Читаем The Augustan Empire 43 BC полностью

The celebration of a new lustrum — indeed, far more, a new saeculum of Rome — came, in triumphal mood, on 31 May 17 в.с.,119 and Horace's official Ode for the occasion, the Carmen Saeculare, cannot be bettered as a compendium of the ideology set before the Roman people. It is the fashion of our age to undercut official triumphalism, and there is plenty of reason in the present case. Many of the governing class exhibited irreconcilable dissatisfaction with the attempt to regulate their conduct: Augustus had been up against the plebs, but now he was up against its betters. Dio (and it must come from his source) stresses the ««-popularity of Augustus at this time, and even makes 18 в.с. the beginning of plots against him and against Agrippa,120 whose status was resented. So if, as we are commonly taught, Augustus' greatest skill was the political tact whereby he experimented to fit his de facto supremacy into a framework of what people wanted it to seem to be, he had not, in the decade down to the ludi saeculares, reaped much fruit of that alleged skill — or so we might think until we notice the consuls of 16 в.с.121

hi. 16 в.с. - A.D. 14

The consuls of 16 в.с. were young nobles (and similarly in the years that followed, so all was right in that relationship, at least). That particular pair were also related to Augustus. Publius Cornelius Scipio was the son of his former wife Scribonia by an earlier marriage, and so half-brother to Iulia, and Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was married to Augustus' niece Antonia, one of the two women of that name, the daughters of Octavia and Mark Antony, who carried the great enemy's genes deep into the heart of the 'divine family'.122 The 'divine family' was the most distinctly Augustan innovation of all, his way of reconciling the high aristocracy. It was powerful both as fact and as concept. Practically, it secured a cadre of collaborators at the highest level; psychologically, it was the exemplar of Augustus' moral programme; and symbolically it was the 'parallel language' of dynasty and court taking over from elective republicanism. (As a matter of fact, for the second half of the year 16, the plebeian Lucius Tarius Rufus took over from P. Scipio; and that well illustrates the historian's peril in pretending to interpret the politics of the age, for we do not know why. Was it because Rufus could not be denied an honour and had to be fitted in? Or was Scipio ill, or

Pighi 1965 (в 263) 107-30, plus 131-6, shown by Cavallaro 1979 (в 217) to belong to the Augustan ludi. 120 Diouv.ij.i. 121 Syme 1986 (a 95) 53-63.

122 For all such persons see, now, Syme 1986 (a 95), via the index.

incompetent, or dissident? Many stories could be told, and a 'crisis of 16 B.C.' invented; but it would all be idle conjecture.)

In any case, the main theme of Augustus' second decade was different. Towards the end of the year 16 Augustus and Agrippa left Rome, for opposite ends of the empire, each for three years - according, as it were, to pattern. Rome was left to the consuls, plus Titus Statilius Taurus as 'prefect of the city and Italy'.[201] Agrippa's role in the East was not military: he exercised imperial policy in half the empire as collega imperii, dealing, for example, with the affairs of the remote client kingdom of the Crimea,[202] and confirming the right of the Jews of the Diaspora to their ancestral laws and customs.[203] More in need of interpretation is Augus­tus' purpose in the West. His departure was hastened by the flurry caused by a legionary standard lost on the Rhine,126 for rebuffs to Roman military prestige could not be allowed. According to Dio, some said he left Rome in order to consort with Maecenas' Terentia with less scandal, others that it was to avoid general unpopularity. But maybe a main theme was already emerging: imperial expansion in northern Europe, of which the two efficient stepsons would be the principal agents. Augustus was inexhaustible in experiments with the material at any time to hand: three centuries later, under Diocletian and his successors, the Roman empire would be ruled by two 'Augusti' and two 'Caesares', and the experiment of Augustus' second decade looks as if based on some such idea - save for the awkward and ominous difference that the two 'Caesares' due to be groomed for succession were a different pair of brothers entirely from the ones who were to share the present burdens.

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

1917 год. Распад
1917 год. Распад

Фундаментальный труд российского историка О. Р. Айрапетова об участии Российской империи в Первой мировой войне является попыткой объединить анализ внешней, военной, внутренней и экономической политики Российской империи в 1914–1917 годов (до Февральской революции 1917 г.) с учетом предвоенного периода, особенности которого предопределили развитие и формы внешне– и внутриполитических конфликтов в погибшей в 1917 году стране.В четвертом, заключительном томе "1917. Распад" повествуется о взаимосвязи военных и революционных событий в России начала XX века, анализируются результаты свержения монархии и прихода к власти большевиков, повлиявшие на исход и последствия войны.

Олег Рудольфович Айрапетов

Военная документалистика и аналитика / История / Военная документалистика / Образование и наука / Документальное
23 июня. «День М»
23 июня. «День М»

Новая работа популярного историка, прославившегося СЃРІРѕРёРјРё предыдущими сенсационными книгами В«12 июня, или Когда начались Великая отечественная РІРѕР№на?В» и «На мирно спящих аэродромах.В».Продолжение исторических бестселлеров, разошедшихся рекордным тиражом, сравнимым с тиражами книг Виктора Суворова.Масштабное и увлекательное исследование трагических событий лета 1941 года.Привлекая огромное количество подлинных документов того времени, всесторонне проанализировав историю военно-технической подготовки Советского Союза к Большой Р'РѕР№не и предвоенного стратегического планирования, автор РїСЂРёС…РѕРґРёС' к ошеломляющему выводу — в июне 1941 года Гитлер, сам того не ожидая, опередил удар Сталина ровно на один день.«Позвольте выразить Марку Солонину свою признательность, снять шляпу и поклониться до земли этому человеку…Когда я читал его книгу, я понимал чувства Сальери. У меня текли слёзы — я думал: отчего же я РІРѕС' до этого не дошел?.. Мне кажется, что Марк Солонин совершил научный подвиг и то, что он делает, — это золотой РєРёСЂРїРёС‡ в фундамент той истории РІРѕР№РЅС‹, которая когда-нибудь будет написана…»(Р

Марк Семёнович Солонин

История / Образование и наука