Monumentum Ancyranum: The Deeds of Augustus

by Emperor of Rome Augustus

NOTES:

[1] This title at Ancyra extends over the first three pages of the Latin, that is over so much of the inscription as is on the left wall of the pronaos; the Greek title extends over seventeen of the nineteen pages of the Greek version.

In its present form, the title cannot be the same as that over the original at Rome. All from “as engraved” is certainly an addition, probably made by the Galatian legate who ordered the magistrates of Ancyra to have the inscription placed on the temple of Augustus. The last two words in the Latin (placed first in the English), were probably inserted only by a blunder at Ancyra. “A copy subjoined,” doubtless stood in the legate’s letter, just as we might write “see enclosure.” But what of the remainder of the inscription, “Of the deeds ... Roman people”? It is hardly conceivable that this was the title of the inscription at Rome, because it embraces only two of the three parts into which the subject-matter falls. It covers the achievements and the expenditures of Augustus; in reverse order, however, from that of the document itself; and it omits any allusion to the subject-matter of the first fourteen chapters, which have to do with the offices and honors conferred upon Augustus.

It is impossible to say what was the superscription at Rome. Possibly there was none. The name of Augustus, most likely, was conspicuous somewhere in connection with the front of the mausoleum, and this inscription may very well have been devoid of title.

[2] Augustus was nineteen years old on Sept. 23, 710.

[3] Cicero (Ad Att. XVI, 8, 1,) on Nov. 1, 710, writes: “I have letters from Octavian; great things are doing; he has led over to his views the veterans of Casilinum and Calatia.” Cf. Vell. II, 61. Dio XLVI, 29.

[4] Cf. Cic. (Phil. III, 2, 3), “The young Cæsar, without our (the senate’s) advice or consent, raised an army and poured forth his patrimony.”

[5] Gardthausen, Aug. 1er Th. 2er Bd. p. 524, thinks that this beginning the Res Gestae with the raising of an army, is an admission of the military foundation of the principate.

[6] Such a statement is part of Augustus’ scheme to pose as a restorer of the old order. He makes Brutus, Cassius, Pompey and Antony public enemies.

[7] Cicero says (Phil. V, 17, 46), that on Jan. 1, 711, “the senate voted that Gaius Cæsar, son of Gaius, pontiff, should be a senator, and hold praetorian rank in speaking.” Dio (XLVI, 29), says that on Jan. 2 or 3, “Cæsar was made senator as a quaestor.”

[8] Livy (Ep. CXVIII), “he received the consular ornaments.” App. (B. C. III, 51) adds that he was given consular rank in speaking. Cf. Mommsen, Röm. St., I, pp. 442, 443.

[9] Cf. Cic. (Phil. ii, 8, 20), “The senate gave Gaius Cæsar the fasces.” Cf. Tac. Ann. I, 10; Livy, Ep. CXVIII.

[10] App. B. C. III, 51. Vell. II, 61.

[11] The formula by which in emergencies, extraordinary powers were given to the ordinary magistrates. This measure had since 216 B. C., entirely superseded the old custom of appointing a dictator. (Cf. note [32]) Chap. V. The present formula, however, had been employed long before the disuse of the dictatorship. Cf. Livy III, 4; VI, 19. This extraordinary commission was not restricted to the consuls. Cf. Cæs. B. C. I, 5.

[12] Hirtius was killed April 16, 711, and Pansa died of wounds received on the 15th, in the fighting against Antonius. Cæsar Octavianus and Q. Pedius were elected consuls Aug. 19, 711. Dio LVI, 30; C. I. L. I, p. 400 = x, 8375; Tac. Ann. I, 9; Suet. Aug. 100. Vell. (II, 65), says the election was on Sept. 22. But Macrobius, (Sat. I, 35, 25), assigns the fact that he was made consul in the month Sextilis, as one of the reasons why the name of that month was changed to August.

[13] C. I. L. 1, p. 466 and App. B. C. IV, 7, fix the formal ratification of the triumvirate by the people, as having been proposed by the tribune Publius Titius and carried in a public assembly on Nov. 27, 711.

[14] An instance of Augustus’ avoiding the names of his enemies; here, particularly, Brutus and Cassius.

[15] The Lex Pedia, Sept., 711, named from Augustus’ colleague in the consulship, constituted an extraordinary tribunal for this class of offenders: the penalty was interdiction from fire and water, i. e., outlawry. Livy, Ep. CXX; Vell. II, 69; App. III, 95; Suet. Aug. 10; Dio XLVI, 49.

[16] The only instance in the Res Gestae of a palpable distortion of fact. The battles at Philippi, in November, 712, are referred to. For the date see Gardthausen, Aug. 2er Th. 1er Halbband, p. 80. In the first fight, Suetonius says (Aug. 13), that Cæsar hardly escaped, ill and naked, from his camp to the wing of Antony’s army. He was ill, and had to be carried in a litter, according to Plutarch, Brut. p. 41. In Antony, 22, Plutarch says: “In the first battle, Cæsar was completely routed by Brutus, his camp taken, he himself very narrowly escaping by flight.” The decisive defeat of the Republicans was twenty days later.

[17] The text here is conjectural. Mommsen is almost alone in holding to “surviving,” Zumpt, in his edition of 1869, had read “suppliant” (supplicibus), Bergk, in 1873, “asking pardon” (deprecantibus). Hirschfeld, the same sense, (veniam petentibus). Seeck insists on the latter reading, in spite of Mommsen’s arguments for his own choice. Augustus did not spare all surviving citizens either after Philippi or Actium, cf. Dio LI, 2: After Actium “of the senators and knights, and other leading men, who in any way had helped Antony, he fined some, many he killed, some he spared.” For his conduct after Philippi, cf. Suet. Aug. 13. But a coin of 727 (Eckhel VI, 88, Cohen I, p. 66, No. 30), has Cæsar cos vii Civibus Servateis, “Cæsar for the seventh time consul, the citizens having been preserved.” It commemorates the civic crown given to Augustus, cf. c. XXXIV. There are other coins with Ob Cives Servatos, “On account of the preservation of the citizens.”

[18] This fact is one of the few which the latest text, based on Humann’s work, alone establishes. Merivale’s comment on the relation of Augustus to the army is noteworthy: “Their hero (Julius Cæsar) discarded the defence of the legions, and a few months witnessed his assassination. Augustus learned circumspection from the failure of his predecessor’s enterprise. He organized a military establishment of which he made himself the permanent head; to him every legionary swore personal fidelity; every officer depended upon his direct appointment.” (C. XXXII.)

[19] C. 15 states the number colonized at 120,000. The 200,000 over and above the 300,000 here named, are accounted for in the twenty-five legions, 150,000 men in service at his death, leaving only 50,000 as the number who died in service or were dishonorably discharged during the long rule of Augustus. For a study of the strength and disposition of the Roman army at the death of Augustus, cf. Mommsen’s R. G., pp. 67-76.

[20] The term of service in 741, was twelve years for praetorian soldiers and sixteen for legionaries, raised in 758 to sixteen and twenty years respectively. Cf. c. 17, N. 2.

[21] The reading of Wölfflin and others (see textual note) would give instead of “lands purchased by me,” “I have assigned lands,” and instead of “money for farms, out of my own means” “money for reward of service.” Bormann, Schr. Nachl. p. 18-20, does not think that Augustus meant to state that he paid these charges from private sources, but believes that such a statement would be irrelevant in this section, if true, and an anticipation of cc. 15 and 16.

[22] Sextus Pompeius lost thirty ships at Mylae, and at Naulochus, out of three hundred which he had, eighteen were sunk and the rest, with the exception of seventeen, burned or captured. Cf. App. B. C. V, 108, 118, 121. Plut. Ant. 68, says that Augustus took 300 ships at Actium. These captures give, in round numbers, 600 vessels.

[23] The ovation was the lesser triumph. The general entered the city clad as an ordinary magistrate, and on foot, or as here, (see the Greek), on horseback, decked with myrtle. Suet. Aug. 22, says, these ovations were after Philippi, and the Sicilian war; the former in 714, the latter, Nov. 13, 718. Cf. Dio XLVIII, 31, XLIX, 15; C. I. L. I, p. 461.

[24] In the curule triumph, for important victories, the general was vested in purple, and rode in a four-horse chariot, preceded by the fasces. These three triumphs were celebrated on the 13th, 14th and 15th of August, 725, for the Dalmatian successes, the victory of Actium and the capture of Alexandria. Cf. C. I. L. 1, p. 328 and 478. Prop. II, 1, 31, ff, gives an eye-witness’ account of the second day. Cf. Livy, Ep. CXXXIII; Suet. Aug. 22; Verg. Aen. VIII; 714, Dio LI, 21.

[25] The acclamation as imperator, on account of success in war, must be carefully distinguished from the title used as a prefix to the name and as a mark of perpetual authority. The title imperator was regularly and permanently assumed at the beginning of each reign, after that of Augustus. To him it was formally assigned by the senate, in Jan., 725. C. I. L., V, 1873: Senatus populusque Romanus imp. Cæsari, divi. Juli. f. cos. quinct. cos. design. sext. imp. sept. republica conservata. The term thus had a double usage and meaning in such cases.

It soon came about that only the princeps could assume the special designation for military successes, no matter whether won by him in person or not. Tacitus says, Ann. III, 74: “Tiberius allowed Blaesus to be saluted as imperator by the legions. Augustus conceded the title to some, but Tiberius’ allowing it to Blaesus was the last instance.” For a discussion of Imperator as permanent title, see Gardthausen, p. 527, and Merivale, History of the Romans, c. XXXI.

Most of the acclamations of Augustus as imperator can be traced. No Greek inscription records them. A list follows. In the later instances Tiberius was associated.

I. April 15 (?) 711. After battles about Mutina. C. I. L. X, 8375 and Dio XLVI, 38.

II. Not traced.

III. Before 717. Cohen, Vipsan. 3, gives a coin with the words imp. divi Juli f. ter. iii Vir v. p. c. M. Agrippa cos. desig. Agrippa entered his consulship Jan. 1, 717.

IV. Probably connected with the Sicilian victory and ovation of 718.

V. 720 or 721. Probably connected with Dalmatian victories of one of those years. Cf. C. I. L. V, 526.

VI. From Sept. 2, 723, to 725. On account of Actium. Cf. Oros. VI, 19, 14. C. I. L. X, 3826. Imp. Cæsari divi f. imp. vi, cos. iii (723). C. I. L. X, 4830, imp. Cæsari divi f. cos. v (725) imp. vi.

VII. From 725 to 729. C. I. L. VI, 873: senatus populusque Romanus imp. Cæsari divi Juli f. cos. quinct. (725) cos. desig. sex. imp. sept. republica conservata. On account of Thracian and Dacian victory of M. Licinius Crassus. Dio LI, 25, says: “Sacrifices and festivals were decreed to Cæsar and to Crassus. He did not, however, as some say, take the name imperator. Cæsar alone assumed that.”

VIII. From 729 to 734. Two inscriptions at Nismes (Donat. 96, 6) read: imp. Cæsari divi f. Augusto cos. nonum (729) designato decimum, imp. octavum. Dio LIII, 26, says it was for a Celtic victory of Marcus Vinicius.

IX. From 734 to 739 (?) Coins have the inscription Augustus Cæsar div. f. Armen. capt. imp. viii. These commemorate the Armenian expedition of Tiberius in 734. Possibly Augustus took the title on account of the return of the captured standards from Parthia, which he accounted a greater triumph than many a victory in open warfare.

X. 739 (?) to 742. C. I. L. V, 8088 and others: Augustus imp. x, tribunicia potestate xi. The latter falls in the years 742, 743. Probably referable to successes in Rhætian war of 739.

XI. 742. Coins (Cohen, n. 147-150) give: imp. xi. The causes were the successes of Tiberius in Pannonia in 742. Dio LIV, 31.

XII. 743 to 744. C. I. L., III, 3117: imp. xii tr. pot. xiii and VI, 701, 702: pontifex maximus, imp. xii cos. xi trib. pot. xiv. Referable to Germanic victory of Drusus. Dio LIV, 33.

XIII. Tiberius Imp. 745. Suet., Tib. 9, says that Tiberius received the oration for Pannonian and Dalmatian victories. Cf. Val. 5, 5, 3. Dio LV, 2.

XIV. Tiberius Imp. II. 746-755. Dio LV, 6, refers this acclamation to the Germanic victories of 746. Many coins, milestones and other inscriptions of the period indicated mention this fourteenth acclamation. Cf. C. I. L., II, 3827; 4931; V, 7243; 7817; VI, 1244.

XV. 755. For the Armenian victory of C. Cæsar. Dio Cass. LV, 11. C. I. L. X, 3827; pont. max., cos. iii (xiii) imp. xv, tr. p. xxv, p. p.

XVI. Untraced.

XVII. Tiberius Imp. III. 759. Dio LV, 28, referring to the German expedition of Tiberius in 759, says, “Nothing great was accomplished. Yet both Augustus and Tiberius received the acclamation as imperators.” Cf. C. I. L. V. 6416.

XVIII. Tiberius Imp. IV. Probably for successes in Illyricum.

XIX. Tiberius Imp. V, 762. Dio LVI, 17, refers to the Dalmatian war. A coin of 763-4 (Cohen n. 27) gives: Ti. Cæsar August. f, imperat. v. pontifex, tribun. potestate xii.

XX. Tiberius Imp. VI. 765. The cause is not clear, probably for slight successes of Tiberius and Germanicus against the Germans in 763, 764. Dio LVI, 25. A Spanish milestone, C. I. L. II, 4868, gives the data.

XXI. Tiberius Imp. VII. Tac. Ann. I, 9, says Augustus was twenty-one times Imperator. A coin of Lyons (Cohen n. 35-38) has: Ti. Cæsar Augusti f. imperator VII. This dates from the lifetime of Augustus. Tiberius did not receive a further acclamation.

[26] ᵃ After his own victory over the Cantabri, that of Varro over the Salassi and that of M. Vinicius over the Germans, in 729. Cf. Florus, IV, 12, 53.

ᵇ After the restoration of the standards by the Parthians in 734. Cf. Borghesi II, 100 ff.

ᶜ After the victories of Tiberius in Germany in 746. Dio LV, 6.

ᵈ After the victories of Tiberius in Pannonia? Dio LVI, 17.

[27] A part of the ordinary ceremonial of the triumph. Cf. Mommsen, Röm. St. I, p. 61, 95, Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, II, p. 582.

[28] For a thanksgiving after the expedition of Tiberius into Armenia cf. Dio LIV, 9. Cf. also Cic. Phil. XIV, 11, 29. For two other instances, cf. Mommsen, R. G., appendix, pp. 161-178.

[29] Not an incredible number. Thanksgivings were offered in Julius Cæsar’s time of fifteen, twenty, forty and fifty days. Cf. Drumann III, 609, No. 84. Fifty days were decreed for the victories of Hirtius, Pansa and Octavian in 711.

[30] The only names traceable are those of Alexander and Cleopatra, the children of Cleopatra and Alexander brother of Jamblichus, King of the Emesenes. Cf. Dio LI, 2, 21. Prop. 2, 1, 33, tells of “Kings with their necks surrounded with golden chains,” in the triumph of Aug. 14, 725.

[31] The emperors assumed the consulship only irregularly and for short periods. Their taking of the “tribunitial power” was not through a regular election to the tribuneship, as was the case with the consulship, for Augustus as a patrician was ineligible; but it was the assumption of a power equal to that of the tribunes. This made the emperors sacrosanct, gave them the initiative and the veto, and well subserved the fiction of their being the representatives and champions of the people. For discussions of this power cf. Merivale, Hist. of Rom. C. XXXI; Mommsen, Röm. St. II, p. 759, 771-777, 833-845.

Succeeding emperors, down to 268 A. D., dated their accession from the day of assuming the tribunitial power. The wording is peculiar in this sentence. May it not have been that Augustus expected his heir or executors to fill in the exact dates at the time of his death, as suggested in the introduction?

[32] Dio, LIV, 1, writes: “In the following year (732) the Tiber again overflowed; statues in the Pantheon were struck by lightning, so that the spear was knocked out of the hand of Augustus. Pestilence was so violent in all Italy that year that there was no one to till the fields; and I think the same was the case in foreign lands. The Romans thought that this plague and famine had come upon them, because they had not made Augustus consul that year; they wished to name him dictator, and with great show of violence compelled the senate, shut up in the curia, to decree this; threatening to burn them unless they did it. So the senate approached Augustus with the twenty-four fasces (insignia of dictatorship, the consul having only twelve), and begged him to accept the dictatorship and the administration of the food supply. He did indeed undertake the latter charge, and ordered that duumvirs, who had held the praetorship five years before, should be yearly appointed to have charge of the distribution of grain, but would by no means accept the dictatorship. When neither by words nor prayers he could move the people, he tore his garments. For he justly wished to avoid the jealousy and hatred of that name, since moreover, he already held a dignity and power superior to that of the dictatorship.” Vell. II, 89, 5, says: “The dictatorship which the people persistently thrust upon him, he as constantly repelled.”

The dictatorship had fallen into disuse after 552, and was revived, irregularly, by Sulla in 672. Cæsar made it the basis of his power, being made perpetual dictator shortly before his death. After that event, on motion of Antony, the office was abolished.

[33] In Chap. 15, Augustus states that in 731 he twelve times distributed grain at his own expense. This assumption of the grain administration in 732 was not strictly a charity. The extract from Dio under Note [69], gives some of the details. It is probable that from this time the tribute in kind was turned into the fiscus, or imperial treasury, instead of into the ærarium, or treasury of the senate, as heretofore. This new task of the imperial government involved not merely the gratuitous distribution of grain to the ordinary Roman citizens (after 752 even to senators and knights), but also the providing of a sufficient supply of grain for all purchasers at a minimum price, often below the market value. It appears that grain tickets “tessaræ frumentariæ” were distributed to the citizens entitled to free grain, and then, to assist the vast multitude of strangers, freedmen, and attachés of the great houses, money tickets, “tessaræ nummariæ” were given out. Cf. Mommsen, Röm. St., II, 992.

[34] Vell. II, 89; Suet. Aug. 26; Dio, LIV, 10. Dio’s statement that Augustus in 735 accepted the consular power (differing from the consulship as the tribunitial power from the tribuneship. Cf. Note [31], Chap. 4.) for life, cannot be correct in face of the other two authorities cited, who corroborate Augustus here. Chapter 8 tells of two special assumptions of the consular power for the taking of the second and third census.

[35] Before the restoration of the text of this inscription, in this case depending entirely upon the remains at Apollonia, it used to be taught that Augustus accepted the formal superintendence of laws and morals. And there seemed to be good ground for such belief. Horace, c., 740 in Carm. IV, 5, v. 22, says, “Morality and law have subdued foul wrong;” and in Ep., II, 1, v. 1, “Since thou hast protected Italy with arms, adorned her with morality, and improved her with laws.” Ovid wrote, Tristia, II, 233: “The city wearies thee with the care of laws and morals, which thou desirest should be like thy own.” Suet. Aug. 27, says: “He accepted the control of laws and morals for life, as he had the tribunitial power; and in the exercise of this control, altho’ without the honor of the censorship, he yet thrice took the census of the people, the first and third times with a colleague, the second time alone.” Dio, LIV, 10, 30, says that in 735 and 742 Augustus accepted this office for periods of five years. But the inscription shows that Suetonius and Dio were wrong, and that a natural but incorrect inference had been drawn from the poets.

This power was offered to Augustus three times; in 735, 736 and 743, and as often refused. Why was it offered, and why refused? Cf. Dio, LIV, 10; Vell. II, 91, 92; Suet. Aug. 19. While Augustus was in Asia in 735 M. Egnatius Rufus, who is painted as a sort of Catiline, tried to obtain the consulship, and even to supplant Augustus, and stirred up sedition in the attempt. This so alarmed the senate and people that they offered Augustus the plenary power of legislation and coercion. The repetition of the offer in 736 was from a similar cause. The reason for that of 743 is unknown. The power thus offered was analogous to the decemvirate, or the Sullan dictatorship. Cf. Mommsen, Röm., St., II, 686.

[36] This sentence answers the second question asked in the above Note. It was part of Augustus’ policy to seem to keep wholly within the lines of the constitution. Hence his refusal to accept any extraordinary office. Yet his tribunitial power was new and extraordinary. Tacitus’ comment is caustic, Ann., III, 56: “That specious title (the tribunitial power) importing nothing less than sovereign power, was invented by Augustus at a time when the name of king or dictator was not only unconstitutional but universally detested. And yet a new name was wanted to overtop the magistrates and the forms of the constitution.”

[37] Dio, LIV, 16, names three laws promulgated by Augustus in 736: one took cognizance of bribery by candidates for office; a second dealt with extravagance; and a third was for the encouragement of matrimony.

[38]ᵃ in 736 Agrippa was associated with Augustus for five years. Cf. Dio, LIV, 12; Vell. II, 90; Tac. Ann. III, 56.

ᵇ in 741 Agrippa again for five years. Cf. Dio, LIV, 12, 28.

ᶜ in 748 Tiberius for five years. Cf. Dio, LV, 9; Vell. II, 99; Suet. Tib. 9, 10, 11.

ᵈ in 757 Tiberius for ten years. Cf. Dio, LV, 13; Vell. II, 103; Tac. Ann., I, 3, 10.

ᵉ in 766 Tiberius for an indefinite time. Cf. Dio, LVI, 28.

[39] Suet. Aug. 27: “He administered the triumvirate for organizing the commonwealth through ten years.” Cf. C. I. L. I, p. 461 and p. 466. The first triumvirate lasted from Nov. 27, 711, to Dec. 31, 716; the second from Jan. 1, 717, to Dec. 31, 721. But cf. c. 34, N. 1.

[40] Cf. Dio, LIII, 1. This title had been conferred upon the senior senator who had served as censor. Its only privilege was the right of speaking first in debate. The honor had fallen into abeyance with the death of Catulus in 694. It is readily seen how the revival of such a title and of the right to express his views before any other senator, gave Augustus a quasi-constitutional initiative in the senate. Gradually the title dropped its second part, and “prince” began to have something of its modern significance. Cf. Tacitus, Ann. III, 53, for Tiberius’ view of its meaning.

Augustus’ notation of time here, “through forty years,” is similar to the “thirty-seventh year of the tribunitial power” in Chap. IV, or “the seventy-sixth year” of Chap. 36.

[41] He was made pontifex in 706 by Julius Cæsar. Cf. Cic. Phil. V, 17, 46; Vell. II, 59. For his taking the office of pontifex maximus cf. c. 10, N. 3.

[42] The date of Augustus’ assumption of the augurate is discussed by Drumann, IV, 250. Coins are the chief witnesses, and their testimony is confused. The date probably was 713 or 714.

[43] A coin of Augustus (Cohen, Jul. 60; Aug. 88) has imp. Cæsar divi f. III vir iter. r. p. c. cos. iter. et tert desig., which fixes the time as between 717 and 720; it has also the tripod, the symbol of the quindecemvirate.

[44] We can say only that Augustus received this dignity before 738; for there is a coin of that year showing the simpulum, the lituus and the tripod, the symbols respectively of the three foregoing offices, and the patera, or bowl, that of the septemviral office. The four colleges thus associated are the chief ones. Cf. Chap. 9.

[45] The name of Augustus is twice found in the Acta Fratrum Arvalium, once in May, 767, in recording a vote, and in Dec., 767, in the record of the nomination of his successor.

[46] Tacitus says the Titian Sodality was instituted by Titus Tatius for keeping up the Sabine ritual. Cf. Ann. I, 54. The record here is all that is known of Augustus’ connection with it.

[47] The fetials had charge of the formalities in declaring war and peace. Dio L, 4, says that Augustus went through the old-fashioned ceremonies in declaring war against Cleopatra.

These three colleges had fallen into abeyance in the time of Cicero. Augustus undoubtedly revived them. Cf. Suet. Aug. 31. Such restoration, and religious conservatism in general, as even in the case of Domitian, marks the policy of the emperors for two hundred years, and was one of their favorite methods of posing simply as restorers of the good old times.

[48] In 725. The Saenian law, passed by the people in 724, authorized this proceeding, and the senate’s decree followed. Hence the order, “people and senate.” Cf. Tac. Ann. XI, 25; Dio, LII, 42. An earlier creation of patricians is assigned by Dio to the year 721. But he is probably mistaken, as Tacitus, in the passage just noted, says that Claudius was obliged to create more patricians, “because the number had declined even after being recruited by the dictator Cæsar under the Cassian law, and by Augustus the princeps under the Saenian law.” Such a creation was not a right of the principate. Cæsar and Augustus did it by special authorization of people and senate. Claudius did it in virtue of his censorship, and this status continued till Domitian absorbed the censorship in the principate, and assumed the right as a permanent one.

[49] During most of the republican history the senate numbered, ideally, three hundred. In Cicero’s time it had over four hundred members. Julius Cæsar raised it to about nine hundred. Suet. Aug., 35, says: “By two separate scrutinies he (Augustus) reduced to their former number and splendor the senate, which had been swamped by a disorderly crowd; for they were now more than a thousand, and some of them very mean persons, who, after Cæsar’s death, had been chosen by dint of interest and bribery, so that they had the name of Orcini among the people.” They were also called Charonites, because they owed their elevation to the last will of Cæsar, who had gone into Orcus to Charon. Dio, XL, 48, 63, tells of freedmen in the senate and, XLIII, 22, of a private soldier; Gell., XV, 4, of a muleteer, cf. Juvenal, Sat. VII, 199.

Dio, LII, 42, cf. LIII, 1, tells of the first scrutiny, in 725-6. A hint from Augustus was enough to cause the withdrawal first of sixty, then of one hundred and forty senators. He also tells, LIV, 13, 14, of a further revision in 736, by which the number was brought down to six hundred. He assigns a third sifting to 743 (LIV, 35), and a fourth to 757 (LV, 13). Mommsen, however, is inclined to connect the three revisions of Augustus with the censuses of 726, 746 and 767, and to regard those of 736 and 757 as extraordinary, and therefore not named by Augustus, in his desire to appear entirely within constitutional lines. Cf. Mommsen, R. G., p. 35.

[50] Suetonius evidently depends on this inscription when he says, Aug. 27: “Three times he took the census of the Roman people, the first and third times with a colleague, the second time alone.” This first census was in 725-6. Cf. Dio, LII, 42; LIII, 1; C. I. L. IX, 422, imp. Cæsar VI, M. Agrippa II cos.; idem censoria potestate lustrum fecerunt.

The lustrum was strictly the expiatory offering made at the close of the census. The census had not been taken for forty-one years. The number of Roman citizens of military age in 684 had been given as but 450,000. This census of 726 reported 4,063,000. Probably the vast apparent increase rose from the fact of the earlier enumeration counting only such as presented themselves before the censors in the city, while at the later time the citizens throughout the empire were counted. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, III, 461, estimates a total free citizenship of more than 17,000,000. The total population of the empire at this time, including citizens, allies, slaves and freedmen, has been estimated at 85,000,000. Cf. Merivale, Rom. cc. XXX, XXXIX.

The Greek of the inscription here reads erroneously 4,603,000.

[51] In 746. The result, 4,233,000, shows a gain of 170,000.

[52] In 767. Just before the death of Augustus. Result, 4,937,000; gain since 746, 704,000.

[53] Suetonius, Aug. 34, relates his endeavors to compel matrimony. In Chap. 89, Suetonius writes: “In reading Greek or Latin authors he paid particular attention to precepts and examples which might be useful in public or private life. These he used to extract verbatim, and give to his domestics, or send to the commanders of the armies, the governors of the provinces, or the magistrates of the city, when any of them seemed to stand in need of admonition. He likewise read whole books to the senate, and frequently made them known to the people by his edicts; such as the orations of Quintus Metellus ‘For the Encouragement of Marriage,’ and those of Rutilius ‘On the Style of Building;’ to show the people that he was not the first who had promoted those objects, but that the ancients likewise had thought them worthy of their attention.” Cf. Livy, Ep. LIX; Gell., I, 6.

[54] These games were first held in 726, and every fourth year thereafter. The expression “every fifth year” counts the year of the games as the fifth of the old series and also the first of the new. The consuls, or rather the consul Agrippa, Augustus not holding games in his own honor, celebrated the games of 726, the pontifices those of 730, the augurs those of 734, the quindecemvirs those of 738, and the septemvirs those of 742. Cf. c. 7, N. 6. These games are mentioned by Dio, LIII, 1, 2; LIV, 19; Pliny, Hist. Nat. VII, 48, 158; Suet. Aug. 44. They came to a close with the life of Augustus. We do not hear of them in connection with any subsequent emperor. Vows for his good health had a special fitness, for according to Suetonius, Aug. LXXXI, he was almost an invalid. “During his whole course of life he suffered at times dangerous fits of sickness. He was subject to fits of sickness at stated times every year, for about his birthday he was commonly indisposed. In the beginning of spring he was attacked with an inflammation of the midriff; and when the wind was southerly, with a cold in his head. By all these complaints his constitution was so shattered that he could not readily bear heat or cold.”

[55] Cf. Suet. Aug. 59 and 98; Hor. Carm. IV, 5, 33; Dio, LI, 19.

[56] Dio writes of the year 725, LI, 20: “When letters were brought about Parthian affairs it was decreed that he should be named in the hymns exactly as were the gods.” Tiridates, a Parthian pretender, sought the aid of Augustus. Cf. Chap. 32, and Dio, LI, 18. Augustus balanced Tiridates against Phraates, the legitimate monarch, who sent an embassy, and gave his son to Rome as a hostage.

[57] In 718, when Lepidus had been overthrown, the tribunitial power had been given to Octavian, as formerly to Julius, for life. Inviolability of person was one of the privileges of the tribunate. Cf. Oros. VI, 18, 34; Dio, XLIX, 15; LI, 18; LIII, 32. These two later statements relating to the years 724 and 731, Mommsen thinks have to do, the former with the extension of the tribunitial power beyond the city, and the latter to the making it annual, as well as perpetual, so that the years of the principate could be reckoned by it. Cf. Chap. 4, note [31]. Cf. also App. B. C. V, 132, and for a discussion of the tribunitial power as an expression of the principate, cf. Mommsen, Röm. St. II, 833, ff.

Wölfflin, cf. textual note, suggests, to fill the gap confessedly left by Mommsen’s emendation, a reading which would be translated “that my person should be sacrosanct.”

[58] Augustus here characteristically avoids the name of Lepidus. The latter “in the confusion and tumult had seized the supreme pontificate,” cf. Livy, Ep. CXVII, “by craft,” cf. Velleius II, 63; “Antony transferred the election of the pontifex maximus from the people to the priests again, and through them initiated Lepidus, almost entirely neglecting the customs of the fathers.” Cf. Dio, XLIV, 53. Lepidus dying in 741, cf. Dio, LIV, 27, Augustus entered upon the office Mar. 6, 742. Cf. C. I. L., I. p. 387. It was unlawful to deprive a living man of this office, cf. App., B. C., V, 131.

[59] October 12, 735. In C. I. L. I. p. 404, is found an inscription of that date: Feriae ex senatus consulto, quod eo die imp. Cæsar Augustus ex transmarinis provincis urbem intravit araq(ue) Fortunae reduci constituta. There are also gold and silver coins (Eckhel VI, 100; Cohen, Aug. nos. 102-108) with the inscription, Fortunae reduci, Cæsari Augusto senatus populusque Romanus, Dio, LIV, 10, tells that Augustus after having arranged matters in Sicily, Greece, Asia and Syria, returned to Rome, and that many honors were decreed to him, but that he would accept none of them, “but that an altar should be consecrated to Fortune the Restorer, that the day should be accounted a feast day, and that it should be called the Augustalia.”

The location near the Porta Capena was chosen, because it was through that gate Augustus would enter the city, coming by the Appian Way from Brundisium. The altar was dedicated on Dec. 15, C. I. L. X, 8375. Cf. Dio, LI, 19; App. B. C. II, 106.

[60] Dio, LIV, 10, relates that in this year there were great tumults in connection with the consular comitia, and no election was possible. In consequence of this the senate sent messengers to Augustus urging him to deal with the trouble. Q. Lucretius, one of the delegates, was named consul by Augustus on the spot where they met. It is Mommsen’s idea (R. G., p. 48) that the story of Dio, and the statement of Augustus relate to the same event, and that Augustus was not willing to admit that so late in his reign, such disturbances could be, and that he therefore conveys the impression that what was really an appeal for aid was rather an embassy of honor. This Mommsen thinks quite in keeping with the general character and method of Augustus. Bormann, on the other hand (Schr. Nach., p. 29), sees no conflict in the two accounts. He believes that Dio narrates truthfully enough an earlier deputation sent to Augustus, possibly at Athens, some time before his return, and that Lucretius was named consul there by Augustus. Then, some time later, the deputation of honor, as recorded in the inscription, was sent into Campania.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[66] Dio, LV, 9, under the year 748 writes that these lads were wild and insolent and that the younger, then eleven years old, actually proposed to the people to make Gaius consul. Augustus appeared very angry at this, saying it would be a public calamity for the consulship to be borne by one of less age than that at which he himself had assumed it, viz., twenty. Gaius was, however, designated consul in 749, and Lucius in 752. Cf. Tac. Ann. I, 3; a coin of Rome has on one side: Cæsar Augustus, divi. f., pater patriæ; on the other: C. L. Cæsares, Augusti f., cos. desig., princ. juvent. (Eckhel VI, 171). This must have been struck between Feb. 5, 752, when Augustus received the title pater patriæ, and January 1, 754, when Gaius entered upon his actual consulship. Cf. C. I. L. III, n. 323, and VI, 900.

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

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

[68] Dio, LV, 12, says: “The bodies of Lucius and Gaius were carried to Rome by military tribunes, and the chief men of each city; and the golden (sic) shields and spears, which they had received from the knights when they assumed the toga virilis, were suspended in the curia.”

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

[69] Cf. Suet. Cæs. LXXXIII: “He (Cæsar) bequeathed to the Roman people his gardens near the Tiber, and three hundred sesterces to each man.” Dio, XLIV, 35, is peculiar, saying: “Cæsar left to the people his gardens on the Tiber, and to each man one hundred and twenty sesterces, as Augustus himself says, or as others say, three hundred sesterces apiece.” May it be that Dio has reversed the facts here, and that it was “others” who reported the smaller sum and Augustus the larger? Augustus is substantiated, or followed, by Plut.; Ant., XVI, Brut., XX; App. B. C., II, 143.

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

[70] The second (and the seventh, cf. Note [76]) donations belong to the year 725 and were connected with the triple triumph. Dio mentions the two together, LI, 21. Four hundred sesterces is about twenty dollars.

[71] The third donation was in 730, on the return of Augustus after subduing the Cantabri. Dio, LIII, 28, says: “Augustus gave the people a hundred denarii (four hundred sesterces) apiece, but forbade the distribution until his act should receive the sanction of the senate.” It would seem to have been unlawful to give money to the people without the consent of the senate. Probably this was a measure of precaution against demagogues.

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

[72] Cf. c. 5 and Note [33]. The date was 731.

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

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

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

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

[77] Cf. Dio, LV, 10.

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

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

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

[81] Only two of these occasions can be traced. Dio, LIII, 2, mentions one. He says that in 726, when it was determined to exhibit games in honor of Actium, Augustus replenished the empty treasury for that purpose. And there is a coin of c. 738 with the inscription: Senatus populusque Romanus imperatori Cæsari quod viæ munitæ sunt ex ea pecunia quam is ad ærarium detulit. Eckhel VI, 105.

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

[82] This was in 759. In 741 (Dio, LIV, 25) Augustus had fixed the term of service at twelve years for the prætorians and sixteen for the legionaries. The gift to the former upon discharge was also larger. In 758 the terms of service were lengthened to sixteen and twenty years. Cf. Dio, LV, 23. In LV, 25, Dio writes of this year 759: “Augustus contributed, in his own name and in that of Tiberius, money for that treasury which is called the military.” The sum so given was $8,500,000. Tributary states and kings also assisted. But income could not keep pace with expenses. The old tax of a twentieth on bequests, except when the heir was a very near relative, or very poor, was revived, much to the discontent of the Roman people. Cf. Dio, LV, 25. Other taxes were devised, such as that of one per cent on sales. Cf. Tac. Ann. I, 78. On sales of slaves two per cent was exacted. Cf. Dio, LV, 31.

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

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

His supplying grain as well as money rose from the fact that taxes were imposed both in kind and in money. Cf. Tac. Ann. IV, 6; Agr. XIX and XXXI; C. I. Gr. 4957, 47. These passages all speak of taxes both in money and in produce. As to the method of levy, Hyginus is interesting (De Lim. p. 205). “The tax on agriculture is arranged in many ways. In some provinces the harvest is chargeable with a certain proportion, here a fifth, there a seventh, elsewhere a cash payment, and for this purpose certain values are determined for the fields by an estimation of the soil; as in Pannonia there is arable of the first class, of the second, meadows, mast-bearing woods, common woods, pastures: upon all these the tax is laid by the single acre, according to the fertility of the soil.” This was in the time of Trajan.

[84] The structures detailed here and in cc. 20 and 21, fall into three classes. First, those of c. 19, being either new buildings in place of ruined ones, or else entirely new ones, both classes on soil already consecrated; second, those of c. 20, being repairs of public works; third, public works upon soil given by himself, as noted in the first part of c. 21.

Augustus does not mention structures which he erected in the name of others, as the portico of Octavia, (different from the one below, Note [90]), the portico of Livia, cf. Dio, XLIX, 43 and LIV, 23. He also omits the temple of Concord dedicated by Tiberius in 763 (C. I. L. I. p. 384), though he paid for it.

The order of the works is chronological for the most part.

[85] This was the Curia Julia, begun in 712. Cf. Dio XLVII, 19; XLIV, 5; XLV, 17. It was dedicated in 725 after Actium. Cf. Dio LI, 22. Here the senate met. Its location was near the forum.

[86] A shrine of Minerva Chalcidica.

[87] Begun after the Sicilian victories in 718. Cf. Dio XLIX, 15; Vell. II, 81, dedicated Oct. 9, 726. Cf. Dio, LIII, 1; C. I. L. I, p. 403. Suet. Aug. 29, says: “He reared a temple of Apollo in that part of his estate on the Palatine which the haruspices declared was desired by the god because it had been struck by lightning; he attached to it a portico and a Greek and Latin library.”

[88] An altar was placed at once on the spot in the forum where the body of Julius Cæsar was cremated. In 712 the senate decreed that a temple should be built there.

[89] Dionysius (I, 32), observes that the ancient condition of this place (originally a grotto near the Palatine, sacred to Pan) had been so changed as to be hardly recognizable. This was by reason of the changes made in his time, which nearly coincided with that of Augustus. Cf. C. I. L. VI, 912, 6, 9, and 841. Its precise location is undetermined.

[90] Festus, De Verb. Sig. L. 13, writes: “There were two Octavian porticoes, the one built near the theatre of Marcellus by Octavia, the sister of Augustus, the other close to the theatre of Pompey, built by Cn. Octavius, son of Cnæus, who was curule aedile, prætor, consul (589) decemvir for the sacred rites, and celebrated a naval triumph for a victory over King Perseus. It was the latter which, after its destruction by fire, Cæsar Augustus rebuilt.” Its reconstruction was in 721. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 43, who, however, confounds this Octavian portico with the other built some years after in the name of Augustus’ sister, Octavia.

[91] The Pulvinar was the place of honor from which the imperial family witnessed the games. Cf. Suet. Aug. 45; Claud. 4. This restoration followed the burning of the Circus Maximus in 723. Cf. Dio, L, 10.

[92] A temple attributed to Romulus, in ruins in the time of Augustus, till restored by him on the suggestion of Atticus. Cf. Nepos, Atticus, 20; Livy, IV, 20. The temple was probably restored in 723.

[93] Suetonius, Aug. 29, writes: “He dedicated the temple to Jupiter the Thunderer, in acknowledgment of his escape from a great danger in his Cantabrian expedition; when, as he was traveling by night, his litter was struck by lightning, which killed the slave who carried the torch before him.” This expedition was in 728-729, and the temple was dedicated Sept. 1, 732. Cf. Dio, LIV, 4; C. I. L. I, 400.

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

[95] These three temples have more than an accidental collocation. Just as the Tarpeian mount and the Quirinal hill had their triple divinities, so had the Aventine. Cf. Varro (De Lin.) V, 158. The temple of Juno is ascribed to the time of Camillus, and is said to have been built for the Veientines. The date of the other two is unknown, as is that of this restoration by Augustus.

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

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

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

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

[100] The Capitol means the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

[101] Frontinus, De Aq. c. 125, speaks of a decree of the Senate in the year 743 “concerning the putting in order of the streams, conduits and arches of the Julian, Marcian, Appian, Tepulan and Aniene waters, which Augustus has promised the Senate that he will repair at his own expense.” Aqueducts were repaired in 749-750. Cf. C. I. L. VI, 1244. C. I. L. VI, 1249, gives Iul. Tep. Mar.; imp. Cæsar divi f. Augustus ex s. c.; XXV; ped. CCXL. C. I. L. VI, 1243, records the repairs of the Marcian aqueduct. Frontinus, op. cit., 12, gives some details of the doubled supply of this source, and says the new spring had to be conducted eight hundred feet to join the older fountain.

[102] Julius Cæsar dedicated this forum Sept. 24 or 25, 708. Cf. Dio, XLIII, 22; App. B. C., III, 28; C. I. L. I, p. 402 and 397. Pliny, Hist. Nat., XXXV, 12, 156, mentions its completion by Augustus.

Augustus uses the word profligata here for “unfinished,” a use which was common enough but not elegant, and is severely criticised by Gellius, XV, 5. The word really means wretched rather than unfinished. That Augustus was not a purist this inscription testifies, and Suetonius also tells us, Aug., 87 and 88, how peculiar he was in diction and orthography.

The basilica which was unfinished at the death of Augustus he refrains from naming while it was not yet dedicated. But we know from Suetonius, Aug. 29, and Dio, LVI, 27, that it was built in honor of his grandchildren, Gaius and Lucius.

[103] There is abundant testimony to this architectural activity. Cf. Suet. Aug. 29 and 30; Dio, LIII, 2; LVI, 40; Livy IV, 20; Ovid, Fasti, II, 59; Hor. Carm., III, 6. Nor was this the zeal of a mere archæologist and architect. The emperor was anxious for a revival of religious observance, as a conservative force in his new organization of the state.

[104] It is remarkable that Augustus should say he “constructed” the Flaminian Way, etc., for it was made nearly two hundred years before this date, 727. Moreover, the whole chapter is given up to an account of reconstructions, and of course it is meant that he repaired the road and the bridges in question. The Latin verb is wanting and is restored from the Greek, ἐπόησα, which is unmistakable,—“I made.” Mommsen does not comment on the incorrectness of this statement, but Wölfflin regards the Greek verb as a blunder of the stone-cutter at Ancyra, and thinks there was no verb at all at the end of this chapter, but that the mason by mistake took the last word of the preceding chapter which is ἐπόησα. A substitution of ἐπόησα for the proper verb seems more likely, as it seems improbable that the sentence would end without a verb.

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

SENATUS POPULUSQ ue romanus

imp. cæsari divi f. augusto imp. sept.
COS. SEPT. DESIGNAT. OCTAVOM Via flamin IA et reliqueiS
CELEBERRIMEIS ITALIÆ VIEIS CONSILIO et sumptib US eius muNITEIS.

Cf. also Suet. Aug. 30; Dio, LIII, 22. Other roads of Italy were repaired by those who obtained triumphs; of which more were celebrated from 726 to 728 than at any other epoch.

[105] Cf. Suet. Aug. 29. Its construction was vowed in 712 and it was dedicated in 752. Cf. C. I. L. I, p. 393, May 12. In c. 35, Augustus mentions the quadriga dedicated to him in this forum.

[106] This theatre was begun by Julius Cæsar. Augustus completed it in honor of Marcellus, who died in 731. It was dedicated May 4, 743. Cf. Pliny, Hist. Nat., VIII, 17, 65. Dio, LIV, 36, assigns its dedication to 741.

[107] Suetonius, Aug., 30, says that on one occasion Augustus deposited in the cella of Jupiter Capitolinus sixteen thousand pounds of gold (= $3,200,000) and gems and pearls of the value of fifty million sesterces (= $2,500,000). But such statements are fabulous, in view of Augustus’ own statement that the total of his gifts of this kind was only one hundred million sesterces (= $5,000,000).

[108] In earlier times it had been customary for cities affected by a victory to give crowns of gold to the triumphing imperator. This grew into an abuse and was forbidden by law, unless the gift preceded the decree for the triumph. Later, the value of the crown was commuted for cash, and it came to be a frequent means of extortion on the part of provincial governors. To L. Antonius crowns of gold were given by each of the thirty-five Roman tribes in 713. Cf. Dio, XLVIII, 4. The amount named here, thirty-five thousand pounds of gold, would appear to have been from the thirty-five tribes. On the general subject, aurum coronarium, cf. Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, II, p. 285.

[109] The sons of Augustus were Gaius, adopted in 737, died in 757; Lucius, adopted at the same time, died in 755; Agrippa Postumus, adopted in 757, exiled in 760. These were the sons of Agrippa and Julia. On the death of Gaius in 757, Augustus adopted Tiberius. With him Germanicus, nephew and adopted son of Tiberius, and Drusus, Tiberius’ own son, became the legal grandchildren of Augustus. None of these could celebrate games in his own name after adoption, as they had no property rights, but were absolutely dependent on the head of their house, according to the patria potestas of the Roman law. See this very plainly set forth in Suetonius, Tib. 15: “After his (Tiberius’) adoption he never again acted as master of a family, nor exercised in the smallest degree the rights which he had lost by it. For he neither disposed of anything in the way of gift, nor manumitted a slave; nor so much as received an estate left him by will, or any legacy, without reckoning it as a part of his peculium, or property held under his father.” Tiberius was forty-six years old when he was adopted.

Seven of these exhibitions can be traced. 1. In 725, on the dedication of the temple of the Divine Julius. Dio, LI, 22. 2. In 726, in honor of the victory of Actium. Dio, LIII, 1. 3. In 738, in accordance with a decree of the senate. This was in the name of Tiberius and Drusus. Dio, LIV, 19. 4. In 742, at the Quinquatria held March 19-23, in honor of Minerva. This was in the name of Gaius and Lucius. Dio, LIV, 28, 29. 5. In 747; funeral games in honor of Agrippa. Dio, LV, 8. 6. In 752, at the dedication of the temple of Mars. Vell. II, 100. 7. In 759, in honor of Drusus, in the name of his sons Germanicus and Claudius. Dio, LV, 27; Pliny, Hist. Nat., II, 26, 96; VIII, 2, 4. Possibly the eighth occasion may be found in Suetonius, Aug., 43.

[110] Cf. Dio, LIII, 1; Suet. Aug., 43. Wooden seats were erected in the Campus Martius for gymnastic contests in 726. Whether Germanicus or Drusus is the grandson mentioned here is unknown.

[111] These were the lesser games of the circus and theatres, given ordinarily by magistrates holding the lower offices, which Augustus never filled. He took upon himself the care and expense where the proper magistrates were absent or too poor. Cf. Dio, XLV, 6; C. I. L., I, p. 397.

[112] The charge of the Secular Games, celebrated supposedly once in a century, though in reality oftener, fell to the quindecemvirs. Cf. Eckhel, VI. 102, for a coin with imp. Cæsar Augustus lud. saec. XV S. F. This was in 737. Cf. also C. I. L., I, p. 442. The college evidently gave the presidency to Augustus and Agrippa, since it was very convenient that these two members of the sacred body also held the tribunitial power, and so the games came into the charge of the two greatest men of the state in a perfectly natural way. Cf. C. I. L., IX, p. 29, No. 262, for confirmation of Agrippa’s membership in the college of quindecemvirs.

[113] These games were celebrated on August 1. Dio, LX, 5, and LVI, 46, tells of their being annual, and in charge of the consuls after the death of Augustus. They began in 752. This passage is one of the few where both the Latin and Greek are incapable of restoration.

[114] Cf. Suet. Aug. 43. Some of these occasions were: in 743 in connection with the dedication of the theatre of Marcellus. Cf. Dio, LIV, 26. Here six hundred beasts were killed, and the tiger was shown for the first time. Cf. Pliny, Hist. Nat., VIII, 17, 65. In 752, two hundred and sixty lions and thirty-six crocodiles were killed. Cf. Dio, LV, 10. In 765, in the games given by Germanicus, two hundred lions were killed. Cf. Dio, LVI, 27.

Augustus says “amphitheatres,” though there was but one such structure. He may have regarded it as being two theatres joined at their straight side and facing each other.

[115] Velleius II, 100, writes: “The divine Augustus in the year when he was consul with Gallus Caninius (752) sated the minds and the eyes of the Roman people at the dedication of the temple of Mars with the most magnificent gladiatorial shows and naval battles.” Dio, LV, 10, says that traces of the excavation could be seen in his time (c. 200 A. D.), and that the fight represented a battle of Athenians and Persians, in which the former were victorious. Cf. Suet. Aug. 43; Ovid, Ars Am. I, 171.

Claudius gave a similar exhibition on the Fucine Lake, but with a hundred triremes and quadriremes, and a force of nineteen thousand men, “as once Augustus did in a pond by the Tiber, but with lighter vessels and a smaller force.” Cf. Tac. Ann. XII, 56; Suet. Claud., 21; Dio, LX, 33.

[116] Another instance of avoidance of the name of an enemy while distinctly referring to him. Antony had stripped various temples at Samos, Ephesus, Pergamos, and Rhœteum, all in the province of Asia, and had given the spoils to Cleopatra. Dio, LI, 17, says that great numbers of such things were found in her palace when Alexandria was captured. Pliny, Hist. Nat., XXXIV, 8, 58, says: “He (Myro) made an Apollo, which was taken away by the triumvir Antony, but restored to the Ephesians by the divine Augustus.” Strabo, XIII, 1, 30, writes of Rhœteum: “Cæsar Augustus gave back to the Rhœtians the shrine and statue of Ajax which Antony had taken away and given to Egypt. He did the like for other cities. For Antony took away the finest votive offerings from the most famous shrines for the gratification of the Egyptian woman, but Augustus restored them.” Ib. XIV, 1, 14, writes of the temple of Hera, at Samos: “Antony took away three colossal sitting statues on one base, but Augustus Cæsar restored two of them, Athene and Heracles, to the same base; the Zeus, however, he placed upon the Capitol.”

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

[118] The allusion is to Sextus Pompeius, whose fleets, manned largely by slaves, cut off the grain ships on their way to Rome. Again Augustus avoids the name of an opponent. Cf. Vell., II, 73, who thinks it remarkable that a son of the great Pompey, who had freed the sea from pirates, should himself defile it with piratical crimes. Florus, IV, 8, reflects the same sentiment. App. B. C., V, 77, 80, says that captured pirates under torture confessed that Sextus Pompeius was the instigator of their crimes. When the peace of Misenum was made, Sextus Pompeius stipulated for the freedom of the slaves who had fought under him. It was after the overthrow of Pompey, in 718, that the slaves were returned. Dio, XLIX, 12, adds that slaves whose masters did not claim them were returned to their several cities, there to be crucified. Cf. App. B. C., V, 131; Oros. VI, 18.

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

[120] Cf. c. 8, Note [49]. There were a thousand senators at this time. Augustus, in his statement, probably means that seven hundred of the thousand then in the senate were on his side, not merely seven hundred who then or later were senators.

The number of consulars, eighty-three, is quite consistent with the facts, as is shown in a careful analysis of the Fasti Consulares for the period by Mommsen. R. G., p. 100.

The priests referred to were probably members of the four great colleges and the Arval brotherhood. Cf. c. 7, notes [40]-[45].

[121] This statement is borne out by what we otherwise know. Taking the provinces in order we find: First, the German frontier is pushed forward from the Rhine to the Elbe. Cf. Suet. Aug. 21. Second, in Illyricum and Macedonia he had erected the new provinces of Pannonia and Moesia. Third, in Asia Minor he did not extend the older limits of Bithynia, but out of the kingdom of Amyntas, he made the new province of Galatia and later added Paphlagonia to it. Fourth, in Africa, Augustus rather narrowed than extended the empire by his partition with Juba in 729. But a number of Roman proconsuls won laurels there.

[122] Here the record is of commotions quelled within the recognized limits of the empire. In Spain there was the Cantabrian war from 727 to 735. In Gaul, G. Carrinas had subdued the Morini, and triumphed, July 14, 726; and M. Messala had suppressed the Aquitani, triumphing Sept. 25, 727. Cf. Suet. Aug., 20, 21.

The German campaigns extending at intervals over the years from 742 to the very end of Augustus’ reign it is needless to detail. This reference to the pacification of Germany has been the subject of much dispute. Mommsen in two places (R. G., p. VI, and 48), uses the word “crafty” (callidus) of Augustus, referring to his alleged glozing over of unsatisfactory events. Hirschfeld goes further, and in connection with the present passage accuses Augustus (Wiener Studien, V, 117) of a “masterly concealment and whitewashing (übertünchung) of all that could hurt his reputation.” This charge is made because Augustus omits all mention of the disaster under Varus. Against this charge Johannes Schmidt defends Augustus, (Philologus, XLV, p. 394, ff.). The contest between Schmidt and Hirschfeld is based really upon opposing views of the purpose of the Res Gestae. Schmidt believed it to be an epitaph. In this there would be no place for anything save the fortunate events of a life. If nil de mortuis nisi bonum be wise, Augustus might well have adapted the adage to his own case and said, nil de me morituro nisi bonum. But Hirschfeld insists that the Res Gestae constitute not an epitaph, but “an account of his administration,” and therefore contends that the omission of the German disaster was not in good faith. To this, Schmidt answers that Augustus had nothing to gain by such concealment—indeed that concealment of so notorious a disaster would be absurd. And in the text itself he finds a recognition of the real state of affairs, inasmuch as Augustus expressly distinguishes Germany from the provinces, Gallic and Spanish, and while claiming it for Rome, does not assert that it belongs to her as do organized provinces. Schmidt also says that pacavi, “I pacified” does not necessarily imply that Germany continued in a state of peace. It may well enough cover the fact that there was temporary success. But this is hair-splitting. The character of the Res Gestae must be always had in mind. Cf. Introduction. Its deliverances were ad populum and they constituted an epitaph.

[123] Suetonius, Aug. 21, says: “He waged war upon no people without just and necessary causes.” The present Torbia near Monaco, derives its name from a Tropæa Augusti, “Trophy of Augustus,” some fragments of which still exist.

The inscription has been preserved by Pliny, Hist. Nat., III, 20, 136: imp. Cæsari divi f. Augusto pontifice maxumo imp. XIIII tribunic. potestate XVII s. p. q. R. quod ejus ductu auspiciisque gentes Alpinæ omnes quæ a mari supero ad inferum pertinebant sub imperium p. R. sunt redactæ—“the Roman senate and people to Cæsar ... Augustus ... because under his leadership and auspices all the Alpine nations, from the upper to the lower sea have been brought into subjection to the Roman empire.” Then follows an enumeration of forty-six peoples. Pliny adds, “the Cottian states were not annexed because they had not been hostile;” and an arch at Segusio was placed in honor of Augustus, and on it are the names of fourteen states, six being repetitions from the Torbia monument. Cf. C. I. L. V, 7817 and 7231.

The campaigns here referred to are: First, of Varro Murena against the Salassi in 729. Cf. Strabo, IV, 6, 7, p. 205; Dio, LIII, 25; Livy, Epit., CXXXV; Cass. ad. ann. 729; Suet. Aug. 21. Second, of Publius Silius against the Vennones and Camunni in 738. Cf. Dio, LIV, 20. Third, of Tiberius and Drusus against the Ræti and Vindelici in 739. Cf. Suet. Aug. 21. Fourth, against the Ligurians of the Maritime Alps in 740. Cf. Dio, LIV, 24. Finally these regions were formed into the province of Rætia in 747-748.

[124] This naval expedition was connected with the German campaign of Tiberius in 758. Cf. Vell. II, 106; Pliny, Hist. Nat., II, 67, 167.

[125] Strabo, VII, 2, 1, describes an embassy of the Cimbri asking for “peace and amnesty.” They dwelt in the end of Jutland. Cf. Ptolemy, II, 10. Below them were the Charudes, whom the mason at Ancyra makes Charydes, and the Greek translator, thinking of the fable, transforms into Chalybes, living just south of the Cimbri. Cf. Ptolemy, ii, 11, 12. The Semnones were between the Elbe and the Oder.

[126] When the Egyptian garrisons were weakened on account of the Arabian expedition, Queen Candace took advantage of it and captured a number of towns in Upper Egypt. These the præfect, C. Petronius, re-took, and inflicted severe punishment upon the Æthiopians. This took place 730-732. Cf. Strabo, XVII, I, 54; Dio, LIV, 5; Pliny, Hist. Nat., VI, 29, 181, 182.

In 1896 Capt. Lyons, R. E., found, at Philæ, an inscription in Latin, Greek and hieroglyphics, of which Prof. Mahaffy gives this translation: “Gaius Cornelius, son of Cnaeus Gallus, a Roman knight, appointed first prefect, after the kings were conquered by Cæsar, son of Divus, of Alexandria and Egypt—who conquered the revolt of the Thebaid in fifteen days, having won two pitched battles, together with the capture of the leaders of his opponents, having taken five cities, some by assault, some by siege, viz., Boresis, Coptos, Ceramice, Diospolis the Great, Ombos (?); having slain the leaders of these revolts, and having brought his army beyond the cataract of the Nile to a point whither neither the Roman people nor the Kings of Egypt had yet carried their standards, a military district impassable before his day; having subdued, to the common terror of all the kings, all the Thebaid, which was not subject to the kings, and having received the ambassadors of the Ethiopians at Philæ, and guest-friendship from their king (and received their king under his protection) and having appointed him tyrant of the 30-schoeni district of Lower Ethiopia—makes this thank-offering to the Dii Patrii, and to the Nile, who aided him in his deeds.” London Athenæum, March 14, 1896, and Sitzungsberichte d. kgl. Pr. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1896, I, pp. 469-480.

[127] The Arabian campaign, under C. Aelius Gallus was probably in 729-730. Cf. Dio, LIII, 29; Hor. Carm. I, 29, 35; Strabo, XVI, 4, 22, 24. Pliny, Hist. Nat., VI, 28, 159, 160,

[128] Egypt was made an integral part of the empire after Actium and the death of Cleopatra, in 724. Its connection with the empire was peculiar. W. T. Arnold, Roman Provincial Administration, p. 113, says: “The government of Egypt was in many points wholly exceptional. Julius Cæsar had deliberately abstained from making it a province of the country (cf. Suet., Jul. 35); and when Augustus added it to the empire he subjected it to an altogether exceptional treatment. The country was his private property, or rather the Emperor’s private property; it passed as a matter of course, that is, from emperor to emperor. Augustus appointed a præfect to represent him in the province, just as in earlier times the urban prætors had sent prefects to represent them in the municipalities of Italy. This præfect was of equestrian, and not of the highest equestrian rank (Tac. Ann., XII, 60; II, 59; Hist. I. 11); no senators were admitted into the province; and the greatest jealousy was shown of the smallest interference with it. The reasons for the special jealousy of Egypt shown by Augustus and his successors were partly the great defensibility of the country (in case of insurrection—Ed.), partly its immense importance as the granary of Rome. ‘It was an accepted principle with our fathers,’ says Pliny, ‘that our city could not possibly be fed and maintained without the resources of Egypt.’” For a fuller treatment cf. Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, I, 282-298.

[129] Armenia Major had been raised to greatness by Tigranes I (658-699) who had been a formidable ally of Mithridates. Pompey finally subdued him, 688. Henceforth Armenia was in a subject condition. Tigranes was succeeded by his son Artavasdes. In 718, when Antony attacked the Parthians, this king sided with him against Phraates of Parthia, and another Artavasdes, king of Media. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 25.

But presently the two Artavasdes changed relations, the king of Armenia passing to the Parthian side and he of Media joining Antony. Cf. Plut., Ant., 52; Dio, XLIX, 33, 44. Antony captured Artavasdes of Armenia and gave him over to Cleopatra, who killed him in 721. His kingdom was assigned to Antony’s son Alexander to whom was betrothed Jotape daughter of Artavasdes of Media. The Armenians made Artaxes, son of the late Artavasdes, their king. When Octavian overcame Antony he did not befriend all the Oriental enemies of the latter, but for purposes of his own set up a rival to Phraates of Parthia in Tiridates. Cf. c. 32. And, angered at the Armenians, who had dealt harshly with certain Romans in that kingdom, he held as hostages the brothers of king Artaxes, and set Artavasdes of Media over Armenia Minor as a check upon Artaxes. Cf. Dio, LI, 16; LIV, 9. In 734 Augustus went to the East to arrange affairs there. A campaign against Artaxes was planned, but he was assassinated. Cf. Dio, LIV, 9; Tac., Ann., II, 3; Vell., II, 94, 122; Suet. Aug., 21; Jos., Ant., XV, 4, 3; Eckhel, VI, 98. At this point the action of Augustus, recorded here in the Res Gestæ, takes place. Augustus follows the example of Pompey, who, in dealing with Armenia in 688 had contented himself with making the Armenian king accept his royalty as a gift from Rome. Cf. Cic. pro Sext. 27. The affair was conducted by Tiberius, not yet adopted. Cf. Suet. Tib., 9; Vell., II, 122. Henceforth Armenia was regarded as part of the empire, though its native sovereigns were continued. Cf. Vell., II, 94, 122: “Armenia restored to the control of the Roman people;” “Armenia retaken.” “The Medes likewise were subjected.” Cf. c. 33.

[130] The reign of Tigranes was brief. The Parthians winning some success against Rome, stirred up Armenia. Cf. Tac. Ann., II, 3; Vell., II, 100. They favored the children of Tigranes, Tigranes III and Erato. A Roman faction set up his younger brother Artavasdes. Cf. Tacitus l. c. The suppression of the disorder was enjoined upon Tiberius. But at this juncture, 748, he went into retirement at Rhodes. Cf. Dio, LV, 9. Artavasdes died and the young Tigranes courted the aid of Rome, but was soon killed, probably by Parthian means, and his sister Erato abdicated. Cf. fragments of Dio, cited by Mommsen, R. G., p. 113, and Dio, LV, 10. Tacitus confirms the delivery of Armenia to Ariobarzanes by Gaius. Cf. Ann., II, 3; and Dio, LV, 10. The Parthian faction did not accept him, and it was in a contest over him that Gaius received a wound, of which he died, Feb. 21, 757. Cf. C. I. L. I, p. 472. For the succession of Artavasdes, cf. Dio, LV, 10. The Tigranes IV, next mentioned “of the royal house of the Armenians” was a grandson of Herod the Great, of Judea, on the one side, and of Archelaus, King of Cappadocia, and probably an Armenian princess on the other. Cf. Tac. Ann. VI, 40; XIV, 26; Jos., Ant. XVIII, 5, 4; Wars, I, 28, 1.

[131] For Sicily and Sardinia, cf. c. 25 and notes.

By the treaty of Brundisium, Antony had received Macedonia, Achaia, Asia, Pontus, Bithynia, Cilicia, Cyprus, Syria, Crete, Cyrenaica. The five last named he had given over to foreign kings. As to Asia and Bithynia, Dio, XLIX, 41 and Plut. Ant. 54, are in conflict. But the Res Gestæ tends to confirm the latter. Lycaonia and Pamphylia were taken from the province of Cilicia and given to Amyntas, King of Galatia. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 32. He extended Egypt again by restoring to it Cyprus. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 32, 41; Plut. l. c.; Strabo, XIV, 6, 6: he granted to Cleopatra and Cæsarion, her son by Julius Cæsar, the coast land of Syria, Tyre and Sidon excepted, cf. Jos. Ant. XV, 4, 1; Wars, I, 18, 5; also Coele-Syria, cf. Jos. Ant. XV, 3, 8; Plut. l. c.; Ituraea, Judaea and Arabia Nabataea, cf. Dio, XLIX, 32; Jos. Ant. XV, 4, 1; 5, 3; Wars, I, 18, 5; 20, 3; parts of Cilicia, cf. Strabo, XIV, 5, 3; 5, 6: and perhaps Crete also, cf. Dio, XLIX, 32: and Cyrenaica, cf. Plut. l. c. To his younger son Ptolemy Philadelphus he gave Syria, and part of Cilicia, cf. Dio, XLIX, 41; Plut. l. c.: for the elder, Alexander he planned a kingdom made up of Armenia, Media and Parthia, cf. Livy, Epit. CXXXI; Plutarch, l. c. These alienations of Roman territory were made the occasion of Octavian’s attack upon Antony. Cf. Dio, L, 1; Plut. l. c.

[132] Mommsen believes that Augustus founded only military colonies. Zumpt thinks otherwise. Cf. Comment Epig., I, 362.

[133] Known colonies of Augustus are: In Africa, Carthage, cf. C. I. L. VIII, p. 133; Dio, LII, 43; App. Pun. CXXXVI. In Sicily, Panhormus, Thermes, Tyndaris, cf. Dio, LIV, 7; Pliny, Hist. Nat., III, 8, 88; 89; 90. Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung I, 246, names seven colonies of Augustus in Sicily. In Macedonia, Dyrrachium, Philippi, cf. Dio, LI, 4. Cassandrea, cf. Pliny, Hist. Nat., IV, 10. In Hither Spain, Cæsaraugusta, cf. coin in Eckhel I, 37, which also gives the numbers of the legions whose veterans were colonized here: leg. IV, leg. VI, leg. X. Marquardt op. cit., I, 256, names six colonies of Augustus here. In Farther Spain, Emerita, cf. Eckhel I, 12, and 19, leg. V, X; Marquardt, op. cit., I, 257. In Achaia, Patrae, cf. C. I. L. III, p. 95, leg. X, XII. In Asia, Alexandrea of the Troad, cf. Pliny, Hist. Nat., V, 30. In Syria, Berytus, cf. Eckhel III, 356, leg. V, VIII; Heliopolis, cf. Eckhel, III, 334. In Gallia Narbonensis, Reii and Aquae Sextiae, cf. Herzog, Gall. Narb. inscr. n. 113, 356. In Pisidia, Antioch, cf. Eckhel III, 18; Cremna, cf. Eckhel III, 20; Olbasa, cf. Eckhel, III, 20; Parlais, cf. Ramsay, Bull. de Corr. Hell., VII, p. 318.

No colonies are assigned to Sardinia, the three Gauls and two Germanies, Raetia, Noricum, Bithynia, Pontus, Galatia, Galatian Pontus, Paphlagonia, part of Phrygia, Lycaonia, Isauria, Cilicia, Cyprus, Crete, Egypt, Cyrenaica. As for parts of the empire under subject kings, such as Thrace, Cappadocia, Mauretania, no account is taken of them, though there were certainly colonies in Mauretania, at Cartenna and Tupusuctu. Cf. Pliny, Hist. Nat., V, 2, 20; C. I. L., VIII, 8857.

[134] Cf. an article by Mommsen, Hermes, XVIII, 161 ff. on the “Colonies of Italy from Sulla to Vespasian.”

When Augustus wrote, Italy was separated from Illyricum by the river Arsia. Yet Illyricum was not counted by him as a province. It had colonies at Emona, Iader, Salona, and possibly at Epidaurus and Narona. Cf. C. I. L., III, pp. 489, 374, 304, 287, 291. Mommsen thinks this omission was intended by Augustus; that he had been able to satisfy some of his veterans, to whom Italian farms had been promised, with lands over the Italian border in Illyricum, and because he could not call it a province, nor yet a part of Italy, he eludes the difficulty by omitting the Illyrian colonies.

The names of the twenty-eight Italian colonies are somewhat difficult to establish. Several perplexing questions rise in the attempt. What of the colonies founded by Antony and Octavian as triumvirs? Were they Antoniæ Juliæ, or some Juliæ and others Antoniæ? If the former were true and they dropped the name Antoniæ, the result would be far more than twenty-eight Julian and Augustan colonies. The second probability is more likely, and that the colonies Antoniæ simply dropped their name after Actium.

A third difficulty rises in the case of the enlargement of old colonies and their resettlement, as, e. g., of Minturnæ. Cf. Hyginus, De Lim., p. 177. Mommsen gives a list which nearly meets the statement of Augustus. 1. Ariminum, Augusta; 2. Ateste; 3. Augusta Prætoria; 4. Julia Augusta Taurinorum; 5. Beneventum, Julia Augusta; 6. Bononia; 7. Brixia, Augusta; 8. Capua, Julia Augusta; 9. Castrum novum Etruriæ, Julia; 10. Concordia, Julia; 11. Cumæ (?) Julia; 12. Dertona, Julia; 13. Fanum Fortunæ, Julia; 14. Falerio; 15. Hispellum, Julia; 16. Lucus Feroniæ, Julia; 17. Minturnæ; 18. Nola, Augusta; 19. Parentium, Julia; 20. Parma, Julia Augusta; 21. Pisae, Julia; 22. Pisaurum, Julia; 23. Pola, Julia; 24. Sæna (?), Julia; 25. Sora, Julia; 26. Suessa, Julia; 27. Sutrium, Julia; 28. Tuder, Julia; 29, Venafrum, Julia Augusta. Cf. Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, I, 118-132.

[135] Of standards recovered in Spain and Gaul we have no further knowledge. It may be that in the Cantabrian war of 728, 729, some such thing took place.

Appian, Illyr. XII, XXV, XXVIII, narrates the capture of standards by the Dalmatians from Gabinius in 706, and their restoration to Augustus in 721. These were then placed in the Octavian portico; and probably later transferred to the temple of Mars.

[136] The standards had been lost by Crassus and Antony. Cf. Justin, XLII, 5, 11; Livy, Epit., CXLI; Suetonius, Aug. 21; Vell., II, 91; Vergil, Æn. VII, 606; Horace, Carm., I, 12, 56; III, 5, 4; Dio, LIII, 33; LIV, 8; Cass. Chron. ad. 734; Oros., VI, 21; Florus IV, 12; Eutropius, VII, 9. One detachment of Antonius’ army, under L. Decidius Saxa, was exterminated in 714, and another in 718 under Oppius Statianus. Cf. Livy, Ep. CXXI; Dio, XLVIII, 24.

Tiberius received the standards from the Parthians in 734. Cf. Dio, LIV, 8, etc.; Suet. Tib. 9. Eckhel, VI, 95, shows a coin with a Parthian on bended knee presenting a standard to Augustus. Cf. also Horace, Epis., I, 12, 27; Oros., VI, 21, 29; and c. 32 of the inscription.

There were two temples of Mars Ultor, a smaller one on the Capitoline, and a larger in the forum, dedicated in 752. The standards were removed to the larger temple. Cf. Dio, LV, 10; Horace, Carm., IV, 5, 16; Epis., I, 18, 56; Propertius, III, 10, 3; Ovid, Trist. II, 295; Fasti, V, 549; VI, 459.

[137] Augustus himself had fought the Pannonians in 719, 720. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 36-38. The campaigns of Tiberius were from 742 to 745. Cf. Vell. II, 96; Dio, LIV, 31, 34; LV, 2; Suet. Tib., 9.

[138] This statement varies somewhat from Dio, L, 24, who says Augustus reached the Danube in 720, and from Suetonius, Tib. 16, who assigns the complete subjection of the district to 759.

[139] The Dacians had become organized and strong in the latter years of the Roman republic. Cf. Justin. XXXII, 3; Jordanis, Get., XI, 67; Strabo, XVI, 2, 39; VII, 3, 5; 11; Suet. Aug., 44. Julius Cæsar was about to proceed against them when he died. Cf. Suet. Jul., 44; Aug., 8; App. B. C., II, 110; III, 25, 37; Illyr., 13; Vell., II. 59; Livy, Epit., CXVII. In 719 Augustus began his Illyrican campaign by occupying Segesta on the Save, whence he threatened the Dacians and Bastarnæ. Cf. App. Illyr., 22, 23. Antony is responsible for the statement that Augustus sought to secure the goodwill of Cotiso, king of the Getæ (Dacians), by giving him his daughter and by himself marrying a daughter of Cotiso. Cf. Suetonius, Aug., 63. Cotiso refused the alliance and joined the party of Antony. Cf. Dio, L, 6; LI, 22. Antony’s story as to the proposed marriages is hardly credible, and may have been invented by him to offset his own alliance with Cleopatra. During the struggle between Antony and Octavian, an invasion of the Dacians was the constant dread of Italy. Cf. Vergil, Georg., II, 497; Hor. Sat., II, 6, 53; Carm., III, 6, 13. When Antony was overthrown M. Crassus undertook the suppression of the Dacians, and triumphed, July 4, 727. Cf. Dio, LI, 23; Tab. Triumph. But Dacian incursions were still frequent. Dio records one in 738, cf. LIV, 20; and one in 744, cf. LIV, 36. Probably it was in this latter incursion that the defeat here alluded to was met by them. Finally an army was sent against them under Lentulus, in 759. Cf. Dio, LV, 30; Strabo, VII, 12 and 13; Suet. Aug., 21; Florus, IV, 12, 19, 20; Tac. Ann., IV, 44.

[140] Cf. Suet. Aug., 21; Flor. IV, 12, 62; Oros., VI, 21, 19, says that deputies of Indians and Scythians came to Augustus at Tarracona in 728 or 729; Dio, LIV, 9, that deputies from India came to him at Samos in 734. Strabo gives the name of the Indian king as Porus. Cf. XV., 1, 4 and 73. Cf. also Ver. Georg., II, 170; Aen., VI, 794; VIII, 705; Hor. Carm., I, 12, 56; Carm. Saec., 55, 56; Carm., IV, 14, 41.

[141] For a general statement, cf. Suetonius, Aug. 21. For the Scythians, cf. Note 140, above. For the Bastarnæ, cf. Livy, Ep. CXXXIV; Dio, LI, 23, 24. For the Sarmatæ, cf. Flor. l. c.; Strabo, II, 5, 30; Tac. Ann., VI, 33; Pliny, Hist. Nat., II, 108, 246; VI, 7, 19; VI, 5, 16; VI, 13, 40. Vergil refers to them as Gelones. Cf. Aen., VIII, 725. Cf. also Hor. Carm., II, 9; III, 8, 23. For the Albani and Iberi, cf. Dio, XLIX, 24. For the Medes, cf. c. 27 and notes.

[142] For Phraates and Tiridates, cf. Justin, XLII, 5; Dio, LI, 18. Tiridates had supplanted Phraates and in turn was driven out by him. He then, in 724, came to Augustus for aid. But the latter was anxious to regain the lost standards from Parthia, and simply played off Tiridates against Phraates by setting him over Syria. Dio, in the passage cited, makes mention of a son of Phraates who was captured by Tiridates and given up to Augustus. This was possibly the Phraates here mentioned, though there are difficulties in the way of this explanation. For Augustus implies the voluntary coming of a reigning king, not the delivery of an abducted prince. We know that in 731 Tiridates was in Rome asking that Parthia be assigned to him, and that at the same time Phraates sent an embassy begging the restitution of his son. Cf. Dio, LIII, 33. Augustus laid the matter before the senate, and by their advice restored the prince in exchange for the standards, but did not yield to the plea of Tiridates.

[143] Cf. c. 27.

[144] A people east of the Tigris, and west of Media Atropatane. Nothing is known of Artaxares. For the Adiabeni and their kingdom, cf. Strabo, XVI, 1, 19; Tac. Ann., XII, 13; Josephus, Ant., XX, 2, 1.

[145] Augustus several times was on the point of invading Britain. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 38, for 720; LIII, 22, 25, for 727, 728. The poets have many prophecies of victories in Britain. Cf. Ver. Georg., I, 30, written in 724; III, 25; Hor. Epode, VII, 7; Carm., I. 35, 29, of the year 727, 728; Carm., III, 5; I, 21, 15; III, 4, 33; IV, 14, 48. But nothing came of these plans. Cf. Strabo, IV, 5, 3, for embassies from Britain. Coins of Dumnobellaunus have been found. Cf. J. Evans, Coins of the Ancient Britons (London, 1864), p. 198, and the following plate 4, Nos. 6-12.

[146] The great defeat of Lollius in 738 was by the Sicambri, joined with the Usipites and Tencteri. Cf. Dio, LIV, 20; Vell., II, 97; Suet., Aug., 23. There was a temporary peace. Cf. Horace, Carm., IV, 2. 36; 14, 51. They rebelled in 742, and were put down, first by Drusus and later by Tiberius. Cf. Dio, LIV, 32, 33, 36. In 746 they were completely subjugated and removed into Gaul. Cf. Dio, LV, 6; Vell. II, 97; Suet., Aug., 21; Tib., 9; Tac. Ann., II, 26; XII, 39; Strabo, VII, 1, 3. Probably the coming of Maelo was during this surrender of 746.

[147] The Marcomani were a branch of the Suevi. Cf. Tac., Germ., XXXVIII; Ann., II, 44, 62.

[148] The four sons were Seraspedes, Rhodaspedes, Vonones and Phraates, with the wives of two of them and four children. Cf. Strabo, XVI, 1, 28; VI, 4, 2; Justin, XLII, 5, 11; Vell., II, 94; Tac., Ann., II, 1; Oros., VI, 21, 29; Suet., Aug. 21, 43; Jos., Antiq., XVIII, 2, 4. They were sent to be out of harm’s way during troubles in Parthia, according to all but Josephus, who says they were removed so as not to hinder the succession of Phraataces, an illegitimate son. When Phraates died, Phraataces in vain asked Augustus for the return of the princes. This was c. 750. Cf. Dio, fragments, Ursin. 39. The two elder princes died in Rome. Cf. C. I. L., VI, 7799. Vonones was sent back by Augustus. Cf. c. 33, Note [149]; Phraates was returned by Tiberius in 788. Cf. Tac., Ann., VI, 31; Dio, LVIII, 16. Probably the princes were sent to Augustus in 744. Cf. Mommsen, R. G., p. 141.

[149] The comment of Mommsen here seems too severe. He says: “The writer magnifies his splendors beyond what is exact: for the Parthians and Medes asked Augustus, not so much to appoint kings for them, as to restore to them those to whom the kingdom had fallen by hereditary right.” Such a criticism seems to overlook the force of the word petitos, as applied to reges: they got the kings they “asked for.”

Phraataces was reigning in 754. Cf. Dio, LV, 10; Vell. II, 101. He was succeeded by Orodes for a short time. Then came the choice of Vonones. Cf. Jos. Ant. XVIII, 2, 4; Tac. Ann. II, 1. Josephus gives no date. Tacitus implies 770. Augustus, however, returned Vonones, and the date must be much earlier, probably c. 760. A Parthian embassy was in Rome between 757 and 759. Cf. Suet. Tib., 16. Coins also show the name of Vonones in 761. Cf. Gardner, Parthian Coinage, p. 46. His reign was very brief. Cf. Tacitus and Josephus, ll. cc.

[150] Cf. c. 27.

[151] This chapter is possibly the most weighty in the whole inscription, inasmuch as it sets forth the view of his policy which Augustus wished the world to hold. How far his statements in the opening and closing sentences represent his own actual notions of his relations to the sovereign power in Rome is a matter of debate. For a full discussion Mommsen, Röm. St. II, p. 723, ff., may be read, and Gardthausen, Aug. Iᵉʳ Th. IIᵉʳ Bd., pp. 485-540 and IIᵉʳ Th., pp. 277-299.

The question is: Did Augustus in any real sense restore the republic, or did he conceive of himself as monarch, but find it politic to suppress all outward marks of royalty? Was his chief concern to maintain the peace and prosperity of the Roman people, with as little alteration as possible of the old constitutional forms, or was his object the building up of power for his own sake? This is confessedly one of the riddles of history. The best that can be done is to study his actions, estimating their worth and tendency, and leaving the motives of the great statesman where he hid them,—locked in his own bosom.

Undoubtedly, all through the Res Gestæ, as is pointed out in the introduction, and as has been noticed from time to time in these notes, one of his great aims is to represent himself as a conservative, moving within constitutional limits. Coins of the period emphasize the view set forth in the opening sentence of this chapter with regard to the restoration of the republic. Cf. Eckhel, VI, 83: imp. Cæsar divi f. cos. VI, libertatis p. R. vindex; “The imperator, Cæsar, son of the divine (Cæsar) consul for the sixth time, (726) restorer of the freedom of the Roman people.” Cf. C. I. L. VI, 1527: “the whole world pacified, the republic restored.” Also, C. I. L. I, p. 384; the date referred to is Jan. 13, 727: “The senate decreed that an oaken crown should be fixed above the door of the imperator, Cæsar Augustus, because he restored the Roman republic.” Contemporary Roman writers simply echo the views of Augustus. Cf. Ovid, Fasti, I, 589, for Jan. 13, 727, Velleius, II, 89, says: “When the civil wars were finished in the twentieth year, (724) and the foreign wars brought to a close, peace was brought back, power restored to the laws, authority to the tribunals, majesty to the senate, the imperium of the magistrates reduced to its old time form, the original and ancient form of the state restored.” Cf. Livy, Epit., CXXXIV. The Greek Strabo, also a contemporary, writes, XVII, 3, 25: “The country committed to him the headship of her sovereignty, and made him lord of peace and war for life.” Later writers, even the Romans, are equally free in their judgments. Dio, LII, I, says: “From this time (725) the affairs of Rome began to be in the control of one man (μοναρχεῖσθαι).” Cf. Suet. Aug., 28; Tac. Ann., III, 28. Dio’s account of the conference in which Agrippa advises a real abdication by Augustus, and Mæcenas urges a bold assumption of supreme power (LII, 1-40) is regarded as fictitious.

The facts in the case are these: In 711 the Titian law gave the triumvirs a five years’ lease of power. In 716 this was renewed not by formal legislation, but “by universal consent.” Cf. App., B. C. V, 95. This triumviral power Augustus wielded till his sixth consulship, 726, though there was a pretence of its cessation in 721. Cf. c. 7, N, 1, and Mommsen, Röm. St., II, 698. In this and the following years he divested himself gradually of one extraordinary power after another. He could not at once fall back to the position of an ordinary magistrate. The armies, the laws, the provinces, the revenues had all been in his control. These he must gradually restore Cf. Dio, LII, 13; LIII, 4, 9, 10. In 726 he began his return to older customs by alternating with Agrippa, his colleague, in the consulship, in having the fasces borne before him by the lictors for a month. Cf. Dio, LIII, 1. The restoration of the censorship was part of the same programme. Dio, LIII, 2, says that by an edict he declared all the revolutionary and extraordinary acts of the triumviral period should cease to be effective with the expiration of his sixth consulship (726). The inscription of Jan. 13, 727, above alluded to, C. I. L. I, p. 384, marks that date as that on which the business of restoring the provinces was finally given over to the senate.

From this time on the senate divided the control of the provinces with him. Augustus took the troublesome provinces and the frontier ones, leaving to the senate the older and more peaceable. Over these provinces he received a proconsular imperium for ten years, which was renewed at the expiration of that term. In c. 7 he says that he found the tribunitial power a sufficient basis for all the measures which he wished to put through. Now the proconsulship and tribuneship were both ordinary and constitutional offices. Augustus’ occupancy of each affords an illustration of the way in which he held ordinary offices in an extraordinary way. For by the old customs a proconsul must exercise his imperium in his province, and never at Rome. Augustus could not be in ten provinces at once, and must be at Rome most of the time. Hence a violation of the constitution was necessary. The tribuneship, instituted for the protection of plebeians could be held only by a plebeian. But Augustus was a patrician. For this reason he did not take the tribuneship in the ordinary way, nor by the ordinary title, but designated himself as tribunicia potestate, “of tribunitial authority.”

The title princeps, “prince” is never used by Augustus as an official designation in laws and inscriptions, but indicates simply his primacy of rank and is so used throughout the Res Gestæ. Cf. cc. 13, 30, 32.

[152] Cf. C. I. L. 1, p. 384; X. 8375; Livy, Ep., 134; Cass. ad. an. 727; Oros. VI, 20, 8; Vell. II, 91; Suet. Aug. 7; Dio, LIII, 16.

[153] Cf. coins in Eckhel, VI, 88; Cohen, Aug. nos. 43-48, 50, 207-212, 301, 341, 356, 385, 426, 476-8, 482. All these show either the crown or the laurels and many of them have both. With the crown is generally ob civis servatos, “for preserving the citizens.” The civic crown being the reward of any soldier who saved a citizen’s life, Augustus was pre-eminently deemed worthy of it, because he had saved so many by putting an end to the civil wars, and by his clemency. Cf. Dio, LIII, 16; Suet. Claud. 17; Sen. De Clem. I, 26, 5; Ovid, Tr. III, 1, 39, 41, 47; Fasti IV, 953; III, 137; Val. Max. II, 8, 7; Juv. VI, 52, 79; X, 65; XII, 91; Tac. Ann. XV, 71.

[154] No ancient writer mentions this shield, but a number of coins and inscriptions portray it. Cf. C. I. L. IX, 5811, wherein two Victories carry a shield inscribed: “The senate and Roman people have given to Augustus a shield on account of his valor, clemency, justice and piety;” the very words of the Res Gestæ. For coins, cf. Eckhel, VI, 95, 103, 121; Cohen, Aug. nos. 50-53, 213-216, 253, 264-267, 283, 286-297, 332. The Victory, which is frequently associated with the shield, probably indicates that the latter was placed by Augustus near the altar of Victory erected by him in the Curia Julia.

[155] Cf. Note [151].

[156] This title was given Feb. 5, 752. Cf. C. I. L. I, p. 386; II, No. 2107. As in the case of the title, prince of the youth, conferred upon Gaius and Lucius, and of the continuance of his supreme power by universal consent (cf. cc. 14 and 34), the appellation, father of the fatherland, was given by general acclamation, leaving to the senate only the formal ratification of the popular will. Suet. Aug. 58, expressly states this. Cf. also Ovid, Fasti, II, 128.

The Augustan Forum was dedicated this same year, 752. Cf. c. 21, Note. In all probability the quadriga had been in existence some time before this, inasmuch as it appears on a coin of uncertain date with the inscription: “the senate and Roman people to Cæsar Augustus, parent and presever.” If the quadriga had been made at the time this inscription was ordered, the coin would surely have borne the formal title, “father of the fatherland,” not the designation, “parent.” Cf. Eckhel, VI, 113.

[157] The seventy-sixth year of Augustus began Sept. 23, 766. Chapter 8 mentions his third census, which was completed one hundred days before his death, hence May 11, 767. The Res Gestæ must have been written, then, in the interval between this date and his start for Campania, on his last journey, as we know he left this document in the hands of the Vestal Virgins. Cf. Suet. Aug. 97.

SUPPLEMENT.

For a discussion of this supplement, see the Introduction.

[158] Equivalent to 2,400,000,000 sesterces, about $120,000,000. This does not exactly correspond with the sum of the items mentioned in the Res Gestæ. These sum up 2,199,800,000 sesterces.

[159] A mere summary of c. 19, with a bit from c. 20, the only principle of arrangement being to put temples first, and the rest haphazard. The difference in the Greek and Latin is curious. No attempt is made to reproduce pulvinar in Greek, although in c. 19 it had been rendered ναόν.

[160] A summary of c. 20.

[161] A summary of cc. 22, 23.

[162] For aid given to Naples, cf. Dio, LV, 10; to Venafrum, in Campania, C. I. L. X, 4842.

[163] For aid to Paphos, cf. Dio, LIV, 23; to a number of towns in Asia, Dio, LIV, 30; to Laodicea and Tralles, Strabo, XII, 8, 18; to Thyatira and Chios, Suet. Tib. 8.

[164] Cf. Suet. Aug. 41. The estate necessary to qualify a senator he raised from 800,000 sesterces to 1,200,000, and where senators were worthy, though poor, he made up their fortunes to that sum. Cf. Dio, LI, 17; LII, 19; LIII, 2; LIV, 17; LV, 13; LVI, 41.

Transcriber’s Notes:—

The original accentuation, spelling, punctuation and hyphenation has been retained, except for apparent printer’s errors.

A list of contents has been added.

The printer is thought to be Anvil Printing Company (see front matter).

In Footnote 58, Cf. Dio, XLIT is taken as a typo for Cf. Dio, XLIV.

On Page 28 the number of Roman citizens is given as four million, two hundred and thirty thousand. In the associated footnote this is given as 4,233,000.

Typographical errors in the Greek (All corrected).
Page 10 πρυκατηλειμένας changed to read προκατηλειμένας
Page 13 ψηψίσμασι changed to read ψηφίσμασι
Page 23 τόν changed to read τὸν
Page 25 οίας changed to read σίας
Page 33 ῷ changed to read ᾦ
Page 37 θαλὰσσης changed to read θαλάσσης
Page 43 ἑξὴκοντα changed to read ἑξήκοντα
Page 45 οὕς changed to read οὓς
Page 51 ἐπιγαφῆς changed to read ἐπιγραφῆς
Page 53 Ἂ[ρεω]ς changed to read Ἄ[ρεω]ς
Page 55 ᾷ changed to read ᾳ
Page 57 Ὑρὲρ changed to read Ὑπὲρ
Page 57 Γαίῷ changed to read Γαίῳ
Page 57 Ιαύῳ changed to read Γαίῳ
Page 57 Σε[ι]λανῳ changed to read Σε[ι]λανῷ
Page 59 τρ[ί]σχ[ε]ί[λ]ιοι changed to read τρ[ι]σχ[ε]ί[λ]ιοι
Page 61 ῷ changed to read ᾧ
Page 61 Αιβύη changed to read Λιβύη
Page 61 τοῦς changed to read τοὺς
Page 61 οὅ changed to read οἳ
Page 67 μείοζονος changed to read μείσζονος
Page 69 ρᾴ changed to read ρα
Page 69 αἵ changed to read αἳ
Page 69 ἔμοῦ changed to read ἐμοῦ
Page 73 ποτομοῦ changed to read ποταμοῦ
Page 77 ἐθνη changed to read ἔθνη
Page 85 εν changed to read ἐν

Typographical errors in the Latin (All corrected).
Page 39 turmœ changed to read turmæ and optious changed to read optios