« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
proconsular power in the provinces two years before Augustus's death: all the authority he had in the city was owing to his tribunician power, but that included only a right of interceding or forbidding, but could not give the power of appointing a præfect.
I think it is undoubted, that Tiberius might call the senate by virtue of the tribunician power, and it is likely do several other things : but there is no need of contending about this point. Perhaps Tiberius did not nominate and appoint Piso præfect of the city ; he might however recommend hiin so effectually to Augustus, his colleague, that he might appoint him. Pagi observes, that Pliny, speaking of this matter, uses the word choosing, not appointing."
I imagine, that this fact is now cleared up and vindicated against the several objections which have been made to it; and that Piso was appointed or chosen to be præfect of the city of Rome by Tiberius,' then prince,' two years before the death of Augustus, namely, in A. U. 765.
But before I quite leave this story, I would strengthen the argument founded upon it by a remark or two upon the title of prince, given here to Tiberius by Pliny and Suetonius.
It is well known, that prince was the soft title which Augustus chose, rather than that of king or dictator. This title therefore, when used absolutely, is equivalent to emperor : and Dio says, that Tiberius had the title of em. peror given bim by a decree before Augustus died, as has been observed already. Moreover this title of emperor is frequently given by Roman and Greek authors to Titus and Trajan, on account of their tribunician and proconsular power which they enjoyed, the former in the lifetime of his father Vespasian, the latter of Nerva. Pagi thinks, this title of emperor which was given to these colleagues in the empire, was founded particularly on the perpetual proconsular power in all the provinces." But, however that be, it is certain they are often called emperors. Josepbus, in his description of Vespasian's and Titus's triumph at Rome, ! Vid. Usser. Ann. A. M. 4015 et 4017.
Eâque commendatione credidere L. Pisonem urbis Romæ curæ ab eo delectum. Vid. Pagi, Critic. ad An. Ch. 11. n. 4.
Qui cuncta discordiis civilibus fessa, nomine principis, sub imperium accepit. Tacit. Ann. lib. i. cap. 1. Non regno tamen neque dictaturâ, sed principis nomine constitutam rempublicam. Id. ibid. cap. 9.
"Titus enim, quemadmodum et ante eum Tiberius, ac post eum Trajanus, imperii collega fuit, ideoque imperatoris titulo exornatus. Imperii collegæ tribunicià potestate et imperio proconsulari donabantur, ratione cujus imperatores nuncupati
. Pagi, A. D. 71. n. 3. in Crit. ad Bar.
after the Jewish war, says, That the emperors lodged the night before near the temple of Isis. Pliny the elder, in his dedication of his Natural History to Titus, written before the death of Vespasian, calls Titus emperory more than once. Pbilostratus says, that Titus was declared emperor at Rome, and admitted to equal power in the government with his father. It is in vain therefore to say, that Titus was called emperor in his father's lifetime, purely on account of his having been saluted emperor by bis soldiers in the camp, or in the sense in which this word was used under the commonwealth ; since Philostratus says, he was declared emperor at Rome; moreover . Capitolinusa calls Vespasian and Titus princes without any distinction. All these passages thus laid together may satisfy us, that prince and emperor are equivalent in these writers, and that Tiberius had a right to the title of prince, even during the lifetime of Augustus, after he was made his colleague in the empire. I shall refer the reader to but one passage more, in wbich Pliny the younger assures us, that Trajan was declared emperorb by Nerva in his lifetime, and it seems very strongly to support Pagi's opinion, that the title of emperor given to these colleagues was founded rather on their proconsular empire than their tribunician power.
(4.) There are two or three verses of Dionysius the geographer, which Pagi esteems a very remarkable testimony to the proconsular empire of Tiberius. It appears from the two last of these verses, that in Dionysius's time Rome was governed by more than one prince. It has been ques
* Εκει γαρ ανεπαυοντο της νυκτος εκεινης οι αυτοκρατορες Joseph. de Bell. lib. vii. cap. 5. p. 1305. v. 2.
y Jucundissime imperator–Sciantque omnes quam ex æquo tecum vivat imperium. Triumphalis et censorius tu, sexiesque consul, ac tribuniciæ potestatis particeps. Plin. in Præfat.
Αναρρηθεις και αυτοκράτωρ εν τη Ρωμη, και αρισειων αξιωθεις τετων, απηει μεν ισομοιρησων της αρχής τη natpi . 7.d. Cumque imperator Romæ esset appellatus, omnibus ornatus dignitatibus, Romam iter ingressus, ut patris collega fieret. Philost. Vit. Apollonii, lib. vi. cap. 30. p. 269. Lipsiæ, 1709.
a Avus Annius Rufus, item consul et præfectus urbi adscitus in patricios a principibus Vespasianio et Tito censoribus. In Marc. Antonin. Philos.
b Simul filius, simul Cæsar, mox IMPERATOR, et consors tribuniciæ potestatis, et omnia pariter et statim factus es, quæ proxime parens verus tantum in alterum filium contulit. Plin. Paneg. c. 8.
• Εκ Διoς Αυσονιηες αει μεγα κοιρανεοντες,
355. Μητερα πασαων πολιων, αφνειον εδεθλον,
356. De amne Tiberi loquitur ; aitque, Qui amabilem secat in duas partes Romam, Romam honorabilem : meorum magnam domum Principum vel Dominorum. Dionys. Orbis Descript.
tioned indeed when Dionysius lived, and who are those princes he speaks of; some bave thought they were the two Antonines, others have thought he intended Severus, Caracalla, and Geta. Cardinald Noris, I think, bath put it beyond all doubt, by a passage alleged frome Pliny, that Dionysius lived in the time of Augustus : the cardinal indeed supposes, that the princes here referred to are Caius and Lucius Cæsar, Augustus's adopted sons. Pagi seems to me to have shown, that the title of avaktes cannot belong to them; and that Augustus and Tiberius are the princes which Dionysius means : but for the particulars refer the reader to Pagi hiinself.'
(5.) There were two different computations of Tiberius's reigo in the time of St. Clement of Alexandria : for having first said, that Augustus reigned forty-three years, and Tiberius twenty-two, he adds: “But some reckon the • reigns of the Roinan emperors thus.-Augustus reigned • forty-six years, four months, and one day. Then Tiberius, twenty-six years, six months," pineteen days.'
Having laid before the reader the chief arguments that have been produced for the proconsular, or joint empire of Tiberius with Augustus, I will consider also some of the objections which there are against this opinion.
. 1. It is objected, that Spartian says, that Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verusi were the two first Augusti that governed the Roman empire together. But to this it is answered, that none of the patrons of this opinion ever said, that Tiberius had the title of Augustus whilst Augustus lived, but only that he was colleague with him in the empire. These words of Spartian are no more an objection against Tiberius's proconsular empire, than they are against Titus's and Trajan's; who certainly enjoyed this honour, the one with bis father Vespasian, and the other with Nerva.
Nor indeed did the title of Augustus give any new power; it was only a title of honour,k which sort of titles were
Cenot. Pis. Diss. 2. p. 193.
• Hoc in loco (Arabià nempe) genitum esse Dionysium, terrarum orbis sitûs recentissimum auctorem, quem ad commentanda omnia in orientem præmisit Divus Augustus, ituro in Armeniam ad Parthicas Arabicasque res majore filio. Plin. Hist. Nat. lib. vi.
i Critica in Baron. A. D. 11. n. 6, 7. & AUY850¢ etn Teggapikovta Tpua' Tißepios, etn «ß. Clem. Strom. I. i. p. 339. A Parisiis, 1629.
Τινες μεν τοι τ8ς χρονος των Ρωμαϊκων βασιλεων ουτως αναγραφεσι.-Αυγάσος εβασίλευσεν ετη μη, μηνας 8, ημεραν μιαν.
Επειτα Τιβεριoς, ετη κς, μηνας 5, ημερας ιθ. Ιd. ib. C. · Hi sunt qui postea duo pariter Augusti, primi rempublicam gubernaverunt. Spartian, in Hadrian. cap. 24. Vid. Eutrop. lib. viii. cap. 9. et Capitolin. in Marc. cap. 7.
k Vid. Dio. lib. liii. p. 507.
usually takeu gradually. Tiberius ever refused that of father of his country, and would not permit that of Augustus to be given him by any decree, though be accepted of it from some persons, and made use of it himself in letters to' foreign princes. And Dio takes notice of it as a singuJarity in Caligula, that in one day he accepted all those titles which Augustus had received throughout his long reign, and had suffered to be given bim only one by one, (some of which Tiberius never would accept of,) except only that of father of his country, which he took upon bim also in a short time after.m
2dly, It is objected: If Tiberius had been made colleague in the empire with Augustus, there could have been no reason for those fears about the succession of Tiberius wbich Livia showed upon the death of Augustus; nor would Tiberius have besitated to accept the empire when offered to bim by the senate: or indeed, what occasion could there have been for any new investiture at all ?
But to this, I think, it is easy to answer; that it is no surprising thing that Livia should be under some pain, when the settlement of her son in the empire was at stake. Though Tiberius had been partner in the empire, yet certainly the death of Augustus made a great change. Germanicus was very popular, and at the head of a numerous army :' and as for Tiberius's hesitation, he had been hitherto but partner in the empire, and some kind of new investiture was needful. It is true, be carried his dissimulation very far; but Augustus himself never renewed a fresh term of government, (which he did several times, but with much difficulty; and not till be had been overcome by importunity, and the consideration of the necessity of affairs.
However, this dissimulation of Tiberius bas afforded a new prvof, that he had been colleague with Augustus : for as Tacitus and Dio intimate very plainly the fears which Tiberius had of Germanicus, so Suetonius says: “He pre* tended a bad state of health, that Germanicus might entertain hopes of a speedy succession, or at least P a part
Το τε τ8 πατρος της πατριδος προσρημα παντελως διεωσατω, και το τη Αυγες8 8κ επεθετο μεν (αδε γαρ ψηφισθηναι ποτε ειασε) λεγομενον δ' ακρων, και γραφομενον αναγινωσκων, εφερε και όσακις γε βασιλευσι τισιν επετελλε, και EKELVO TIPOoeveypape. Dio. lib. lvii. p. 607. A.
η “Ωσε παντα όσα ο Αυγερος εν τοσέτη της αρχης χρονω μολις και καθ' εν εκατον ψηφισθεντα οι εδεξατο (ών ενια Τιβεριoς εδ' ολως προσηκατο) εν μια pepçe daßııv, k. 7.d. Dio. lib. lix, p. 641. D.
" Acribus namque custodiis domum et vias sepserat Livia. Tacit. Ann. lib. i. cap. 5.
Tacit. Ann. lib. i. cap. 33–35. Dio. lib. lvii. p. 603.
P Simulavit et valetudinem, quo
nership in the empire.' But such an expectation had been ridiculous in Germanicus, and this pretence of Tiberius could never bave had the effect be designed, if no one had been partner in the empire before.
3. But the chief objection against the supposition, that St. Luke has computed the reign of Tiberius froin the time of his proconsular empire, seems to be this; That it does not appear that any writers have computed the reign of those who were colleagues in the empire by the epoch of their proconsular empire, and that in particular there are no traces of this computation of Tiberius's reign.9
To this I answer: There is reason to think, that people did often compute according to the epoch of the proconsular einpire. Pagi mentions a medal which has this inscription : In the xi, new sacred year of the emperor Titus • Cæsar' Vespasian Augustus.' Now Titus reigned alone after bis father's death but a little above two years.
It will not be expected I should here attempt to explain the meaning of the epoch of the new sacred year. All that I shall observe is, that it appears not to have been used upon the coins of any emperors beside those of Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, and Nerva : and that it does not begin at any one common period, such as the building or dedication of any one particular temple, but that the numbers answer exactly to the years of the several emperors on whose coins it is found. And Pagi is of opinion, that it was an epoch chietly used by the people of Syria and Egypt, because the epithet • sacred' is inore cominon upon their coins than any others,
And I cannot but think, that there were for some time different computations of the length of Nerva's and Trajan's reigus; and that they were owing to this, that Trajan was
æquiore animo Germanicus celerem successionem vel certe societatem principatûs operiretur. Suet. in Tiber. cap. 25.
9 Est autem inauditum in omni memoriá, Titi annos ab alio initio fuisse deductos quam a morte Vespasiani. S. Basnage, Annal. Pol. Eccles. A. D. 11.
Sic in nummo Græco apud Occonem, p. 166. legitur ΑΥΤ. ΤΙΤΟΥ. ΚΑΙΣΑΡΟΣ. ΟΥΕΣΠΑΣΙΑΝΟΥ. ΣΕΒ. ΕΤΟΥΣ. ΙΕΡΟΣ. IA. id. est, Imperatoris Titi Cæsaris Vespasiani Augusti anno novo sacro xi. Quo ex Titi nummo manifeste apparet, deceptos viros eruditos qui negant annos Tiberii, Titi, aliorumque imperii collegarum numeratos fuisse. Hæc porro epocha non nisi in Vespasiani, Titi, Domitiani, et Nervæ nummis occurrit
. "Pagi, Crit. in Baron. A. D. 81. n. iii. • Nisi enim hoc modo in nummis Titi, Domitiani, et Nervæ, epocha hæc explicetur, impossibile est nummos inter se posse convenire; cum eorum imperii annos non excedat, sed ad amussim iis respondeat. Pagi, ibid.
? Et nullibi sacri nomen frequentius, quam in nummis in Syriâ et Egypto percussis, usurpatum. Ibid. n. iv.