Dominating the Auspices: Augustus, Augury and the Proconsuls (original) (raw)
2011, RICHARDSON, J. & SANTANGELO, F. (eds.): Priests and State in the Roman World, pp. 241–67.
This paper tries to make sense of the strange case of the victories of C. Carrinas over the Morini and the Suebi in 30/29 BC, for which a triumph was awarded to both him and Octavian. Although a strict interpretation of the augural law (represented e.g. in Cic. div. 2, 9 and nat. deor. 2, 76–77) regarded the promagistrates as deprived of the auspices, centuries of practice and the triumph of Carrinas himself show that proconsuls were considered as having valid military auspices. What the sources tell us, is that in many cases a proconsul could accept to be subordinated to the auspices of a consul, notwithstanding their parity of imperium. Therefore, what Octavian tried to do was to have the preeminence of his auspices recognised by the senate with the concession of a triumph for Carrinas’ victories. Nevertheless the assembly did not completely conceded to Octavian and had the independent position of the proconsul confirmed by the award of a triumph to him as well. Finally, the case of Cossus Cornelius Lentulus, subordinated to the auspices of Augustus during his proconsulship of Africa in AD 6–8, shows that Caesar’s heir finally found a way to obtain the superiority that he had sought at the end of the triumvirate.
Related papers
Once Again to the Question of Octavian Augustus’ Principate
JOURNAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY, 2019
In the article on the basis of scientific publications of Russian and foreign scientists, as well as information of ancient authors, there is the analysis of little-studied problems of the formation of Roman Caesarism not only from formal legal, but also socioeconomic and political points of view which objectively influenced the transformation of the Republican system in Rome. The author tries to resolve the question whether Octavian desired power for his personal elevation, and the formation for this the monarchical form of government, as many researchers believe, or his purpose was the development of the Republican system which was adequate to the challenges of time? Were the powers of August different from powers of other Roman magistrates? The article proposes a new vision of the purposes and tasks of the propaganda war between Antony and Octavian, as well as the peculiarities of Augustus acquisition of prestige and authority and powers of the tribune and consul, which became the basis of his Imperial power.
THE CONSULARE IMPERIUM OF AUGUSTUS IN 19 BC
This paper deals with one controversial issue concerning the "constitutional" position of Augustus. According to Cassius Dio, the first emperor was granted a consular power for life in 19 BC. Several historians disputed Dio's testimony. Some of them downplayed the significance of the 19 BC "settlement" and suggested that Augustus received only the insignia of the consulate and held, in fact, the same imperium granted in 23 BC. Others considered that, resigning from the consulate in 23 BC, Augustus lost his "domestic" empire and the act of 19 BC restored his imperium domi. The same scholars believed that the provincial imperium of the emperor was extended inside Rome. In our the view, this hypothesis is not correct. There's no indication that Augustus would have taken the consular insignia in order to exercise some military form of authority in Rome, but some civilian functions like performing the census or other jurisdictions.
The Conspiracy of Egnatius Rufus and the Election of Suffect Consuls under Augustus
Historia, 1997
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Díaz Fernández, A (ed.)., "Provinces and Provincial Command in Republican Rome: Genesis, Development and Governance", 2021
Scholars have been debating the issue of Augustus’ powers over the provinces for a long time, often using Cassius Dio’s book 53 as their starting point. However, Dio's point of view is inevitably influenced by the nature of imperial power and by the constitutional theory of his own time. Epigraphic and papyrological sources directly coming from the time of Augustus tell us a slightly different story, one of greater continuity with the extraordinary commands of the last decades of the Republic; however these sources are produced by Augustus himself (Res Geste) or are the expression of the Senate's point of view. The purpose of this paper is to critically reconsider the main scholarly trends abut Augustus’ provincial powers and assess in what measure they are influenced either by Cassius Dio or by Augustus' Res Gestae. A reconciliation between these two point of view is possible, but only after having understood the value to be attributed to each source.
Holders of Extraordinary Imperium under Augustus and Tiberius
2021
This volume focuses on special military and diplomatic missions in various provinces of the Empire that Augustus and Tiberius entrusted to selected members of the domus Augusta , granting them special prerogatives (imperia extraordinaria). Sawiński compares and analyses various primary and secondary sources exploring special powers and missions in the provinces of the domus Augusta during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, from 27 bc to ad 23, from border regions on the Rhine and the Danube to client states such as Judaea and Armenia. It explores the legal aspects of these powers wielded in the provinces and how these missions and the subsequent honours helped to solidify power within a new hereditary system of power. The reader will also find in it a critical discussion of the current state of research on this subject. Holders of Extraordinary Imperium under Augustus and Tiberius offers an important study of these powers and prerogatives of the imperial family that will be of interest to anyone working on the Augustan age, the early Empire and Principate, and the Roman imperial family. This volume should also prove useful to students of archaeology and art history.
This project aims to examine how Augustus used the patron-client relationship in stabilizing his position as princeps of the Roman state. The relevant ancient sources for Octavian/Augustus’ actions and the nature of patronage in Rome along with some modern scholarly views on Augustan patronage will provide a basis for a close examination of the workings of and the reasoning behind Augustus’ use of this traditional republican institution. I will discuss Augustus’ patronage of both the Roman elites (senators and equestrians) and the Roman plebs. From these examinations it will become evident that Augustus used his patronage to acquire a type of auctoritas different than the militaristic and political type he already held. This focus on a more social auctoritas will add to the scholarly discussion of Augustus’ self-promotion as well as acknowledge that Augustan patronage was not confined to one specific sphere of society.
Byzantina Symmeikta 30, 2020
Averil Cameron once described panegyric as “the most artificial of all classical genres to modern taste.”Living in the age of Donald Trump—where “alternative facts” have become commonplace—most current historians would likely agree with this assessment. Flexible “truths” were certainly a key tool in any panegyrist’s arsenal. Like the modern Presidential Press Secretary, it was part of the ancient orator’s task to reiterate, shape, and massage imperial messaging to an emperor’s subjects. Though it was always easier to trumpet an emperor’s actual virtues and deeds, in certain cases, an orator needed to espouse exaggerated—and sometimes— fabricated virtues. A skilled rhetorician could mould reality to such a degree, that even a feeble emperor, like Honorius (r. 395-423), could be recast as a mighty warrior. Little wonder then that most modern historians have not relied on panegyrics as their primary means of unpicking truths about emperors, their rivals, or specific political events in the late Roman Empire. So it might surprise some, that Adrastos Omissi (henceforth AO) in this provocative and engagingly-written study unapologetically and deftly wields panegyrics as his preferred methodological tool by which to study both usurpation as a concept and to recover something of the shadowy “usurpers” themselves
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.