According to Tacitus, Tiberius declared before the Senate that he observed all of the deeds and pronouncements of Augustus as if they were law (Ann. 4.37). This chapter explores the degree to which that statement is true and the consequences of Tiberius’ adherence to Augustan precedents. I begin with an overview of Tiberius’ relationship with the Senate. I then examine the much criticized fiscal policies of Tiberius. Even those were a consequence of his reverence for Augustus and his desire to preserve Augustan precedent. Next, we examine the notion of the pax Augusta under Tiberius. Again, we see that Tiberius was bound by Augustan policy in his failure to expand the empire. Finally, we analyze the persecution of Jews, worshippers of Isis, and astrologers in the reign of Tiberius. These persecutions were prompted not only by Tiberius’ desire to follow Augustus’ precedents but also, more importantly, by attacks on the domus Augusta.

The first four principes after Augustus all ruled by virtue of their relationship to the founder of the principate. By the end of the reign of Nero, few men were left who could claim to be descended from Divus Augustus. This led to a series of civil wars, won by a man who had no familial relationship with the domus Augusta. By AD 69, the position of princeps had been codified beyond the hereditary charisma of Augustus. But as we see in the lex de imperio Vespasiani, the Senate recognized the legal claim of Vespasian to rule as princeps was based on the original position created by Augustus, a position solidified by the attitude and actions of Augustus’ successor, Tiberius.

The introduction provides a brief overview of the principal arguments of the book and a description of each chapter. In particular, I present the argument that because Tiberius was forced to rely upon the charisma of Augustus to consolidate his power, he routinized that charisma into the position of princeps.

In this chapter, we examine perceptions of the messages being sent by the court of Tiberius in the writings of contemporary authors. We begin with Ovid, exiled by Augustus and desperately trying to win his return. Ovid’s anger at being exiled is contrasted by his praise for the domus Augusta. We continue with the astrological works of Germanicus and Manilius, whose ambiguity conflates Divus Augustus with his living relatives. In Strabo’s Geography, we see that Augustus brought peace to the world, a peace continued by his son and grandsons. Velleius Paterculus gives us an eyewitness account of the transition of power between Augustus and Tiberius. In his account we perceive the threat of civil war had Divus Augustus not watched over his house and had Tiberius not taken up his father’s burden. Valerius Maximus presents the Caesars as epitomizing all of the noble exempla of the past. Phaedrus demonstrates the clear perception that Augustus was divine and Tiberius was mortal, although both men were wise. Finally, Seneca the Elder shows clear reverence for Augustus despite writing at the very end of Tiberius’ reign.

This chapter evaluates previous scholarship on charismatic leadership in the ancient world, pointing out the lack of a definitive analysis of Max Weber’s actual statements on charisma and its routinization. It includes a discussion of the routinization of charisma from scholars in organizational leadership as well as political science. It also examines the transition of power after the death of Augustus. Although our sources are problematic, we can see Tiberius trying to simultaneously imitate Augustus’ actions in 27 BC while also declaring his reverence for his predecessor and his own inferiority.

The image of Augustus dominated the principate of Tiberius. We can see that this was at least partially intentional. Coins issued under Tiberius tended to promote the deceased Divus Augustus even more so than the living princeps Tiberius. The most important documents from the reign of Tiberius commemorate Augustus (the Res Gestae) and Augustus’ great-nephew and adopted grandson, Germanicus (the Tabula Siarensis, the Tabula Hebana, and the Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone patre). All of these documents focus on Augustus and the charismatic members of the domus Augusta. We see this reflected in art as well. Portraits of Tiberius evolve to take on some Augustan features, yet a distinction is preserved between the divine Augustus and the mortal Tiberius. This is especially reflected in two large cameos from the first century, the Gemma Augustea and the Grand Camée.

The specter of maiestas looms large over narratives of the reign of Tiberius, especially that of Tacitus. We begin with an overview of maiestas laws predating the reign of Augustus. We then analyze known cases of maiestas from the reign of Augustus, particularly those towards the end involving attacks on Augustus and his family. Next, we explore the early trials for maiestas in the reign of Tiberius, observing that in the vast majority of those cases the charges were dismissed. The trial of Libo and the maneuverings of Agrippa Postumus’ freedman Clemens indicate, however, larger issues in the domus Augusta. The deaths of Germanicus and Drusus produced a power vacuum, filled by Tiberius’ Praetorian Prefect, Sejanus. As the relationship between Tiberius and his daughter-in-law Agrippina became increasingly strained, members of the Senate were unsure as to how to express their loyalty. The problem was exacerbated by Tiberius’ permanent removal from Rome. Ultimately, the situation devolved into a "reign of terror." Nevertheless, Tiberius was careful to preserve Augustus’ position for a member of the domus Augusta, Augustus’ great-grandson Caligula.

The imperial cult is one area where the terminology of charisma has been applied. This is appropriate as Max Weber’s understanding of charisma arose from his reading of religious scholars. This chapter discusses Octavian’s/Augustus’ institution of the cult of Julius Caesar and his subsequent failure to promote that cult. Augustus’ cautious acceptance of certain divine honors in his own lifetime paved the way for his posthumous deification. But the cult of Divus Augustus endured because of Tiberius’ consistent promotion of that cult, both publicly and privately. Tiberius’ own persistent refusal of divine honors created a clear divide between himself as mortal and Augustus as divine. This began even before Augustus’ death, with the promotion of certain divine concepts like the numen of Augustus and his providentia in adopting Tiberius. Tiberius’ dedication of Temples to (Pollux and) Castor and Concordia Augusta preserved the charisma of his deceased brother Drusus, enhanced the identification of Augustus with Jupiter, and promoted the notion that the divinity of Augustus protected his house, the domus Augusta.