[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.