletian : on the contrary, after his time they gain a much more definite constitution, and possibly a more defined and distinct sphere of activity. But their character essentially changes : the provinces are re-grouped, and, above all, Christianity assumes first an importance which seems, even as early as Maximinus,^*^ to have been the occasion of a regular hierarchy in the religious affairs of the province,^*^ and lastly an ascendency which, while it owed much of its success to the ecclesiastical organisation directly bor- rowed from the provincial Kotvd of the East, must in its turn have essentially modified the aims and raison d'etre of these assemblies. A full treatment, however, of this important and interesting subject has still to be attempted. 339 Mommsen {Rom. Gesch. v. 85) seems wrong in considering the meeting of deputies from Gallic civitates summoned by the Remi in 70 a.d. to have been the provincial concilium (Tac. Hist. iv. 67, 68). It was rather a revival of the old national assemblies like that summoned at Bibracte against Caesar (Caes. Bell. Gall. vii. 6^,), or that called by Caesar himself at Paris {ib. vi. 13). 340 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. viii. 14, 9. 341 See Julian, Epist. 49 and Gt,. XIV Imperium Consulare or Proconsulare In Vol. XVII. of the Journal of Philology, No. 33 (pp. 27-52) there appeared an admirable article by Prof. Pelham on " Some disputed points connected with the ' Imperium ' of Augustus and his successors," in which a view is adopted with regard to the " procon- sulare imperium " held by Augustus which I think is entirely new, and which differs both from Mommsen and also from Herzog. I had hoped indeed that the latter, in his " System der Verfassung der Kaiserzeit," would have noticed this new theory, and either accepted it or given some sufficient reason for re- taining Mommsen's view. He has not however done so, and I think we must infer that he has not seen the article in question, for the case seems to be put and supported there with so much consistency and cogency, that even if it came from an authority much less deserv- ing of attention than Prof. Pelham it would have demanded some recognition. For my own part I was at first convinced that the new view was correct, and it is only since I have gone into the question more carefully in connexion with Herzog's last volume, that I have found some stumbling-blocks in it, which make me think that Prof. Pelham has strained rather too far the continuity between the constitutional theory of the republic and the practical usage of the empire. The point in question is this. The ordinary view, at any rate since the publication of Mommsen's " Staatsrecht," 1 is 'that in the beginning of 27 B.C. when Augustus, as he himself says, 2 " transferred the republic 1 See especially ii. p. 834, n. 3. 2 Mon. Anc. Lat. 6, 13. 284 IMPERIUM CONSULARE OR PROCONSULARE 285 from his own power to the disposal of the senate and people," he received back for a period of ten years the " proconsulare imperium," i.e. the command of the army throughout the empire, the direct control over the so-called imperial provinces, and probably certain rights over the senatorial provinces in financial matters and in connexion with any troops quartered there : that for purposes of domestic government he intended annually to assume the consulship, which not only invested him with the prestige of the chief magistracy, but gave him certain definite rights, such as that of convoking and prior reference in the senate, etc., while he employed the " tribunicia potestas," as Tacitus says, ad tuendam plebem, and no doubt for certain subordinate purposes of domestic administration. In 23 B.C., how- ever, for reasons about which there is practically no dispute, he laid down the consulship, while retaining the proconsulare imperium, the termination of which would only arrive at the end of 18 B.C., while in order to replace the loss of power caused by the resignation of the consulship (a) he gave greater prominence and importance to the tribunicia potestas, which now became " summi fastigii vocabulum," and (b) received from the senate certain special privileges, such as the consular right of prior reference and that of convoking the senate at pleasure, 3 while (c) in 19 B.C. he received the consular fasces and insignia according to Mommsen's interpreta- tion of a passage of Dio,* and on two separate occasions in 8 B.C. and 13 a.d. he received a special grant of the consulare imperium for the purpose of taking the census. ^ To this view with its distinction between the consulare and the proconsulare imperium Prof. Pelham objects that it breaks the continuity with republican usage, according to which the proconsular imperium was merely the consular imperium held by a man who was not consul, but was acting pro consule : that the notion that the consular authority had by the end of the republic become 3 Dio Cass. liii. 32. 4 id. liv. 10. 5 Mon. Anc. Lat. 2, 5 and 8 ; Momms, Staatsr. ii. p. 836. 286 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY in law as well as in fact an urban, domestic and civil authority is a mistaken one : that the actual provincia of the consuls indeed was usually confined to Rome, but constitutionally it might still be extended to any part of the empire, and so take the form of the old imperium infinitum,^ in which case they would possess the majus imperium over all provincial proconsuls : that in point of fact Augustus revived this theory and put it into practice, and from 27-23 B.C. governed the imperial provinces, not by any proconsulate imperium, but as consul with more than half the empire for his province, while in the case of the senatorial provinces also he had the consular majus imperium over the senatorial pro- consuls. When in 23 B.C. he laid down the consulship, he retained the consulare imperium ; and, as he retained it pro consule, it was usually called " proconsulare imperium," but it was really only the consular imperium held by one who was not consul, and by a special exemp- tion he was allowed to hold this consular imperium within the city,^ and hence, without any special grant, he could say " consulari cum imperio lustrum solus egi," i.e. the consular imperium by which he took the census was the same as the so-called proconsular imperium by which he governed the provinces : « that in fine he had one imperium only, and that in strict continuity with republican theory was the " consulare imperium." But by laying down the consulship, Augustus had lost certain privileges which were attached to it and also its external prestige : accordingly the special privileges alluded to above were granted to him in compensation and also the consular insignia and fasces. But it was not only in Rome, Prof. Pelham points out, but in the provinces also that the loss of the consulship involved loss of power. As consul he had the majus imperium over the proconsuls of the senatorial provinces : but as holder pro consule of the consulare imperium, though he was still supreme over the legates of his own provinces, « Momms. Staatsr. i. p. 52, n. 7. 7 Djo Cass. liii. 32. 8 p. 29. IMPERIUM CONSULARE OR PROCONSULARE 287 he possessed only an aequum imperium with the other proconsuls, just as Pompeius did as the result of the Gabinian law,^ and it was to reinstate him in his former position in regard to these provinces, that another special privilege mentioned by Dio Cassius ^^ was given to him by the senate Iv tw vttt/koo) to ttXClov twv cKa- (XTayoOi ap)(6vTUiV tcr;(V€iv. No doubt, as I have said, there is something tempting about the consistency of this theory, and its apparent continuity with republican institutions : but I think it should be observed that it is really a continuity only with the prae-SuUan republic. After the time of Sulla the consular imperium was with the fewest exceptions 11 an imperium domi. Prof. Pelham is probably right in doubting the existence of any law to which this change can be ascribed, but the Roman constitutional system was full of possible revivals, which however as a matter of fact never interfered with what had grown up by the force of constant usage, and as a matter of usage and custom, the consulship had certainly lost its connexion with the imperium militiae in the provinces. Nor is it entirely correct to say absolutely without qualification as to period or usage that the proconsular imperium was only the consular imperium held by a person who was not consul, but acting pro consule. No doubt in re- publican times the consulare imperium was often pro- rogued to a consul after his office was over to enable him to finish a war, 12 and no doubt it was also conferred by delegation on some of the provincial prae tores, especially in Spain and Asia,i3 who therefore commonly took the title of proconsules : and sometimes in excep- tional circumstances on privati, as on Pompeius for the Sertorian war,i* and again against the pirates by the Gabinian law. But even from the first there was a certain distinction between this prorogued or delegated 9 Veil. Paterc. ii. 31. 10 loc. cit. 11 As e.g. Liv. Epit. 93 and 94 : Dio Cass. xxxv. 2. 12 Liv. viii. 23, 12, etc. 13 Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 628 foil. : conf. ii. 234, n. i, 1* Liv. Epit. 91. 288 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY consulare imperium, which was only and essentially an imperium militiae, and the full imperium held by the acting consul, which was potentially both donii and militiae. In the course of time this distinction grew more strongly marked (i) by the custom of confining the consuls to urban duties, (2) by the interval of five years, which by a senatus consultum of 701 ^^ and the lex Pompeia of the following year, i« was made necessary between the consulship and a provincial command. The real effect of these two changes was not only to alter the constitutional character of the consulship, but to abolish the promagisterial character of the proconsul- ship, to make it in fact a distinct magistracy, with distinct duties, always provincial, of its own, a definite mode of appointment and a fixed duration. So Momm- sen 17 says, " Diese Bezeichnungen dienen jetzt nicht mehr, wie in der Republik, zur Unterscheidung der ordentlichen Magistratur von der prorogirten, mandirten Oder ausserordentlichen, sondern zur Unterscheidung des Provinzialamts von den stadtischen Oberamtern." The fact that a constitutional purist like Cicero can still say " omnes enim in consulis jure et imperio debent esse provinciae " is is, I think, of small importance in the face of established and practically unbroken usage, and indeed Cicero himself in accordance with this usage is ready enough to reproach Antonius as rrjv ttoXlv Iv raJ T^s v7raT€ias XP^^^ e/cAiTrdjv. i^ Qn the other hand the original theory of delegated consular authority for the proconsuls still remains visible in the phrase "consulare imperium," which, as both Mommsen 20 and Pelham point out, is attributed to them by republican writers, proconsulate imperium not being used, so far as I know, by any writer earlier than Livy. Under the principate both these tendencies have, it seems to me, become absolute rules. The consulship 15 Dio Cass. xl. 64. 18 Id. xl. 56, conf, liii. 14 and Suet. Aug, 36. 17 Staatsr. ii. p. 233. 18 Phil. iv. 9. : conf also ad Att. viii. 15. i» Dio Cass. xlv. 20. 20 Staatsr. ii. p. 628, n. i. IMPERIUM CONSULARE OR PROCONSULARE 289 is strictly an " urban, domestic and civil " office. 21 I don't think there is a single instance of a consul, as such, governing a province or commanding an army, and the fact that we do find instances, and Dio Cassius 22 imphes that they were not infrequent, of consuls holding a provincial government during their year of office, 23 really proves the rule conclusively, because they govern the provinces, not as consuls, but as legati pr. pr. or as proconsuls, the consulship and the provincial govern- ment being held simultaneously but independently of one another. To this we may add the significant fact that wherever consulare imperium occurs in imperial times it is used in connexion with urban matters, as e.g. in the Mon. Ancyr. loc. cit. in regard to the census, Dio Cass. Ix. 23, with reference to triumphal games, while Tacitus ^* says that the consulare imperium was given to Domitian, together with the praetura urbana, clearly with the purpose of fulfilling the urban duties of the consuls, Vespasian and Titus, who were both absent from Rome, and certainly not with the idea of giving him any command over the provinces or the troops, since we know that the secondary proconsulare imperium could not be held within the city. 25 The only exception to this use of " consulare imperium " (it is noticed by Prof. Pelham) is the case of Pliny, who was sent out to Bithynia as legatus pro praetore . . . consulari potestate. This is no doubt a difficulty, but it is prob- ably to be met, as Mommsen meets it, by the suggestion that the consular power involved an augmentation of insignia only, but not an augmentation of competence. On the other hand the proconsulship had no less clearly changed its original character. At first and strictly only those provincial governors were pro consule who had a military province with armies to command, ^s 21 Dio Cass. liii. 14, /xera to ev ry irdXei Ap^ai. 22 Id. Ibid. 23 Henz. 6483; C. /. L. iii. 1171 and 1177, see Momms. Staatsr, i. p. 497. 24 Hist. iv. 3, 25 Xac. Ann. i. 14, xii. 41, etc. 26 (Comp. the case^ of Spain, and see Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 638.) U 290 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY Now on the contrary the proconsuls are those provincial governors who have no military authority whatever, and therefore the attribution to them of consular im- perium seems altogether inapplicable, and in point of fact I believe that it ceases and is replaced by the phrase, " proconsulare imperium." Thus Valerius Maximus, clearly from the usage of his own time, uses the phrase, even in connexion with republican proconsuls, e.g. T. Aufidius 27 and P. Dolabella,28 though Cicero would certainly have said " consulari imperio," 29 while the same phrase is used equally incorrectly in Liv. Epit. 91 of Pompey's Sertorian command. So that under the principate I think we are justified in saying that the consulare imperium was purely domi, and the procon- sulare imperium was purely militiae, that they were not one and the same and that they did not overlap. Speaking generally, then, I think we must admit that under the empire the proconsulare imperium was not merely the consulare imperium held by one who was not consul. Is there any reason to think that the case was different with the emperors themselves, that Augustus ever governed the provinces and the army as consul, or that his so-called proconsular imperium, by being allowed to be retained within the city, ever amounted to the consulare imperium domi ? (i) Did Augustus govern the provinces from 27-23 B.C. as consul ? Strong negative evidence seems to be furnished by the purely urban character of the consulship at other periods under the empire, nor surely will Prof. Pelham maintain that emperors like Vespasian and Domitian, who frequently assumed the consulship, during the years of their consulships governed the provinces as consuls and in other years by their " imperium pro- consulare." But to be consistent he must maintain this. For he says 3o " This consular imperium (meaning over the provinces) he wielded from 27-23 as consul, just as ^ vi. 9, 7, 28 viii. I Ambust. 2. 28 See pro Flacc. 34, 85 ; de prov. cons, 7, 15, etc. ^ P- 35' IMPERIUM CONSULARE OR PROCONSULARE 29I Pompey had wielded his in 52." But Pompey had had the proconsular command in Spain granted to him in 54, and granted for five years, and as he was allowed to exercise this entirely by his legates, he himself remained at Rome, and thus was able to hold the consulship in 52, thus combining the imperium militiae which he held pro consule, with the imperium domi which he held as consul, but certainly not, (or at least what evidence is there for the assertion ?) wielding his power (over the provinces) as consul. 31 But in the case of Augustus, I think there are positive arguments against Prof. Pelham's view. As consul, he must of course have been annually elected, have received his imperium for one year at a time, and his province, i.e. on Prof. Pelham's supposition the so- called imperial provinces, assigned to him for the same time, and then re-assigned, whereas Dio Cassius 32 says plainly enough, and Prof. Pelham accepts his statement, that the power by which Augustus commanded the provinces and the army was granted for ten years. If this statement is correct, it seems certain that Augustus did not govern the provinces and army as consul, for no one will assert that the consulship was granted for ten years. The consulships of Augustus therefore were no exception to the rule now prevalent about that office : they conferred an imperium used only for urban pur- poses, as e.g. the census, ^3 while the government of provinces and army was contained in the imperium proconsulare, which Dio Cassius calls by that name under 23 B.C., 3 4 which is always so called in connexion with the destined successor, and which could never have been applied to the government of the city. Moreover, if Professor Pelham's view has an attractive appearance of consistency in one direction, I think it is open to a charge of inconsistency in another. If, when Augustus ceased to be consul in 23 B.C., he was allowed not only to retain the consular imperium, but to retain it in the city, so that by its means he could e.g. take the 31 Momms. Sfaatsr. i. p. 498, ii. p. 233 n. 4. 32 liii. 13. 33 Mon. Anc. Lat. 8, 2. ^^ liii. 32. 292 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY census, it seems hard to understand what he really lost by giving up the consulship, or why it was necessary to confer on him either the special privileges of 23 B.C. which were to make up for the loss of the consulship, but would surely be contained in the consular imperium, or the consular insignia and fasces in 19 B.C., which again would certainly have been involved in the same imperium. It seems, however, to me that when the senate allowed Augustus rrjv apxV "^W OLvOvTrarov . . . c;(€tv wa-n ju-r/Tc iv r^j icroBw tov iroiixrjpLov KaTaTcOeaOai avrrjv, firp-^ avOf; avaviovcrdai^ it did not give him in any sense the con- sulate imperium domi, but simply allowed him to exercise his proconsular government of the provinces and army from the city, just as Pompeius had done during his five years' government of Spain, i.e. it affected not the range over which his imperium could be extended, but the locality from which it could be exercised. There was, therefore, no question of governing Rome by proconsular authority, which Prof. Pelham says was not yet possible, though I do not see how he reconciles with this statement the assertion of p. 24 that the consular imperium, in virtue of which Augustus held the census, was in fact no other than that by which he ruled the provinces and the legions, the so-called imperium proconsulate. Dio Cassius does indeed state ^^ that he did on one occasion take the census by the proconsulare imperium, but that is a statement which has hitherto been regarded as erroneous and indeed impossible. 36 Does not in fact Prof. Pelham, in saying that Rome could not be governed by proconsular authority, use the word in a somewhat ambiguous sense ? * If procon- sular authority is merely consular authority held by a man who is not consul, and yet is allowed to hold it in Rome, there seems no reason why Rome should not be governed by it, as presumably it was to be by Domitian during the absence of his father and brother, ^^ and it 35 iv. 13. 38 Momms. Res gest. div. Aug. p. ^7, a? Tac. Hist. iv. IMPERIUM CONSULARE OR PROCONSULARE 293 is only in the other sense of proconsular, i.e. as relating to the provinces — a meaning which Prof. Pelham apparently rejects — that his statement is correct. Then with regard to the census taken by Augustus in 8 B.C. and 13 a.d., and which Prof. Pelham thinks did not require any special grant of the consulare imperium. The words of Augustus himself are : ^s *' Iterum consulari cum imperio lustrum solus feci," and " Tertium consulari cum imperio lustrum conlega Tiberio Caesare filio feci," the Greek being v-n-aTLKfj l^ova-U. Apart from any special theory, I think the natural impression conveyed by the language is that the imperium was specially conferred for the occasion. The phrase " cum imperio " (Prof. Pelham, in quoting the passage, omits the prepo- sition) favours this view, and when Augustus says ^9 that he carried out certain measures by the tribunicia potestas — a power certainly held permanently and not specially granted, he uses the phrase not Srifiapxi-Kfj i^ovcrta but t^9 877/Aap;j(tK^s c^ovcnas wv (unfortunately the Latin is lost). So I imagine, if he had had the consulare imperium permanently, he would have said T-qv vTraTLKTjv i^ovcTLav exoiv. It may perhaps deserve notice in this connexion that Dio Cassius,^^ under the year 4 B.C., says avOvirarov i^ova-iav 7rpo9 re rb reAos t(x)V d7roypo.(f)(i)v kol Trpos Tr^v rov KaOapcrLOv Trotrjo-cv Trpoa-eOero. No doubt the statement is erroneous, both as regards date and as to the proconsular power, ^1 but Dio must almost certainly have had some authority for saying that a special imperium was conferred for census purposes, and therefore the statement to a certain extent strengthens the inference from the monument. There is, however, another passage of Dio Cassius *2 which, I think, absolutely proves that the princeps did not hold the consular imperium permanently within the city in the way which Prof. Pelham assumes, for we learn that Claudius was only able to celebrate some triumphal games (a function belonging to the consuls), *3 38 Mon. Anc. Lat. 8, 5 and 8. 39 Mon. Anc. Grk. 6, 12. *o Iv. 13, *i See above. *2 ix. 23. *3 Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 129, n. 4. 294 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY {nrdrov riva i^ova-Cav \aj8cav, and evidently, if he had had the consulare imperium in a sense enabhng him to take the census, he would also by the same means have been able to celebrate the former without a special grant. Lastly, the privilege mentioned by Dio Cassius — eV rai VTn/Koo) TO ttXciov ruiv iKaarTaxoOt dp;(o^'TO)V i(r;(veti/ — admits of another explanation than that given by Prof. Pelham. It seems to me that what was given to Augus- tus in 27 B.C. was the proconsular imperium over the so-called imperial provinces ** and the command of the army wherever it was, the senatorial provinces and their proconsuls being left independent, except so far as military and perhaps some financial matters were concerned. During the interval between 27-23 Augustus was employed in organising the imperial provinces in Gaul and Spain, and he may very likely have convinced himself that similar organisation was necessary in the senatorial provinces as well. This would be a sufficient reason for having the majus imperium in those provinces definitely secured to him, and in fact we find him in the next years making use of the power so given in his progress through the Oriental provinces. On the whole, therefore, in spite of the somewhat tempting symmetry of Professor Pelham's view, I think that this privilege was an " extension of his authority," and not merely a restoration of what he lost when he ceased to be consul. ** Dio Cass. liii. 12. XV Plutarch, Tacitus, and Suetonius ,on Galba and Otho The authenticity of the Lives of Galba and Otho, though it has not absolutely escaped the attacks of German criticism, has never been very seriously impugned, and it is not necessary to enter into the question here any further than to mention one or two of the most obvious reasons which seem to justify the accepted view that they were written by Plutarch, (i) They are mentioned in the Catalogue of Lamprias. This Catalogue is doubt- less not exactly what it professes to be, and contains certain works which are confessedly not Plutarchean, but that portion of it which mentions these Lives together with those of several other Caesars deserves perhaps some special credit, because it also names a Life of Scipio Africanus, which, though no longer extant, is testified to by Plut. " C Gracch."c. lo. (2) Though not, as we shall soon see, biographies in the same sense as the Parallel Lives, they nevertheless are similar in style to the rest ; they are introduced by certain moral reflections in very much the same way as e.g., are the Lives of Pericles, Agis, Pelopidas, Aratus, Demosthenes, Sertorius, etc. : they are interspersed quite after Plut- arch's manner with quotations from poets, 1 and in several places they show that imperfect knowledge of Latin which we know from Plutarch himself that he possessed. " rjixus 8c 6\j/€ ttotc koL TTOppo) TTJs rjXiKLa'S 1 Conf. Galb. 16, 22, and 27, 31. 295 296 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY ripidfxtOa /iw/xaiKots ypafifiacTLV eVrvyxai'Civ . . . €v Be 'Pw/i,]7 Koi Tois irepi rrjv ^IraXtav SiarpL^aU ov cr^oX^? ova-q^ yv/x- vd^€ Nor does he give us anything correspond- ing to the sketch of affairs in the Eastern provinces with which Tacitus opens his Second Book.i^ In fact Plutarch makes no mention of the provinces at all except in so far as the personal fortunes of the emperors are concerned in them, and so, while references are made to the state of Spain and Gaul in connexion with Galba and Vindex, and to Germany in connexion with Verginius Rufus and the rising against Galba, the affairs of the other provinces are entirely passed over, only Africa being alluded to in reference to Clodius Macer, Syria and Judaea in reference to the attitude of Mucianus and Vespasian, and the Illyrican provinces in reference to the side taken by their legions. So closely indeed does Plutarch confine himself to the one main thread of his narrative, that he says nothing of the expedition of Otho's fleet and the resulting campaign in Gallia Nar- bonensis described by Tacitus. 12 With these exceptions, however — and we should have been glad if Tacitus had made them more numerous by paying still greater attention to the non-Italian part of his subject — the two narratives take a strikingly similar course. How similar it is, wiU best be seen from the following con- spectus, which it will be convenient to insert at this point, after which we shall be in a better position to discuss the relation of the two narratives to one another. Tacitus begins his " Histories " with the commencement of theyearGgA.D., whereas Plutarch gives some account of Galba's government of Tarraconensis, of his corre- spondence with Vindex, his proclamation by his army, and his march to Italy, while several chapters are devoted 9 Tac. Hist. i. 61-70. 1° lb. i. 79. 11 ii. i-io. 12 ii. 12-16. PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 299 to the attempt made at Rome by Nymphidius Sabinus in the interval between Nero's death and Galba's arrival to secure the empire for himself. The correspondence therefore with Tacitus of the first fifteen chapters of Plutarch's " Galba" is naturally not very close, although Tacitus, partly in his resume of the state of the empire ^^ partly in the speech of Otho,i* and in other scattered notices repeats portions of what had no doubt their proper place in the last Book of the " Annals." Thus he mentions the " donativum sub nomine Galbae pro- missum," ^^ the particulars of which are given in full by Plutarch, 16 and also very briefly the attempt " Nymphi- dii Sabini praefecti imperium sibi molientis." ^"^ The attitude of Verginius Rufus in Germany and his pro- clamation as imperator by his army are similarly alluded to by Plutarch ^^ and Tacitus. ^^ A still closer resem- blance is seen in the two references to Icelus, Galba's freedman : — r^j 8e dT€\€vdep(i) daKTvXiovs re nec minor gratia Icelo Xpvo^rjdrjvai.^'^ mania, cum similia coeptaret, Cornelius Aquinus et Fabius Valens legati legionum inter- fecerant antequam iuberen- tur.3o The collision with the classiarii described with details by Plutarch ^i is briefly mentioned by Tacitus. ^ 2 The exaction of the Neronian donationes is with the exception of one circumstance 33 similarly described by Plutarch 3* and Tacitus. 35 The growing unpopularity of Vinius and his influence over Balba is similarly described in Plutarch ^e and Tacitus. 37 The temporary preservation of Tigellinus owing to the influence of Vinius is mentioned with some detail by Plutarch, 38 and is briefly alluded to by Tacitus on the occasion of his execution under Otho, " apud Galbam Titi Vinii potentia defensus " 39 while the demand for his punishment by the mob cV 25 Galb. 13, 24. , 20 Hist. i. 73. 27 Galb. 15 ad init. 28 Hist. i. 6. 29 Galb. 15, 11-14. 3o Hist. i. 7. 31 Galb. 15, 18 foil. 32 Hist. i. 6. 33 See below, p. 311. 3* Galb. 16, 8 foU. 36 Hist. i. 20. ae Galb. 16 ad fin. »7 Hist. i. 12 ad fin. 38 Galb. 17, 9 foU. 39 Hist. i. 72. PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 3OI Tracrt Oiarpoi^ koI (TTaStots is also mentioned by Tacitus. *« Plutarch's remark in reference to Galba's unpopu- larity Koi Ta fxerpto)? Trparro/xiva Sta^oA^v ^Tx^v *^ is found also in Tacitus, " inviso semel principe seu bene seu male facta perinde invidiam adferebant." *2 The rewards given to those states of Gaul which had sup- ported Vindex are alluded to in Plut. " Galb." i8, 4 and Tac. i. 8 and 51. The anger of the soldiers at the non-payment of the donative is mentioned by both,*^ and also the effect produced by Galba's assertion dioOivai KaraXiyeiv arpa- Ttwras ovK ayopd^av, which Plutarch says was ^wv^ /AcyaAo) rjyefjiovL TrpeVovcra, Tacitus, " VOX pro republica hones ta." ** The arrogance of the German legions on account of their victory over Vindex is spoken of in very similar terms : — /MeyAXoju d^iovpres avrotis dtcL solliciti et irati superbia re- TTjv fiAxvf, •^'' iiJ-ax^cravTo irpos centis victoriae.*« while the new legate, Hordeonius Flaccus, is described in almost identical words. *? Plutarch mentions letters announcing the disaffection of the legions under Vitellius Trapa twv eViTpoTrcov ; ^s Tacitus says that letters were brought from Pompeius Propinquus, procurator of Belgica, announcing the sedition of the Upper German army.^a Both agree that this news urged Galba to carry out his plan of adopting an heir : — 6 S^ s fMT] fibvov did, Maturavit ea res consilium rb 7^pas, dXKa Kal 81a, rrjv dwaidiav Galbae iam pridem de adop- Karaippovovjxevoi i^ovXei/ero TraiSa tione secum et cum proximis eiadaiP^ agitantis.51 40 loc. cit. 41 Galh. 18 ad init. 42 Hist. i. 7. 43 Galh. 18, 7 and Hist. i. 5. 44 Galb. 18, II, Hist. i. 5. 45 Galb. 18, 22. 46 Hist. i. 8. 47 Galb. 18, 26 and Hist. i. 9 ad init. 48 Galb. 19, 3. 49 Hist. i. 12. 50 Galb. 19, 5. si Hist. i. 12. 302 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY Both in this connexion mention the early life of Otho, his intimacy with Nero, and particularly his relations with Poppaea Sabina ; ^^ further, his quasi- exile as legate of Lusitania, his equitable administration of the province, '53 and the fact that he was the first to join Galba in Spain : — dTocTTclvroj Si TdX/So towto^ primus in partes transgres- 01^x65 vpoaex^PV^^ '''^*' vyefidvuv. sus. Both again relate in almost identical language the attempted corruption of the cohort which attended Galba when he dined at Otho's house, s* The support of Otho as a candidate for adoption by Vinius, and the projected marriage of the former with Vinius' daughter, are mentioned by Plutarch ^^ and Tacitus, ^^ while Plutarch arrives at the consulship of Galba and Vinius, with which Tacitus begins the ** Histories," at the end of chap. 21. In chap. 22 Plutarch relates the events leading to the proclamation of Vitellius by the German armies. The anger of the soldiers at the recall of Verginius «' is mentioned in Tac. i. 8 ; the rewards given to the sup- porters of Vindex and the punishment inflicted on those who opposed him ^s are stated in i. 8 and 53. The throwing down of Galba's images on January i, and the oath taken to the senate and Roman people ^^ are similarly described in Tacitus. 60 The mention of Vitellius as Trarpos TLfirjTov kol rpU virdrov «! is paralleled in Tac. i. 52 ad fin. The bringing of the news to Vitellius by the standard-bearer «2 is given in i. 56 in almost identical words, and the proclamation by Valens e^ in i. 57 ad init. The mid-day gluttony and drunkenness of Vitellius «* is described in i. 62, and also his acceptance of the title of Germanicus and his refusal 52 Galh. 19, 13. etc., Hist. i. 13, see note ad loc. 63 Galb. 20, s-6, Ifist. i. 1$ ad fin. 6* Galb. 20, 26, Hist. i. 24. 55 Galb. 21, 2. M Hist. i. 13. 57 line 5. 68 lines 6, 7. 59 Unes 12-17. «> Hist. i. 55. 61 line 27. «2 ijne 35. 63 line 40. 6* line 43. PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 303 of that of Caesar ; while both Plutarch and Tacitus use the same language in regard to the taking of the oath by the upper army : — Toi/s KoXoi/s iKeivovs Kal hrjixo- speciosis senatus populique KpariKoiis eis adyKXtjTov 6pKo/x$ Romani nominibus relictis.^^ In what follows the accounts agree very closely to- gether. The adoption of Piso is given in Plut. c. 23, 6 foil., and Tac. i. 14, the omens on the way to the camp,^^ the behaviour of Piso,68 the discomposure of Otho,^^ his encouragement by astrologers, 'o the conspiracy of Onomastus, Veturius, and Barbius,'i Galba's sacrifice on the Palatine,'^2 the departure of Otho on the pretext of inspecting his newly bought house,7 3 and his arrival at the aureum miliarium.'^* Similar accounts follow of the proclamation of the twenty-three soldiers, "^s the hurry to the camp,'^^ Otho's admission by Martialis,^? the rumours brought to Galba,'?^ the attempt of Piso to secure the cohort posted in the palace,'^ and the mission of Marius Celsus to the legion- aries in the Portions Vipsania.^o Both authors proceed to mention the dispute between Vinius and Laco as to whether Galba should go forth or remain in the palace,^! the rumour of Otho's death,^^ Galba's reproof to lulius Atticus,83 Galba's conveyance in the litter to the forum,8 4 the contradictory advice given,8 5 the throwing down of Galba's statue by Atilius Vergilio,86 the murder of Galba at the Lacus Curtius,^' his last words and the 65 line 47. 66 Hist. i. 57. 67 Galb. 23, 12 etc., Hist. i. 18. 68 Galb. 23, 21, Hist. i. 17. 69 Galb. 23, 25, Hist. i. 21. 7o Galb. 23, 34, Hist. i. 22. 71 Galb. 24, 1-4, Hist. i. 25. 72 Galb. 24, 11, Hist. i. 47. "^3 Galb. 24, 22, Hist. i. 27. 74 Galb. 24 ad fin., Hist. i. 27. 75 Galb. 25, 2, Hist. i. 27. 76 Galb. 25, 12, Hist. i. 27. 77 Galb. 25, 17, Hist. i. 28. 78 Galb. 25, 23, Hist. i. 28. 79 Galb. 25, 30, Hist. i. 29. 80 Galb. 25, 32, Hist. i. 31. si Galb. 26 adinit., Hist. i. 32-33. 82 Galb. 6, 4, Hist. i. 34. 83 Galb. 26, 11, Hist. i. 35. 84 Galb. 26, 16, Hist. i. 40. 85 Galb. 26, 18, Hist. i. 39. 86 Galb. 26, 27, Hist. i. 41. 87 Galb. 27, 2, Hist. i. 41. 304 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY various reports as to the name of his murderer,®^ the murder of Piso,®» of Vinius,»o the 120 petitions found by Vitelhus,*" and the artifice by which Otho saved Marius Celsus from the soldiers.^^ Then follow the convoking of the senate,»3 the con- ferment on Otho of the name of Augustus,^'* the surrender of the bodies of Vinius and Piso for burial,^^ the mutila- tion and final burial of Galba.^« Passing to the life of Otho we find a still closer corre- spondence between the two accounts. Both narrate the summons of Marius Celsus by Otho, the justification by the former of his own conduct and their reconcilia- tion,»7 the arrangements made by Otho as to consul- ships and his conferment of priesthoods, etc.,^^ the restoration to the Neronian exiles of the remnants of their property, »» the rejoicing of the people at the death of Tigellinus at Sinuessa.ioo In both we have the title of Nero given to Otho, the restoration of the statues of Nero, 101 the mutiny of the 17th cohort from Ostia,io2 the banquet of Otho at Rome which it disturbed, the flight of his guests, his own fears, the despatch of the praetorian praefects to the soldiers, and the punishment of two ringleaders. 10 ^ After news of the Vitellian rising is brought, both mention the encouraging tidings from Pannonia and Moesia and also from Syria and Judaea, 10* the offers made by Otho to Vitellius and the bitter correspondence which followed, 105 various omens reported in Rome,io« and in particular the inundation of the Tiber, lo' 88 Galb. 27, 7, Hist. i. 41. 89 Galb. 27, 22, Hist. i. 43. 90 Galb. 27, 25, Hist. i. 42. »! Galb. 27, 35, Hist. i. 44. 92 Galb. 27 ad fin. Hist i. 45. 93 Galb. 28, i, Hist. i. 46. 9< Galb. 28. 4, Hist. i. 47. 95 Galb. 28, 7-8, Hist. i. 47. »« Galb. 28. 10, Hist. i. 49. 97 oth. i, 2-10. Hist. i. 71. 98 Oth. I, 13 etc., Hist. i. yy. 99 Oth. I, 18, Hist. i. 90. 100 Oth. 2, Hist. i. 72. 101 Oth. 3, 3-7, Hist. i. 78. 1*2 Oth. 3, 17 foU., Hist. i. 80. 103 Oth. 3. 30 to end, Hist. i. 80-83. 10* Oth. 4, 5- 1 2, Hist. i. 76. 105 Oth. 4, 13-21, Hist. i. 74. io« Oth. 4, 25, Hist. i. 86. 107 ib. ib. PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 305 The sequestration of Dolabella to Aquinum is men- tioned by Plutarch, 108 and by Tacitus. "^ Both narrate how Otho ordered L. Vitellius and other senators to accompany him,iio the appointment of Flavins Sabinus as praefectus urbi,^ and the names of Otho's generals. 112 After the actual commencement of the campaign we get parallel accounts of the insubordination of Spurinna's troops in Placentia,i^3 of the taunts levelled at the praetorian cohorts by the Vitellians,ii^ of the raising of the siege of Placentia,ii5 of the dress and behaviour of Caecina and his wife,^^^ of the rapacity and exactions of Valens,ii7 of the blame attaching to Caecina for hurry- ing forward a battle. ^^^ Then follows the advance of Annius Gallus upon Cremona, i^^ the ambush prepared by Caecina, 120 the battle near the temple of Castor and the delay of Pauhnus,i2i the appointment of Titianus and Proculus to the chief command, 122 the insub- ordination of Valens' troops and his junction with Caecina. 123 Both authors give the council of war at Bedriacum, the arguments of Paulinus for delay, the opinion of Titianus and Proculus for immediate action. 124 Both also mention Otho's own impatience and inability to bear the continued suspense, 125 and both allude though in a different way to the opinion that the project was entertained by the two armies of setting aside both Otho and Vitellius, and choosing or allowing the senate to choose some third candidate of better reputation. 126 108 Oth. S, 3. 109 Hist. i. 88. no 0th. 5,6, Hist. i. 88. Ill Oth. 5,12, Hist. i. 46. 112 Oth. 5, 19, Hist. i. 87. 113 Oth. 5, 36, Hist. ii. 18. n* Oth. 6, 5, Hist. ii. 21. 115 Oth. 6, 14, Hist. ii. 22. ns Oth. 6, 21, Hist. ii. 20. 117 Oth. 6, 27, Hist. i. 66. 118 Oth. 6 ad -fin., Hist. ii. 24. 119 Oth. 7, 4, Hist. ii. 23. 120 Oth. 7, g, Hist. ii. 24. 121 Oth. 7, 12-20, Hist. ii. 25. 122 Oth. 7, 29, Hist. ii. 39. 123 Oth. 7 ad fin., Hist. ii. 29 and 31. i^* Oth. 8, Hist. ii. 32 and 33. 126 Oth. 9, 7, Hist. ii. 40. 128 Oth. 9. 14 foil., Hist. ii. 37 foil. X 306 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY Both mention Otho's decision to return to Brixellum and comment on the mistaken poHcy of the act. ^ 27 Then follows an account of the battle between the Vitellians and Otho's gladiators on the Po,i28 of the unwise leading out and unskilful encampment of the Othonians,*29 of the opposition of Celsus and Paulinus and the imperative order of Otho to fight, "« of the return of Caecina from the river and the first charge of the cavalry. 131 Striking resemblances in the account of the battle itself are the mistaken salutation by the Othonians,^^^ the confusion caused by the baggage and the numerous ditches, 133 the combat between the legions xxi Rapax and I Adjutrix,i3'i the destruction of the gladiators,^^^ and the fear of Paulinus and Proculus to enter the camp with the fugitives. 138 Then, after some diversity in the accounts of the embassy sent by the Othonians,"' both agree in the ultimate fusion of the armies, i^s in the news of the battle reaching Otho, 1 39 in the enthusiastic fidelity of the troops, i*<* in his care for his friends' departure, 1*1 in his conversation with his nephew Cocceianus,i*2 jn his choice of a dagger after drinking some water, 1*3 jn his distribution of money to his attendants, i*-^ in the manner of his death and the grief of the soldiers, i*» in 127 Oth. 10, 1-6, Hist. ii. 33. 128 Oth. 10, 7 foil., Hist. ii. 34 and 35. 129 Oth. II, 1-8, Hist. ii. 39. 130 Oth. II, 9-18, Htst. ii. 40. 131 Oth. II ad fin.. Hist. ii. 41. 132 Oth. 12, 4, Hist. ii. 42. 133 Oth. 12, 11-15, H.St. ii. 41. 13* Oth. 12, 17 foil., Hist. ii. 43. 135 Oth. 12, 26, Hist. ii. 43. 138 Oth. 13, I, Hist. ii. 44. i37 See below, p. 315. 138 Oth. 13 ad fin., Hist. ii. 45. 139 Oth. 15, I, Hist. ii. 46. 1*0 Oth. 15, 4 foil.. Hist. ii. 46. 1*1 Oth. 16, 3 foil.. Hist. ii. 48. 1*2 Oth. 16. 8 foil.. Hist. ii. 45. 1*3 Oth. 17, 1-3, Hist. ii. 49. i«* Oth. 17. 6, Hist. ii. 48. 1*5 Oth. 17, 18 foil., Hist. ii. 49. PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 307 the modest character of his tomb,!*^ and finally in the application of the soldiers to Verginius Rufus to accept the empire or at least to act as their ambassador. i*7 It will be apparent at once from this comparison that we have a very remarkable correspondence between the two narratives to account for. That there was some definite and close relationship between the two is clear, since it is quite inconceivable that two writers working independently of one another, and using different authorities, could have produced accounts so similar. Various theories have been put forward to account for this similarity, which could not but strike even the most careless reader of both. That Tacitus made use of Plutarch's account in the composition of his " Histories " has naturally occurred to no one, and the very statement of a suggestion so improbable is sufficient to discredit it ; but the converse supposition that Plutarch had the account of Tacitus before him has in it nothing a priori impossible, and it is probably the first explanation which would suggest itself. This view has accordingly not been without its supporters,^*^ and it is adopted by Nipperdey in the Introduction to his admirable edition of the " Annals." ^*^ By most scholars however this view is no longer regarded as tenable, and therefore the only alternative is to suppose that both Plutarch and Tacitus independently made use of the same authority or authorities for their histories. The question, however, as to what this authority was has been answered in several ways. According to one view,^^° it was the " acta diurna " to which Tacitus frequently refers in the '* Annals," ^^^ and of which he says, " Diurna populi Romani per provincias per exercitus curatius leguntur." This view however rests on a misunderstanding 1*6 0th. 18, 3, Hist. ii. 49. i« 0th. 18 ad fin., Hist. ii. 51. 1*8 See Clason Plutarch und Tacitus, 1870. 149 P. 29, ed. 1879. 150 Hirzel, Comparatio eorum quae de imperatore Galha et Othone relata legimus apud Taciturn, Suetonium, Plutarchum, etc. 1851. 151 Conf. ill. 3, xii, 24, xiii. 31, xvi. 22. 308 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY of what the *' acta diurna" were, and what they contained. Consisting merely in summary notices of the principal events in Rome, and the proceedings in the senate, they could never account for the similarity of continuous histories, for repeated instances of verbal identity, and for close correspondence in the delineation of character such as we have here to deal with, while it would be no less than miraculous for Tacitus and Plutarch independently to have chosen out of the very miscellaneous bits of news which the *' acta " contained, precisely the same portions and in most cases in the same order. According to others, the common authority used was Cluvius Rufus,^^^ whom Tacitus quotes several times in the '* Annals," and to whom Plutarch refers in *' 0th. " c. 3. Still a different view is that both used the *'Histones" of the Elder Pliny,^^^ while, lastly, a good deal of ingenuity has been expended to show that while Tacitus used Pliny, Plutarch used both Phny and Cluvius.^^* Against the view that Plutarch made use of the *' Histories" of Tacitus there is both external and internal evidence which seems to me conclusive. In the first place, in all probability Plutarch wrote these " Lives" before the " Histories " were published. The " Histories " of Taci- tus were probably, as Nipperdey supposes, published in instalments, and no doubt Books I-II appeared together. Mommsen holds,^"^ and his view is generally accepted, that the two books were either published, or at any rate communicated to friends, about 105 or 106 a.d. They were certainly not begun when the *' Agricola " was pub- lished in 97 A.D.^^^ In the first four books of his '* Letters " too, i.e. up to 105 A.D., Pliny, though he several times speaks of Tacitus, always does so as of a famous orator ; it is not till the sixth book, published in 106 or 107, that 152 H. Peter, Die Quellen Plutarchs, and more recently Momm- sen in Hermes, iv,„p. 295 foil. 153 Nissen, Rheinisches Museum, xxvi. 497 foil. 16* Th. Weidemann, de Tacito, Suetonio, Plutarcho. Cassio Dione, scriptoribus imperatorum Galhae et Othonis. 165 Hermes, iii., p. 107. i^e Agric. c. 3. PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 309 he makes any reference to his historical studies, and at that time Tacitus is collecting materials for the reign of Titus/^"^ We may assume therefore that the first books of the " Histo:-i s " were not published earlier than 105 or 106 A.D. Now how does the case stand with Plutarch ? We know from passages in his own writings that he was a young man when Nero passed through Delphi in 66 a.d./^^ that he was on one occasion at Rome during Vespasian's reign,^-^^ that he remembered the famous eruption of Vesuvius/^^ and also the winter- ing of some emperor on the Danube/^^ From this it appears that he was born about 46 a.d. and lived on into Trajan's reign. His literary activity however must certainly have begun earlier than this, since he was already about fifty-one at the time of Nerva's death. With this the notice in Suidas agrees which puts his literarv activity eVl rmv Tpaiavov ^poi'o>r /cat ert Trpnadev. The Parallel Lives were probably written under Trajan. An allusion appears to be made to the death of Domitian in " Vit. Num. " 19, and " Vit. Poplic. " 15, while in "Vit. SuU" 21 he says that the capture of Athens by Sulla took place nearly 200 years ago, which would seem to show that this Life was written shortly before 114 a.d. But as has been already pointed out, the Lives of Galba and Otho are not biographies in the same sense as the rest. In the first place it may be regarded as certain that there were no Greek parallels to them, nor are the accounts of Galba and Otho separated from one another by any distinct line, since all that is said of Otho's earlier career comes in cap. 19 of *' Galba," and cap. i of *'Otho" is a mere con- tinuation of the events narrated in cap. 28 of "Galba." But if they were not separated from one another, neither to all appearance were they separated from what had preceded them, viz., the account of Nero, nor from what 157 Ep. V. 16. 158 de Ei apud Delphos, i and 17. i"^ ^g sollert. anim. 19. 160 de Pyih. orac. 9. 161 de princ. frig, tbs laTopovdiv oi vvv fxera rod Kala-apoi eiri tov '^la-rpov SiaxetfJ-taavTes, which probably refers to Trajan in the winter of 97-98 a.d. 310 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY followed, that of Vitellius. For there is a backward reference in ** Galb. " 2, loa-n-ep eiprjTai, and a forward reference in " 0th. " 18, to, /xh' oZv a\Aa Katpov olKtloi' f^tt Aex^^iai. Again, they cannot be called biographies, because they give next to no account of the earlier lives of Galba and Otho. Galba's career up to his election as emperor is contained in one short chapter (cap. 3), while of Otho's earlier history we learn absolutely nothing except the notorious incident in connexion with Poppaea and that, as already stated, under the account of Galba. Again, biography, as Plutarch understood it, had a moral much more than an historical end in view : facts yielded in importance to moral lessons, and chronological order to artistic symmetry. But in the Lives before us, with the exception of the first two chapters of *' Galba," we have practically no moralising at all : the events are narrated as historical events and in strictly chronological order. In all these respects then there is a striking contrast to the Parallel Lives. These are each of them artistically rounded off into a complete whole ; the early history and origin of each character is usually given as fully as Plutarch's materials allowed, moral reflections are con- spicuous and abundant, and the narrative is not ham- pered by strict adherence to chronological sequence. But the Parallel Lives represent Plutarch's style and manner in its greatest maturity and perfection. He consciously and of set purpose subordinated mere history to moral portraiture, and the method of parallel- ing Roman and Greek Lives was an essential part of his plan. When therefore we find two Lives without Greek parallels, with scarcely a trace of moralising tendencies, full of facts arranged in chronological order, with no symmetry of arrangement, and we may add, as will be shown later on, in great measure a mere Greek reproduction of a Latin original, we must, I think, infer that they belonged to a different stage of Plutarch's literary history from the Parallel Lives, and to an earlier, not a later one. Another line of argument leads to the same result. According to the Catalogue of Lamprias, Plutarch carried up his imperial history as far as Vitellius, PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 3II but not further. Now, if he had written it under Trajan, there could have been no more reason why he should have refrained from proceeding to the Flavian emperors, during whose period he was certainly in Italy on several occasions, than there was in the case of Tacitus and Suetonius. If, on the other hand, he wrote while Domi- tian was still alive, there is an easily intelligible reason why he should have deemed it expedient to stop short at the death of Vitellius. External evidence therefore, as far as it goes, seems to point to the conclusion that since Plutarch probably wrote these Lives before the " Histories " of Tacitus were published, he could not have used them as his authority. This conclusion is con- firmed beyond all doubt by internal evidence, since a careful examination shows that a number of points omitted by Tacitus are added by Plutarch, that in many others discrepancies are evident between the two versions in some of which Plutarch appears to be the better guide of the two. The following list of cases, though probably not absolutely complete, contains almost all, and certainly all of any importance : — 1. Plutarch ^^^ says that Vindex committed suicide {'OvlpdiKos eavTou du^XJvTos^. Tacitus knows nothing of this, and implies that he was killed in the battle. 1^3 2. Plutarch says that the classiarii drew their swords and were in consequence charged by Galba's cavalry. lo* Tacitus says that they were " inermes." i«^ 3. Plutarch tells the story about Canus the flute-player, which is not found in Tacitus. ^^^ 4. Plutarch in mentioning the recall of the Neronian grants adds an important point omitted by Tacitus, viz., that if the original grantees had sold the property it was to be exacted from the purchasers. i*>7 5. He also mentions the execution by Galba of Helius, Poly- clitus, Petronius, and Patrobius, about which Tacitus is silent ; i^s 6. also the bribing of Vinius by Tigellinus; i^'J 7. and the edict of Galba bj^^ which he rebuked the eagerness 162 G. 6, 19. 163 Hist. i. 51, caeso cum omnibus copiis lulio Vindice. i«* G. 15, 31. 165 Hist. i. 6. 166 G. 16, 3. 16T G. 16, 14 ; conf. Hist. i. 20. 168 G. 17, 5 foil. 169 G. 17, 10. 312 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY of the populace for the death of Tigellinus. i^o both being points omitted by Tacitus. 8. Tacitus does not mention the suspicion that the Ga' Is who had sided with Vindex bought the rewards which they received from Vinius."^ 9. He also omits the story told by Plutarch i^z that the Ger- man legions added to the oath of allegiance to Galba the words, " If he proves worthy." 10. Plutarch alone mentions the fact that Poppaea had been the wife of Crispinus.^^a and 11. that she actually married Otho.i^* 12. He alone says that Seneca was a friend of Otho and that by his advice he was sent to Lusitania.i^s 13. He mentions and Tacitus omits the gold and silver in cups and tables which Otho gave to Galba for coining on join- ing him. 176 14. While Tacitus says that it was Maevius Pudens who gave the present to the cohort on guard, ^^t Plutarch says that it was Otho himself. 178 15. Plutarch alone mentions the amount of Otlio's debts ; i'® 16. and the fact that Galba had honours paid to Vindex after his death. 180 17. Plutarch gives the speech of some soldier in the Upper German army, advising the legion to turn to Vitellius,i''i whereas Tacitus says expressly " Non tamen quisquam in modum con- tionis aut pro suggestu locutus "182 18. Plutarch says that Galba proceeded to adopt Piso after hearing of the proclamation of Vitellius.i83 Tacitus, on the other hand says that it was " post nuntios Germanicae seditionis, quamquam nihil adhuc de Vitellio certum."i84 19. Plutarch alone mentions that Dolabella was thought of as one of the candidates for adoption. iss 20. Plutarch says that Galba suddenly, fxriS^v Trpotnrwv^ sent for Piso.i«« Tacitus says that it was after a consultation with Vinius, Laco, Marius Celsus, and Ducenius Geminus.is? 21. Plutarch alone mentions the fact that Nero had killed Piso's parents. 188 For the inaccuracy of the statement see note p. 118 of my edition of Plutarch's Galba and Otho. 22. He is also the sole authority for the statement that Otho was supported by the disappointed adherents of Tigellinus and Nymphidius.189 170 G. 17, 21. 171 G. 18, 4. 172 G. 18 ad fin. i73 G. 19 14. 17^ G. 19, 27. 175 G. 20, I. , 176 G. 20, 8. 177 Hist i. 24. 178 G. 20 ati /IM. 179G. 21, II. 180 G. 22, 9. 181 G. 22, 21 etc. 182 Hist. i. 55. G. 23, I. 184 Hist. i. 14. 185 G. 23, 4. 186 G. 23, 6. 187 Hist. i. 14. 188 G. 23, 8. 189 G. 23 ad fin. PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 3I3 23. In connexion with the sacrifice offered by Galba, Plut- arch says it was ev IlaXartw 190 ; Tacitus that it was " pro aede Apohims."i9i Plutarch also says that this happened 'iwBev, which Tacitus omits. 24. Plutarch alone mentions Otho's change of colour on hearing the report of Umbricius the haruspex ; 1^2 25. and his exclamation while being borne to the praetorian camp that he was ruined ; i^^ 26. also that Vinius and Laco and some freedmen drew their swords to protect Galba. ^^^ 27. He alone gives the answer of lulius Atticus to the question of Galba rls ae ih^Xivae ;195 28. and mentions that Galba left the palace rep re Ml ddaai Kai ipavrfvai Toh iroXiTats l^ovXj/j.euos.^^'^ 29. He alone mentions Otho's cavalry appearing through the Basilica Pauli.i97 30. According to Plutarch Sempronius Densus defended Galba ; ^^^ according to Tacitus, Piso.i'-'^ 31. Plutarch adds the name of Fabrius Fabullus to those mentioned by Tacitus 200 as accredited with the murder of Galba. 201 32. Plutarch adds certain disagreeable details in connexion with the treatment of Galba's head by the soldiers, which Tacitus omits. 202 S^. Plutarch alone gives the words of Otho on seeing Galba's head. 203 34. Plutarch adds to the account of Tacitus 204 about the release of Celsus from the soldiers, that Otho pretended that he wished to get some information from him before his execution. 200 35. He alone mentions the sum paid by Crispina for the head of Vinius, her father ; 206 36. and mentions the Sessorium as the place where Galba's head was thrown. 207 37. He alone mentions the part taken by Helvidius Priscus in burying the body of Galba. 208 38. He alone mentions the request of Tigellinus that he might have time given him to shave his beard. 209 39. He mentions, while Tacitus omits, the report given on the authority of Cluvius Rufus that the Spanish diplomata were inscribed " Nero Otho." 210 40. Plutarch represents the mutiny of the 17th cohort as 190 G. 24, 12. 191 Hist. i. 27. 192 G. 24, 21. 193 G. 25, 9. 194 G. 25, 30. 195 G. 26, II. 196 G. 26, 14. 197 G. 26, 23. 198 G. 26, 33 etc. 199 Hist. i. 43. 200 Hist. i. 41. 201 g. 27, 10. 202 G. 27,11. 203 G. 27, 20. 204 Hist. i. 71. 205 G. 27 ad fin. 200 G. 28, 8. 207 G. 28, 13. 208 G. 28 ad fin. 209 O. 2, 17. 210 o. 3, 8. 314 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY originating at Ostia.21* Tacitus' account implies that it happened in the praetorian camp at Rome, 41. Plutarch gives the number of senators who were feasting with Otho at the time.aia 42. Plutarch makes the scarcity caused by the inundation intelligible by mentioning, what Tacitus omits, that the part of the city where the corn was stored was flooded. 213 43. Plutarch alone says that Dolabella was sent to Aquinum, partly because he was suspected by the praetorian cohorts. 21* 44. According to Plutarch, 21c Flavins Sabinus was made praefectus urbi just before the departure of Otho. According to Tacitus he was created (and by the soldiers themselves) immediately after Galba's death. 210 45. According to Plutarch Otho remained behind at the time at Brixellum.217 Tacitus does not mention this, and in fact implies that he went to Brixellum for the first time after the council of war. 2 18 46. Tacitus omits the incident told by Plutarch that Spu- rinna's soldiers asked for their viaticum in order that they might go to Otho and accuse their general. 219 47. According to Plutarch Spurinna's soldiers returned to their obedience owing to the taunts of the Vitellians ; 220 according to Tacitus it was the unwonted labour of making a camp, and the representation of the veterans as to the dangers of remaining in the open plain. 221 48. Plutarch represents Cremona as being on the Othonian side and threatened by the Vitellians. 222 Tacitus clearly implies that it already had been occupied by the Vitellians. 223 49. Plutarch gives one reason for Otho's hurry to fight on the authority of Sec ndus, Otho's secretary.224 Tacitus does not mention his name, though he also gives the reason. 225 50. The mention of Marius and Sulla, Pompeius and Caesar, in connexion with the reported desire of both armies to come to terms without fighting is brought in quite differently by Plutarch 226 and Tacit s.227 51. Plutarch mentions the sending of fire-ships as:ainst Caecina's bridge by the Othonians,228 which Tacitus altogether omits. 228 52. Plutarch represents the Germans as the attacking party in the battle on the island ; 230 Tacitus the gladiators. 231 53. Plutarch says that Proculus led the Othonians out fifty stades from Bedriacum.232 Tacitus says four miles. 233 211 O. 3, 19, etc. 2120.3,31. 213 0.4 ad fin., conf. Hist. i. 86. 214 o. 5, 4, 215 o. $, n. 218 Hist. i. 46. 217 o. 5, 16. 218 Hist. ii. 33. 219 o. 5 ad fin. 220 o. 6, i. 221 Hist. ii. 19. 222 O. 7, 4. 223 Hist. ii. 18. and 23. 224 0.9. 13. ^^b Hist. ii. 40. 226 O. 9, 25. etc. 227 Hist. ii. 38. 228 q. 10,11. 229 Hist. ii. 34. 230 O. 10, 18. 231 Hist. ii. 35. 232 Q. II, 4. 233 Hist. U. 39. PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 315 54. The distance to be traversed by the Othonians on the next day m order to reach the enemy is given by Plutarch at 100 stades,234 by Tacitus as thirteen miles. 235 55. Tacitus says that the band of gladiators were cut to pieces by the Batavian cohorts during their actual passage of the river. ss^s Plutarch says that they had crossed in safety, were then defeated, and driven back to the river and there killed. 237 56. According to Plutarch Annius Gallus consoled the de- feated troops, reminding them that in parts of the battle they had been victorious. 238 Tacitus omits this. 57. Plutarch represents Marius Celsus as assuring the sol- diers that Otho would never wish them to resist further, etc., 239 sentiments which Tacitus puts into the mouth of Otho himself. 240 58. Plutarch narrates how Celsus and Gallus personally went as ambassadors to Caecina and Valens, and describes their journey and the reception they met with. 2*1 Tacitus omits all this. 59. Plutarch says that during their absence Titianus changed his mind and again manned the walls of Bedriacum.242 Tacitus says nothing of this. 60. Plutarch says that one of Otho's soldiers in his enthusi- asm killed himself, exclaiming " Know, Caesar, that all are determined thus to die in your behalf ! "243 Tacitus omits this. 61. Otho's speech is given quite differently in Plutarch, 2*4 and Tacitus. 245 62. Plutarch says that Otho had intended to adopt his nephew Cocceianus.246 Tacitus is silent on this. 6;^. Plutarch says that Otho put one of the daggers in his bosom, 247 Tacitus that he put it under his pillow. 2 48 64. According to Tacitus no one saw Otho alive after he finally retired to rest. 249 According to Plutarch he woke up at dawn and told his freedman to show himself to the soldiers lest he should be suspected of having murdered his master. 250 65. Tacitus does not say, as Plutarch does,25i that after Otho's death Plotius Firmius, the other praetorian praefect,252 ordered the soldiers to take the oath to Vitellius. To these particular instances of divergence from and consequent independence of Tacitus must be added the point already alluded to that the first half of the life of Galba containing his negotiations with Vindex, his 234 O. II, 10. 235 Hist. ii. 40. 236 Hist. ii. 43. 237 O. 12, 38. 238 Q. 13,6. 239 Q. I3.9foll. 240 HtSt. ii. 47. 241 O. 13, 22 foll. 242 Q. 1 3, 4O. 243 O. 15, 17. 244 0. 15, 21 foll. 245 Hist. U. 47. 246 0.16,12. 2470.17,4. ^is Hist ii,^g, 249 Hist. ii. 49. 250 0. 17, 15. 251 o. 18, 12. 252 the MSS. have Pollio. 3l6 STUDIES IN ROMAN" HISTORY proclamation as emperor in Spain, his march to Rome, and the insurrection of Nymphidius Sabinus in Rome, must necessarily have come from some other authority than Tacitus, for the simple reason that all these events happened in 68, and Tacitus begins his *' Histories" with January i, 69. Since therefore both external and internal evidence forbid us to suppose that Plutarch borrowed his account from Tacitus, and since the resem- blances are too great to be the result of accident, our only alternative is to ascribe them to the employment by both historians of a common authority. But it is asserted by some that Plutarch and Tacitus, so far from using some one common authority used several sources, and in defence of this assertion there are cited such expressions in Plutarch as (i) etVc ws cftacnv tVLOl . . . €tTC ; 253 (2) CtT€ . . . €LT€ W? (ftaCTLV h'LOL ; 254 (3) '''^^^ ^^ aaLV ; 255 (^J 0,5 aort ; 258 (^J a-rrea-cfia^i Sk avTov ws ol TrXeLCTTOL XeyovcTL, Ka/xoi;ptos Tt? . . . cnot 8e TepiiTLoVj ol Se AeKavLOV ; 257 (5) § ^acri cru/x^^rai ; 258 (^) ol Be Tov KcKtVav amtoi'Tat ; ^^® (8) kripiav h\ rjv aKOvav on /f.T.X.26o Now of these cases (2) evidently refers not to two accounts but to two explanations which occur to Plutarch himself, and which he expresses in this way, just as similarly (3), (4), (6), merely show that Plutarch ascribes these incidents in the last resort to com- mon report ; (5), (7), and (8) alone seem of any importance, and these at once receive their explanation by turning to the corresponding passages of Tacitus. Thus with (5) compare Hist. i. 41, " quidam Terentium evocatum, alii Lecanium, crebrior fama tradidit Camu- rium," etc. With (7) compare Hist. ii. 24 and ii. 30, and with (8) compare Hist. ii. 37, " invenio apud quosdam auctores," etc. From this it appears that in just those passages which seem to give the strongest evidence of several authorities having been used, Tacitus in almost the same words refers apparently to several authorities also. The obvious inference from this is that in both 253 G. 14, 25. 254 /t. 19 32, 265 Jf). 22, 42. 2C6 lb. 25, 17. 257 76, 27, 7. 258 Q. 4, $2. 259 J^. 6, 3I. 260 lb. 9, 14. PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 317 cases the double references were not from the authorities cited themselves, but from some common source used by Plutarch and Tacitus, who have so cited them. To the same category may be added the reference to the rhetorician Sscundus in " th." 9, 13, in which case Taci- tus mentions the same report, though without a reference to its author. 261 Now the report of Secundus was evidently an oral not a written report {Siqyeho). But to whom was it made ? Not to Plutarch or he would have said so, as he does in the case of Mestrius Floras, ^^^ and besides it would be too wonderful a coincidence that Secundus should have mentioned this same point both to Plutarch and Tacitus. Clearly, therefore, he made the report to the common authority of both, and both use it, though only Plutarch repeats its source. There is, therefore, as far as internal evidence goes, no reason to think that Plutarch used a plurality of authorities. That it was not his custom to do so in the " Lives " has been very conclusively shown by H. Peter, 263 who by an exhaustive analysis establishes the point that, wherever it was at all practicable, Plutarch uses one authority only for each of his " Lives," and there is nothing in those of Galba and Otho which on examination proves to be inconsistent with this conclusion. But when we assert that Plutarch and Tacitus used a common authority, it is not merely meant that they took from it the general course of their narratives, their facts, and even the delineation of character. So much appears clearly from the general comparison of the two which has been already given. The resemblance is in many cases even closer than this alone implies, and we have no hesitation in asserting that the employment of this authority often amounted to what is practically a literal and almost word-for-word translation. The justification for this assertion will be found in the follow- ing list of parallel passages, which might probably be added to, but which, as it stands, sufficiently speaks for itself :— 281 Hist. ii. 40. 262 o. 14. 263 Dig Quellen Phttarchs. 3i8 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY Plutarch. G. 12, lO. AiiirvCjv 5i irapa K\avSiip€i.v. G. 15, $. ^5ofc HT) vofjiifius el /col 5iKcu(jji fxTjSi SrjfiOTiKus dyri- pTjK'vai irpb Kplaeus 6.v5pas ovk dXdKK0V arpdrevixa rods KaXoi/i iKelvovi Kal STjpMKpaTiKoi/s eis o% oiKiav ^ouXerai TO, {JTroirra dei^ai tols TrajXTyrats, dirriXde, /cat dia Trjs TiL^epiov KaXov/jLepTjs olKias /cara/3ds epddi^eu els ayopdv, ov XP^'^'^^'^ da-TTjKei G. 25, 3. Ato, Kaiirep ov Kara T^v Tov aoojxaTOS /xaXaKiav /cat d-qXvTTjTa rrj i/'uXJ? SLareBpu/x- IxevQs. G. 2$, 16. Twj/ 5^ x'-^'-^^PX^v 6 TTiv (pvXaKTjv ^x^^ ■'"^'^ crrparo- TT^dov MapTiaXis, &s (paai, ixr\ ffwetddbs, iKirXayels 5^ t(^ airpoa- boKrjTi^ /cat ^ojSrjcpels ecprJKef elepop.hov Kal TTvKfbv diroueO- OPTOS — G. 27, 3. '0 5^ Tr]v ai t6 (yKXriiJia irLbv, oijTc vpoaOel^ ovdiv oUre d^eXu)P ^j elx€ Ti/xrjs. Tacitus. i. 45. Alium crederes sena- tum, alium populum. i. 49. Quinque principes prospera fortuna emensus. i. 71. Celsus constanter servatae erga Galbam fidei crimen confessus exemplum ultro imputavit. i. yy. Consul cum Titiano fratre in kalendas Martias ipse ; proximos menses Ver- ginio destinat . . . ceteri con- sulatus ex destinatione Nero- nis aut Galbae mansere . . . sed Otho pontificatus augu- ratusque honoratis iam seni- bus cumulum dignitatis addi- dit. i. 72. Par inde exsultatio disparibus causis consecuta impetrato Tigellini exitio. i. 81. Cum timeret Otho, timebatur. i, 82. Donee Otho . . . toro insistens precibus et lacrimis aegre cohibuit. i. 74. Paria Vitellius osten- tabat, primo mollius stulta utrimque et indecora simu- latione ; mox quasi rixantes stupra et flagitia in vicem obiectavere, neuter falso. i. 88. Multos e magistra- tibus, magnam consularium partem, Otho non participes aut ministros bello, sed comi- tum specie secum expedire iubet, in quis et Lucium Vitellium . . . nee ut impera- toris fratrem nee ut hostis. PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 321 Plutarch. Tacitus. 0,6,3. 01 yhp Oi/ireWlov , . . ii. 21, Illi ut segnem et 4x^^^o.^ov rods *Odu}Pos ea-rCiTai desidem et circo ac theatris rapa rets iirdX^eis, (TKrivLKovs Kal corruptum militem . . , incre- TTvppLXKTTa'i Kal Uvdluv Kal pabant. 'OXv/xiriup dewpovs cLiroKaXodvres. O. 7, 29. "ETre/Ai/'ej' oSv Ttrt- avbv ivi to. o-rparei'/iara tov ddeXcpbv Kal Up k\ov tov ^irapxov., 6's etx^'' ^Py^ ■'"'?'' TTacrav apxw^ TpocrxvfJ-^ 5^ ^1^ TiTtai'is. Ot 5^ irep. TOV K^Xaov Kai Tlav\?vov dXXoJi icpe'CKKOVTO ctv/m^ooXcjv tvojxa Kal (piXuiV, i^ovaiav nal SivaiuLLV €v Tois Trpdy/xaai /xrjdefxiav ^XovTes. ii. 39. Profecto Brixellum Otlione honor imperii penes Titianum fratrem, vis ac po- testas penes Proculum prae- fectum ; Celsus et Paulinus, cum prudentia eorum nemo uteretur, inani nomine ducum alienae culpae praetende- bantur. O. II, 3. Trporjyayev aiWovs 6 lIpjKXoS iK TOV BrjTpLaKOV, Kal KaTeaTpaTOTT^bfvaev dirb irevT-q- KOVTa (TTaSiuv ovTOJS direipws Kal KaTayeXdcTTUis, CocrTe, Trji [xev ihpas eapivTiS oij(Tr)s, tQv 8k k^kXi^ 7r€5io}v TToXXd vdfxaTa Kal iroTa/ULOVi devvdovi ix^vToov ijdaTos (nrdvei Trie^eaOai. ii. 39. Promoveri ad quar- tum a Bedriaco castra placuit, adeo imperite ut quamquam verno tempore anni et tot circum amnibus penuria aquae fatigarentur. O. II, 23. 'QTrXia-iiiivuv dk rjdr] tCov ttoXXCjv, Kal t6 avv9i]aa TrapaXau.j5avovT03v ira d tov OvdXevTOS, iv ocru) ttjv Td^iv SieXdyxave Ta TdyfxaTa, tovs dpiffTovs tCjv liririoiv irpoe^^- ireixxpav. ii. 41. Caecina . . . revectus in castra, datum iussu Fabii Valentis pugnae signum, et militem in armis invenit. Dum legiones de ordine agminis sortiuntur equites prorupere. O. 12, 17. M>ai 5^ 6i'/o XeyiCives . . • iTriKXrjcnv i) jxev OviTeXXiov "ApTTa^' 17 5^ "Odoovos BoTj^dj. els ireblov e^eXi^aaaL xJ/LXbv Kal dvairfTTTafi^vov vofxi/xjv Tiva fidxw (XVfnreffovaai (paXayyqdbv efxdxovTo TToXbv xP^'^ov. Ot nkv ydp^'OOcovos dvdpes -fiffav eiipwcTTOi Kal dyadoi, iroXe/xov dk Kal fidxv^ t6t€ TTiiLTOv irelpav Xau^dvovTes, ol 8k OvLTeXXiov iroXXQv dydjvuv iOddes. ii. 43. Forte inter Padum viamque patenti campo duae legiones congressae sunt, pro Vitellio unaetvicesima, cui cognomen Rapaci, vetere glo- ria insignis, e parte Othonis prima Adiutrix non ante in aciem deduc'.a, sed ferox et novi decoris avida. 322 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY Plutarch. O. i6, 13. "E/ccu/o «r' eXxeu " S) rat irapfyyvibfial ^v, ixar pov KaTefidvdave t6 airdafia iro\i)i' XP^^o"' '^^^ ''"^ ircpov dir^5w/ce, direpov dk c/s raJ dYffdXas d»'aXa/iwi', — O. 17, 5. Kai i\opovov-^ [xevos 3i6'e/ie rwj/ x/'^^drwi' ry /ifV ttX^oj', TV 5^ ^Xarrov, ovx GxTirep dWovpluv d(p€i8u)v, dXXd t6 Kar d^iav Kai t6 p-irpLOv ixififXwS (pvXdTTUV. O. 18, 16. Ovepyipi(p 5^ 'Poi/0v irpdyiMTa irapelxo" &M-0. TOts iiTrXois iXdovres eiri tt}v oiKiav Kal KaTaKa\ovvT€S aldi.^ Kal Kara' KeXevovres 6.px^i-v 'f) irpiff^eveiv virkp avTwv. Tacitus. ii. 48. Proinde erecto ani- mo capesseret vitam neu patruum sibi Othonem fuisse aut oblivisceretur umquam aut nimium neminisset. ii. 49. Vesperascente die sitim haustu gelidae aquae sedavit. Turn adlatis pugi- onibus duobus, cum utrumque pertemptasset, alterum capiti subdidit. ii. 48. Pecunias distribuit parce nee ut periturus. ii. 51. Ad Verginium versi modo ut reciperet imperium, nunc ut legatione apud Caeci- nam ac Valentem fungeretur, minitantes orabant. Now in the case of Plutarch, I suppose, this procedure of closely, even slavishly perhaps, following a previous author will hardly be regarded as a stumbling-block. He was writing about Roman history for Greeks. 26* He makes no pretence at the composition of an original work, and he naturally uses the best or most accessible material which he has. On the other hand, Nipperdey only represents a not unnatural opinion when he repudi- ates with some indignation the idea that Tacitus has in many places borrowed both the words and the rhetorical style from one of his recent predecessors. But a little consideration will show that there is nothing after all very revolutionary in such a theory, nor is the value w* Conf. his remarks on Latin terms, f/u Ka\dv5ai 'lavovapLas KaXovai, Galb. 22, 12 : oOtu) ydp KoXovurai ol Siayy^Xojp Kai dioirr-^pojv virrjpeaiai TeXovvres, Galb. 24, 2 : fiv Ayovai 'Pw/xa?oi irpd beKaoKTU) KaXav8Cjv *e)3., Galb. 24, 10 : A irpLyKiwia KaXodai'Pwfxaloi, Galb. 12, 7 '. oOtws ydp rd rdyfxara 'Pw/tatoi KaXovai, 0th. 12, 16. PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 323 which properly belongs to Tacitus as an historian really diminished by it. Critical investigation into the sources of the ancient historians has shown beyond a question that, when they were dealing with times not within their own memory, they handled their authorities accord- ing to methods very different from those pursued in modern times. Not only materials, but the form in which these materials were worked up, were taken from predecessors usually without acknowledgment, and clearly without fear of any charge of plagiarism. In fact the literary value of a history according to ancient standards consisted much more in the mode of repre- sentation than in the facts represented. This is Cicero's view, 265 and Pliny the Younger draws a marked dis- tinction between the research for facts which the his- torian presupposes in some one else and the arrange- ment of them when found. Thus he asks, what sort of history should he write — ** Vetera et scrip ta aliis ? parata inquisitio sed onerosa coUatio." 266 Viewed in this light, no one will deny the originahty of the " His- tories " in spite of their close resemblance to Plutarch, and inferentially to a common source. A comparison suggested by Nissen seems to me exactly apposite. Tacitus is related to this authority as the sculptor to the stone-mason. One prepares the statue in rough, the other makes it into a work of art, and stamps it with the character of his genius. But further than this, Nipperdey asks. Are the other writings of Tacitus derived in a similar way from pre- decessors ? It by no means follows that they were. It is certain that the later and unhappily lost books of the " Histories" were not. To a certain extent the his- torians of the first century seem to have continued the works of their predecessors, taking up the history where they left it. Thus Aufidius Bassus stood in this relation to Livy, Pliny the Elder to Aufidius Bassus, Tacitus to PHny, and much later in time, Ammianus Marcellinus to Tacitus. Sometimes the continuator may have 26B de Legg. i. 2. 268 Ep^ y. 8, 12. 324 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY taken u}) his predecessor exactly at the point where he left off, as Pliny seems to have begun " a fine Aufidii Bassi," or as Marius Maximus seems to have done with Suetonius. In other cases he would for the sake of beginning with a well-defined point traverse over again the few last years of his predecessor's account, as Aufidius Bassus seems to have gone back to the beginning of Augus- tus, although Livy carried his history up to 9 B.C. And this is what Tacitus has done with Pliny. A comparison of " Agric." cap. 3 with " Hist." i. i shows that Tacitus' own contribution to history was to consist in the history of the reigns of Domitian, Nerva, and Trajan, which would be to continue the history from where Pliny left it, since we know that he carried it up to the reign of Vespasian and perhaps Titus. But instead of beginning it at that point, he prefers to go back to the beginning of the Flavian period, especially as " scrip tores temporum, qui potiente rerum Flavia domo monimenta belli huiusce composuerunt, curam pacis et amorem rei publicae, corruptas in adulationem causas tradidere." 207 Por this preliminary portion of his work, he did what the historians of his time usually did, i.e. he derived his facts from the best contemporary authority at his command, only leaving the original account with his own rhetorical style, his own philosophical views, and to a certain extent with his own political tendencies. Unfortunately what in the view of Tacitus was a mere introduction, and certainly of secondary importance to his main subject, is all that we have left, and the remembrance of this fact is the best answer to Nipperdey's objections. It remains to discuss the question who was the common authority followed so closely by Plutarch and Tacitus. According to Josephus a number of writers treated of the events connected with Galba and Vindex,268 but this is one of those vague statements to which we cannot assign much value, nor again can we infer much as to the number of writers from the passage of Tacitus quoted above, " Scrip tores temporum, qui potiente rerum 287 Hist, ii, loi. 288 Bell. lud. 4.9. 2, PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 325 Flavia domo composuerunt monimenta huiusce belli." A scholion to Juvenal 269 mentions a certain Pompeius Planta who wrote an account of the war between Otho and Vitellius. But either this is a completely unknown individual, or it is the Pompeius Planta who was prae- fectus Aegypti at the beginning of Trajan's reign, and who would therefore be hardly more a contemporary of the war than Tacitus himself. The only other authori- ties of whom we know anything are Vipsanus Messala, quoted by Tacitus,27o Cluvius Rufus, referred to by Plutarch 271 and cited by Tacitus in the "Annals," and C. Plinius, cited by Tacitus. 272 Messala may be dis- missed at once. He was attached as tribune during the war to the vii legion in Dalmatia, and probably wrote some sort of memoirs of the war, and it is only on a detail of the campaign that Tacitus refers to him. We are therefore, if we are to come to a decision at all, left to choose between Cluvius Rufus and C. Plinius. Mommsen has declared decisively in favour of the former. To judge of the matter we must collect what we know of him. He was consul with P. Clodius ^''^ at some time pre- vious to 41 A.D., since in that year we learn from Josephus 274 he was v-n-aTiKo^ and was present at the murder of Caligula. We next hear of him as accom- panying Nero in his progress through Greece, and as acting as a kind of herald to the imperial singer. 275 He was therefore in a position to become acquainted with the events of Nero's reign, and that he wrote a history of it we know from two passages of the " Annals," where his authority is cited. 276 He was made governor of Hispania Tarraconensis by Galba,277 and is described by Tacitus as " vir facundus et pacis artibus, bellis inexpertus," and again 278 as " dives et eloquentia clarus." After Galba's death he seems at first to have joined Otho, but almost immediately he turned round 269 ii. 99. 270 iii. 25. 271 Qth. 4. 272 Hist. iii. 28. 273 Orelli, 1168. 274 Ant. lud. 19. I. 13 275 Suet. Ner. 21, Dio Cass. 63. 14. 276 xiii. 20, xiv. 2. 277 Tac. Hist. i. 8. 278 iy. 40. 3a6 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY and declared for Vitellius,27o in whose interest he opposed Lucceius Albinus, the Othonian procurator of Maure- tania.*8o Unfavourable rumours, however, about him had reached Vitellius, and to clear himself of these he left his province and joined Vitellius at Lugdunum. There his influence was sufficient to get rid of the charges against him, but Vitellius made him accompany his escort to Rome, though without formally taking away his province. 281 At Rome he and Silius Italicus were the only two witnesses of an interview which took place between Vitellius and Flavins Sabinus.^sa That he continued his history up to the time of Otho we know from Plutarch ^^^ and also from a passage in one of Pliny's letters.^^* Cluvius Rufus therefore certainly was in a position to write a trustworthy history of the incidents of this period. He was a friend of Galba, being in fact his successor in Spain, accompanied the march of Vitellius, and was evidently mixed up with the leading events in the capital. But though he doubtless wrote a history of the period, was it the history of which Plutarch and Tacitus made use ? In my opinion the arguments of Nissen against this supposition are entirely conclusive. As Cluvius Rufus is never mentioned as an authority by Tacitus in the *' Histories," apart from a priori probability the only positive argument in his favour is the passage in Plutarch, 285 who, after mention- ing the fact that Otho allowed himself in the theatre to be called Nero Otho, adds " KAouyStos Bk 'Pov<^o9 €is \(ir}piav cfirjcrl KOfjLtcrOrjvaL StTrAw/xara . . . to tov Nepwvos BiTov ovofxa Trpocryiypaixfxivov l)(ovTa to) tov "OBmvo^." A Httle consideration will, I think, show that this passage furnishes a conclusive argument against Mommsen's theory. I lay no particular stress on what however is not without its weight, that, according to Peter's obser- vation, Plutarch habitually avoids all reference by name to his main authority. But leaving that out of account, the name is evidently introduced here on Livy's principle 279 Hist. i. 76. 280 ii. 58. 281 ji, 65. 282 iii. C 283 0th. 4. 284 £p^ ix. 19. 5. 285 Qth. 282 iii. 65. 4- PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 327 — auctorem pro re posui — because the circumstances narrated seemed antecedently improbable, and the author refused to make himself responsible for it. But why should Plutarch feel hesitation about this statement in particular, whereas in apparently all the rest of his history he has been content to follow his authority without remark ? Now, if we turn to Suetonius, ^ss we find the same report recorded with a similar sceptical qualification, " ut quidam tradiderunt." It is certainly a curious coincidence that two uncritical writers like Plutarch and Suetonius should both be so scrupulous on this particular point. Lastly, Tacitus, who also mentions the fact of Otho being greeted with the title of Nero, says nothing whatever about the passports being so inscribed. All three, however, clearly follow the same authority on this point. Suetonius says, ** ab infima plebe appellatus Nero nullum indicium recusantis dedit." Plutarch says, ** toU 81 iroWoU ■^apL^Ofxeuo'? ovK e^cuyc ci/ Toi? Oearp'M'i ^ipoiv 7rpo(rayop€v- ccr^at." Tacitus says, " atque etiam Othoni qui- busdam diebus populus et miles . . . Neroni Othoni adclamant." If they followed Cluvius why does Tacitus omit this reference to the *' diplomata," and the other two imply their disbelief ? On the other hand, if it was this common authority who cited Cluvius for a statement which he disbelieved, then the coincidence between Plutarch and Suetonius is at once natural and intelligible, while the silence of Tacitus is an emphatic agreement with the implied judgment of the authority. But besides this, it is almost impossible to suppose that the references to Cluvius Rufus in Tacitus were supplied by himself. A man might speak of himself as " facundus et pacis artibus," but he would hardly add " bellis inexpertus." ^s? He would also probably not have drawn such direct attention to his sudden desertion of Otho for Vitellius.288 He would hardly have said of himself so openly that he went to Vitellius, ** laetitiam et gratulationem vultu ferens, animo anxius," while if 286 0th. 7 287 i. 8. 288 i. yQ, 32S STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY he mentioned the suspicion against himself " tanquam propriam ipse potentiam et possessionem Hispaniarum temptasset," he would surely have said something more by way of clearing himself than " auctoritas Cluvii praevaluit," and, lastly, when it is said that he, like L. Arruntius, was compelled to govern his province in his absence, it implies no very high estimate of Cluvius' importance to add, " eum Tiberius Caesar ob metum, Vitellius eluvium nulla formidine retinebat.^ss Again, it is quite impossible to suppose that Tacitus was follow- ing Cluvius Rufus in iii. 65 when he mentions the inter- view between Vitellius and Flavins Sabinus. For though Cluvius was one of the two witnesses of the " verba vocesque," no account is given of what took place, only the impressions of distant bystanders are cited, and even the place of meeting is stated on the ground only of common report — " ut famafuit." Lastly, it appears from the mention of Cluvius Rufus in Pliny ^^° that he had not taken an entirely favourable view of the conduct of Verginius Rufus. Verginius himself related to Pliny a conversation he had had with Cluvius, who made some sort of apology for this : — " Scis, Vergini, quae historiae fides debeatur. Proinde si quid in historiis meis legis aliter ac velis, rogo ignoscas." But neither in Plutarch nor in Tacitus is there a trace of anything but eulogy in connexion with the action of Verginius, and this, so far as it goes, deserves perhaps to be added to the arguments already adduced against Mommsen's view. 291 Thus by a method of residues we seem compelled to come to the conclusion that the " His- ses ii. 65. 290 Ep. ix. 19. 5. 291 Mommsen rejects Nipperdey's emendation of " decessu " for " discessu " in Tac. iv. 39, " citeriorem Hispaniam ostentans discessu Cluvii Rufi vacuam," and he is probably right, for the death of Cluvius could hardly have passed without notice by Tacitus, and the passage in Pliny implies that Cluvius lived beyond the events of the war. There is, however, a certain difficulty in " discessu'," for, as we learn from ii. 65. " non adempta Hispania quam rexit absens," so that Spain was not technically " vacua " by the departure of Cluvius. Nor did a new emperor need any such excuse for sending a new governor. PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 329 tories" of C. Plinius, the author of the *'Historia Natu- rahs," were the source used by Plutarch and Tacitus. That PHny wrote histories we know from his nephew, 2s 2 " avunculus mens idemque per adoptionem pater his- torias et quidem religiosissime scripsit." In his list of his uncle's works Pliny describes these histories as " a fine Aufidii Bassi, xxxi. libri," 293 and we learn from the Preface to the "Natural History" that they were continued up to the reign of Vespasian — " N. H. Praef." § 20, " nos quidem omnes patrem, te fratrem- que diximus opere justo temporum nostrorum historiam orsi a fine Aufidii Bassi." Aufidius Bassus probably left off at the end of Claudius, and certainly Pliny's history included Nero's reign — conf. "H. N." ii. 199, " anno Neronis principis supremo sicut in rebus eius exposuimus," while he was certainly consulted by Tacitus in the " Annals " 294 and also in the " His- tories." 295 It is therefore certain that Pliny, as well as Cluvius Rufus, wrote a history embracing this period, and also certain that he wrote it under Vespasian, so that Tacitus may he with some plausibility supposed to refer to him when he criticises the writers of the Flavian age. 2^6 It is further certain that Tacitus did refer to him in the " Histories."^^^ To this we may add, without assigning too great weight to them, the follow- ing arguments adduced by Nissen — ^The fact that both Pliny and Verginius Rufus were natives of Comum and also connected by a long-standing friendship would lead us to expect from the former a eulogistic treatment of Verginius' conduct, and this in Plutarch's account we get. Further, Caecina was also a native of North Italy, and also during Vespasian's reign in a position of high honour. Both these facts would be motives which would naturally lead Pliny to take a more favourable view of Caecina than of Valens, who was a bitter enemy of Verginius, whom he calumniated to Galba.288 This, -'»2 Ep. V. 8. 5. 293 Ep. iii. 5. i. 294 xiii. 20. xv. 53. 285 iii. 28. 206 Hist. ii. loi. 297 iii. 28. 298 i. 32, iii. 62. 330 STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY too, to a certain extent, may be traced. Thus in refer- ence to the defeat of the ViteUians near the temple of Castor, Plutarch mentions indeed the view that it was due to the selfish precipitancy of Caecina, but he prefers to attribute it to the slowness of Valens, whereas Tacitus, using his own judgment, puts it down without hesita- tion to Caecina. It is impossible, however, to attach much importance to these and a few similar coincidences which Nissen points out, since even their cumulative weight is not great. And beyond this it seems impossible to carry the discussion. On the whole the probabilities seem to be against Mommsen's view, and, failing Cluvius Rufus, there is no other known historian of the period for whom so much can be said as for Pliny. But obviously the real importance of the literary puzzle lies in the point that Plutarch and Tacitus used some common authority and followed him with great closeness, much more than in the determination who that authority was. Another point which must be regarded as very pro- bable is that Plutarch has followed this authority more closely than Tacitus. The latter used the authority for his facts, frequently almost following him word for word, but none the less importing into the whole his own rhetorical style, shortening the sometimes diffuse and detailed account, arranging the material symmetrically, sometimes without regard to chronological order, some- times suppressing alternate versions and improbable statements, and in certain cases probably giving his own political colouring to the events he narrates. Thus while Plutarch, with strict chronological accuracy, gives the account of the events happening in the German army in cap. 22 before the death of Galba, Tacitus in order to give a single complete picture describes what happened in Germany altogether in i. 51 foil. Similarly the double mention of Turpilianus in Plutarch 299 and of Tigellinus 3oo corresponds in Tacitus to two single allusions. 301 One or two out of many instances of the 299 Galb. 15 and 17. aoo Qalb. 17 and 0th. 2. -01 Hist. i. 6, and i. 72. PLUTARCH, TACITUS AND SUETONIUS 33I way in which Tacitus cut down and shortened his material will be seen by comparing Tac. i. 74 with Plut. "0th." 4 (the correspondence between Vitellius and Otho), Tac. ii,48. with Plut. "0th." 17 (the last evening of Otho's life), and Tac. i.72 with Plut."Oth." 2 (the death of Tigellinus). Mere personal anecdotes, like that about Canus,302 repulsive details like the mutilation of Galba's head, 30 3 and improbable statements like that of Cluvius Rufus about the Spanish diplomata, are all omitted in Tacitus, who indeed in one or two cases in his desire to be brief has left out essential points which Plutarch supplies. 30 4 But while Plutarch is probably a more faithful repeater of what his authority said, he is also much more inaccurate than Tacitus. Instances of this are (i) such an expression as t6v %€pov'iu)v oIkov ; 305 (2) the statement that Galba was related to Livia Augusta ;^°® (3) the mistake about Sempronius Densus, who, accord- ing to Plutarch, defended Galba, not Piso ; 307 (4) the placing of the mutiny at Ostia instead of the Praetorian camp ; 308 (5) the assertion that Cremona was in the possession of the Othonians instead of the Vitellians ; 309 (6) the mention of Asiaticus as a freedman of Galba ; 3 10 (7) the statement that the father of Piso was killed by Nero instead of Claudius ; 311 (8) the incorrect definition of " optio " and " tesserarius" ; 312 besides a number of minor points, and one or two instances of mistranslation from the Latin. 3 13 The aim of Suetonius was different from that either of Plutarch or Tacitus, being purely biographical, and accordingly we find a number of personal incidents about both Galba and Otho which are absent from the two other historians. A list of these it is not necessary to give here, but it is, I think, sufficiently clear that Suetonius used some other authorities in addition to the one followed by Plutarch and Tacitus. With this, how- 302 Plut. Galb. 16. 303 Plut. Galh. 27. 304 Conf. Plut. Galb. 16 and 0th. 4 ad fin. and 10. 305 Galb. 3, 3. 306 7^,. 3^ 7. 307 lb. 26. 308 Qth. 3. 309 lb. 7. 310 Galb. 20. 311 lb. 23. 312 Jb. 24, 2. 313 lb. 23, 12 and 0th. 12, 24. 33« STUDIES IN ROMAN HISTORY ever, we are not directly concerned, and it will be enough here to point out a few instances of close similarity between Suetonius and Plutarch, and Suetonius and Tacitus, as evidence that he used their authority as well. Suetonius. Galb. 3, 4. airris ip6p€i /Kt^y ^Tt T17 KdrXov (nrfyevela. Galb. 5, 8. Karrjyopi^ffas 8^ Tov 'Sfpuvos Kal tQ)P avxipviJ-ivuiv 6.v5p(i)v vw' avToO Tovs ^irKpavea- rdroi'S 6\oriod to date due. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. c^(r:>^^. ^iy4^Ji ^.^--<^ y. mL INTE R-LIBR ARY LQAN NOV 1 1 1970 REC'D LP MAR 8 "^-tZANI ^Q nFnui988 AUTODISC.DECOS '88 LD21A-60to-8,'70 (N88378l0)476 — A-32 General Library University of California Berkeley U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES CDDb712bD3 UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA LIBRARY