Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:49:20.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Valerius Maximus on the Domus Augusta, Augustus, and Tiberius*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

D. Wardle
D. Wardle
Affiliation:
University of Cape Town, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Valerius Maximus’ Facta et dicta memorabilia provide an opportunity of seeing how an undistinguished talent responded to the demise of the republic and the establishment of an imperial system. Fergus Millar has argued that we should view Valerius as a contemporary of Ovid, that is as an author influenced by the last years of Augustus and writing in the early years of Tiberius’ reign, but the internal evidence of Facta et dicta memorabilia better fits publication in the early 30s a.d. in the aftermath of Sejanus’ unsuccessful conspiracy. Although this does distance Valerius further from the key years of transition, he is not remote—and because of the relative paucity of prose authors of the period his presentation of the domus Augusta and of Augustus and Tiberius repays attention.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , December 2000 , pp. 479 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Millar, F. G. B., ‘Ovid and the domus Augusta: Rome seen from Tomoi’, JRS 83 (1993), 4.Google Scholar

2 Briscoe, J., ‘Some notes on Valerius Maximus’, Sileno 19 (1993), 398–402Google Scholar and Combès, R., Valère Maxime: Faits et dits mémorables livres I-III (Paris, 1995), 8–11.Google ScholarContra Bellemore, J., ‘When did Valerius Maximus write Dicta et facta memorabilia?’, Antichthon 23 (1989), 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf.Wardle, D., ‘The “Sainted Julius”—Valerius Maximus and the Dictator’, CPh 92 (1997), 333.Google Scholar

3 Bloomer, W. M., Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility (London, 1992), 216.Google Scholar

4 Cf.Römer, F., ‘Zum Aufbau der Exemplasammlung des Valerius Maximus’, WS 103 (1990), 104Google Scholar and Weileder, A., Valerius Maximus: Spiegel kaiserlicher Selbstdarstellung (Munich, 1998), 14–15Google Scholar, n. 51.

5 The construction of the Mausoleum was well advanced by 28 b.c. according to Suetonius (DA 100.4). Cassius Dio's imperfect ὠκoδoμεîτo (53.30.5) of 23 b.c. should not be pressed, see von Hesberg in Von Hesberg, H. and Panciera, S., Das Mausoleum des Augustus: der Bau und seine Inschriften (Munich, 1994), 54–5.Google Scholar Even if the monument was originally intended for members of the gens Iulia only (cf.Boschung, D., ‘Tumulus Iuliorum, Mausoleum Augusti’, HASB 6 [1980] 38–41Google Scholar ), that was not the case after 23 b.c. when Marcellus and Agrippa became its first occupants.

6 For example, the oath from Palaipaphos in a.d. 14: σùν τŵ παντι αủτοû οκ and AE 1967, 458 a decree of Messene in honour of the quaestor of Achaea who, εủνοα τεἰς τν Σεβαστν κα τν οκον αủτοû πᾰντα, had conducted public sacrifices for Gaius Caesar's safety on hearing of his campaign successes in a.d. 2 or 3. The rites in honour of the numen of Augustus from Narbo a.d. 12/13 mention the gens: quod bonum, faustum, felixque sit imp. Caesari divif. Augusto… coniugi liberis gentique eius (ILS 112); from Lampsacus (IGRRP 4.180): τοû ἱερως τŵν Ʃεβαστŵν κα στεøανηøρου τοû σúμπαντος αủτŵν οκου. Although the precise word οκος does not appear in the inscription, honours were paid to members of the family from at least 27 b.c. (IGRRP 4.39). The absence of an adjective agreeing with οκος in the Greek examples does not invalidate them, as in each case there is clear reference to a Σεβαστς. Examples of σεβαστ used as an adjective with οκος are rare (e.g. IGRRP 4.146, 1608).

C. E. Stevens saw the insertion of the two words domuique tuae as ‘the culmination of a process that had perhaps begun as early as the grant of tribunician sacrosancitas to Augustus, Livia and Octavia in 36 and 35’ (reported by Cartledge, P., ‘The second thoughts of Augustus on the respublica in 28/7 b.c.’, Hermathena 119 [1975], 40Google Scholar, n. 14).

7 On this group, see Flory, M. B., ‘Dynastic ideology: the Domus Augusta, and imperial women: a lost statuary group in the Circus Flaminius’, TAPhA 126 (1996), 287–306.Google Scholar She reconstructs the family group as comprising Augustus, Livia, Germanicus, and Drusus the Younger.

8 Tabula Siarensis fr. 1 line 10, fr. 2, col. b lines 22–3. Text in González, J., ‘Tabula Siarensis, Fortunales Siarenses et municipia Civium Romanorum’, ZPE 55 (1984), 55–100.Google Scholar

9 Eck, W., Caballos, A., and Fernández, F., Das senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre (Munich, 1996)Google Scholar, lines 32–3 and 160–3 ‘all who were soldiers in the service of our princeps will continue to manifest the same loyalty and devotion to the domus Augusta, since they know that the well-being of the empire has been entrusted to the safe-keeping of that house’. Cf.Damon, C., AJPh 120 (1999), 39Google Scholar: ‘the safety of our empire had been placed in the custody of that house’. The translation of Griffin, M. T. (‘The Senate's story’, JRS 87 [1997], 253Google Scholar ) is slightly different in emphasis ‘the safety of the empire depends on the protection of that house’ (cf. the German translation of Eck: ‘dass das Wohlergehen unseres Reiches auf dem sorgsamen Schutz dieses Hauses gegründet sei’), but equally possible. In a private communication Miriam Griffin concedes that the genitive domus is probably subjective, i.e. the protection afforded by that house. This seems to be supported by the feriae Cumanae (C1L I2, 320), which record a supplicatio for Augustus probably dating from 9 b.c. Cf. the description of Augustus as custos imperii Romani by the burghers of Pisa in A.D. 4 (CIL 11.1421).

10 Pont. 2.2.74; cf. the several references in Fasti and Pont, where domus refers clearly to Augustus and his family (Flory [n. 7], 293, n. 23).

11 Flory, M. B., ‘The meaning of Augusta in the Julio-Claudian period’, AJAH 13 (1988), 116.Google Scholar

12 Cf.Fantham, E., ‘Ovid, Germanicus and the composition of the Fasti’, in Cairns, F. (ed.), Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar, vol. V (Liverpool, 1986), 260–2.Google Scholar

13 Fullerton, M. D., ‘The Domus Augusta in imperial iconography’, AJA 89 (1985), 480–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Ovid's one mention of domus Augusti (Pont. 3.1.125) refers to the dwelling. Cf. Fantham's suggestion ([n. 12], 264–5) that one can trace in Ovid's exilic poetry an ‘evolution from the spatial concept of the domus Augusta, enclosing its sacred precincts (cf. Fasti 4.953–4) to the concept of the domus as an evolving imperial family’.

15 Cf. Augustus, RG 34.Wiseman, T. P., ‘Conspicui postes tectaque digna deo’, in L'Urbs: espace urbain (Rome, 1987)Google Scholar, esp. 398–405, examines the literary evidence for Augustus’ house on the Palatine and the decoration of its entrance in particular. He makes excellent use of Ovid's description in Tristia 3.1.33–6, but makes no reference to Valerius’ information. What Valerius had in view was presumably the palace entrance rebuilt and reorientated after the fire of a.d. 3.Gurval, R. A. (Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War [Ann Arbor, 1995], 87–90, 113–15Google Scholar ) takes a different view from Zanker on the domus’ physical connection with the temple of Apollo and on the origins of the latter, but this does not affect the point here. For Valerius’ use of postes and the associations of the oak and laurel, see Weileder (n. 4), 263–7.

16 8.15 praef. Wiseman (n. 15), 405ff. As Augustus’ house after 12 b.c. incorporated a temple of Vesta (see Fishwick, D., ‘A temple of Vesta on the Palatine?’, in Ladomirski, A. (ed.), Études sur l'histoire gréco-romaine [Wroclaw, 1993], 51–7Google Scholar ), it might reasonably be described as a templum.

17 See, for example, the ancient etymologies collected by Maltby, R. J., A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies (Leeds, 1991), 66.Google Scholar

18 For sacerlsacratus as practically synonymous with augnstus, see Wagenvoort, H., Roman Dynamism (Oxford, 1947), 13–14.Google Scholar 1.7.1: divi Augusti sacratissima memoria; 9.15.2: clarissimae et sanctissimae sororis eius Octaviae; 4.7.7: ab ilia, quae sanctorum umbris dicata esse creditur, sede…illinc M. Agrippa.

19 <Gentis> was supplied by Pighius after Iuliae in 6.1 praef.: sanctissimumque Iuliae genialem torum to create a reference to the Julian family, but the text should not be supplemented (see below n. 22). Cf. 9.15.2: sanctissimi penates—these penates would strictly be Claudian because Octavia had married C. Claudius Marcellus.

20 RG 10. See Lacey, W. K., Augustus and the Principate: The Evolution of the System (Leeds, 1996), 101–2, 113.Google ScholarBauman, R. A. (‘Tribunician sacrosanctity in 44, 36 and 35 b.c.’, RhM 124 [1981], 181Google Scholar, n. 102) considers Valerius’ language here as non-technical, but its use is best explained by the actual grant to Octavia.

21 Dio 49.38.1.

22 The attachment of sanctissimum to Iuliae genialem torum in the much disputed passage 6.1 praef. may in the light of this lend weight to the idea that Valerius’ Iulia is Livia and that the addition of <gentis> approved by many scholars is unnecessary (cf.Müller, H. -F. O., ‘Vita, pudicitia, libertas: Juno, gender and religious politics in Valerius Maximus’, TAPhA 128 [1998], 230–1Google Scholar ). Livia was celebrated in contemporary poetry for her chastity, with much of the vocabulary used by Valerius in this passage (cf. Ovid Pont. 3.1.114–16) and may have played a role in the worship of Vesta in the Palatine domus set up by Augustus (Flory, M. B., ‘Sic exempla parantur. Livia's shrine to Concordia and the Porticus Liviae’, Historia 35 [1984], 321Google Scholar; cf. Fishwick [n. 16], 51–7). Again the s. c. de Pisone patre and the Arval Acta demonstrate eloquently that Livia could be celebrated under Tiberius.

23 By contrast with Cicero, Valerius uses divinus of the gods and their affairs, individual members of the imperial family, and of the literary and intellectual genius of those long dead. Overall this gives far more prominence to the imperial family and above all to the divi (see Wardle [n. 2], 337).

24 Fishwick, D., The Imperial Cult in the Latin West II (Leiden, 1991), 423.Google Scholar

25 Suet. Tib. 27; cf. Tacitus, Ann. 2.87.

26 Fishwick (n. 24), esp. 424–30; originally proposed by Mowat, R., ‘La domus divina et les divi’, Bull. Epig. 5 (1885), 221–40, 308–16.Google Scholar Valerius’ use of domus of the human members of the family is appropriate: domus is broader in scope than familia and encompasses cognate as well as agnate descendants, so Sailer, R. P., ‘Familia, domus and the Roman conception of the family’, Phoenix 38 (1984)Google Scholar, esp. 342–6.

27 Caesar: 1.6.13, 1.7.2, 1.8.8, 3.2.19, 4.5.6, 6.9.15, 8.9.3, 9.8.2; Augustus: 7.7.3–4; Tiberius: 5.5.3, 8.15 praef., 9.11 ext. 4; Livia (?): 6.1 praef.; Antonia: 4.3.3. Although Antonia technically does not belong to the familia Augusta as she was no descendant of Augustus in the agnatic line and did not lie in the line of succession, she is clearly to be considered a member of the domus Augusta, as the s. c. de Pisone patre makes clear (lines 140ff.; cf. Flory [n. 7], 295).

28 Wardle (n. 2), 344–5.

29 See Millar (n. 1), esp. 2–4, 7–8 for this seen in Ovid's Fasti; 12–13, 15–16.

30 Bloomer (n. 3), 186–7, 229.

31 Bloomer (n. 3), 205. Given Valerius’ devotion to Tiberius, the suggestion of Bellemore ([n. 2], 68–9), that Valerius considered the year of Tiberius’ birth, 42 b.c., to mark a new era and that for moral persuasion exempla of the maiores were more efficacious, is attractive.

32 Valerius’ use of princeps of Sulla may be another way in which he glides over the distinction between republic and principate—i.e. Augustus was not the first princeps.

33 See Sullivan, R. D., ‘The dynasty of Cappadocia’, ANRW 2.7.2 (Berlin, 1980), 1148.Google Scholar

34 Caesar: 1.1.19, 1.4.7, 1.5.7, 1.7.1, 9.15 ext. 1; Augustus: 1.7.2, 4.3.3 (Briscoe in the latest Teubner deletes Augustis [Pighius’ excellent emendation of mss. Augusto] as a gloss), 7.6.6; Divus Augustus: 1.7.1, 3.8.8. 7.7.3, 7.7.4, 7.8.6, 9.15.2; divus Caesar: 2.1.10; deus: 4.7.7, 9.11 ext. 4 (see below p. 491). By using Caesar in the core of exempla of the period before 27 b.c., Valerius respects the historical facts of Augustus’ contemporary nomenclature.

35 S. c. de Pisone patre, lines 90–2: memorem clementiae suae iustitiaeq(ue) <atq(ue)> animi magnitudinis, quas virtutes {quas} a maioribus suis accepisset turn praecipue ab divo Aug (usto) et Ti. Caesare Aug(usto) principibus suis didicisset. See e.g.Wallace-Hadrill, A. F., ‘The Emperor and his virtues’, Historia 30 (1981), 298–323Google Scholar, esp. table on 323, and Cooley, A., ‘The moralising message of the Senatus Consultum de Pisone patre’ G&R 45 (1998), 199–212.Google Scholar

36 Tacitus lamented the lack of decora ingenia (Ann. 1.1.2) and only exiguous fragments have survived of annalists covering Augustus’ reign. Of those written before a.d. 30 we know only of Livy and Cremutius Cordus. Whether a loyalist like Valerius would have used the latter's work is unclear. Cf.Swan, P. M., ‘Cassius Dio and Augustus: a poverty of annalistic sources?’, Phoenix 41 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 386.

37 Within the exemplum itself Valerius refrains from using the anachronistic Augustus, using instead Caesar. On the historical details, see Wardle, D., Valerius Maximus’ Memorable Deeds and Sayings Book I (Oxford, 1998), 218–19.Google Scholar

38 On 1.1.8, see Skidmore, C., Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen: The Work of Valerius Maximus (Exeter, 1996), 64–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For excubare used ‘in Formulierung mit hoher Tonlage’, Weileder (n. 4), 165, n. 260. Of twelve uses of excubare and excubatio, the first three and one other relate to divine or imperial action (1.1.8, 1.7.1, 1.8.1, 9.11 ext.4).

39 Elsewhere Valerius uses parens patriae of Caesar (6.8.4, 8.11.2) and parens of Tiberius (5.5.3,9.11 ext. 4).

40 RG 34.

41 Valerius’ process of excerption robs us of the exact legal context, and therefore of the basis on which Augustus reached his verdict, but it is likely that the issue involved was what was later known as a querella inofficiosi testamenti, a type of case heard before the centumviri from the middle of the first century b.c. The centumviral court could declare a will undutiful, thereby setting it aside, and so cause another will to be made, if the testator was alive, but could not declare that the plaintiff should receive the testator's goods (cf.Watson, A., The Law of Succession in the Later Roman Republic [Oxford, 1971], 62–6).Google Scholar Augustus appears to go further than republican practice permitted in ordering that C. Tettius receive his father's property: Valerius may be truncating an account of a longer process in which an appeal was made to Augustus against a ruling of the centumviri, but the impression given is of direct remedial action by the princeps.Kelly, J. M., Princeps Iudex. Eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung und zu Grundlagen der kaizerzeitlichen Gerichtsbarkeit (Weimar, 1957), 84–6Google Scholar, argues against Jones, A. H. M., ‘Imperial and senatorial jurisdiction in the early principate’, Historia 3 (1953/1954), 476Google Scholar, that the cases of Tettius and Septicia had come to Augustus on appeal.

42 Champlin, E., Final Judgments: Duty and Emotion in Roman Wills (Berkeley, 1991), 107.Google ScholarWallace-Hadriil, A. F., ‘Family and inheritance in the Augustan marriage laws’, PCPhS 27 (1981), 63–4.Google Scholar

43 See Treggiari, S., Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford, 1991), 8Google Scholar, n. 37 for a list of occurrences of the phrase in literary and legal texts; for the lex Julia, FIRA 3.17: Nomissianus filiam suam virginem…secundum le[gem lulia jm quae de maritandis ordinibus la[ta est liberorum procreando]rum causa in matrimonio(m) eam collo [cavit, PSI 6.730, etc.

44 Cf. n. 41 and Humbert, M. (Le Remariage à Rome [Milan, 1972], 156Google Scholar ), who argues that legal penalties for the behaviour exemplified by Septicia began only in a.d. 34 with the s. c. Persicianum.

45 Weileder ([n. 4], 64, n. 133) cites Christ, F., Die römische Weltherrschaft in der antiken Dichtung (Stuttgart/Berlin, 1938), 128Google Scholar, for a list of passages where Augustus’ actions are compared with Jupiter's thunderbolt.

46 Moschetti, C. M. (Gubemare navem, gubernare rem publicam [Milan, 1966])Google Scholar omits Valerius entirely from his study, although he devotes space to the image as used of Augustus (177ff.).

47 The date of this threatened invasion is unclear, but sometime in the late 20s b.c. is likely.

48 Cf. 9.11 ext. 4 for Tiberius as auctor et tutela nostrae incolumitatis. See Béranger, J., Recherches sur l'aspect idéologique du principat (Basle, 1953), 186–217, 257–9Google Scholar and Weileder (n. 4), 61–71.

49 Von Premerstein, A., Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats (Munich, 1937), 123Google Scholar; contra Béranger (n. 48), 196: ‘il est loin de penser à une ingérence d'ordre législatif’.

50 From Strabo's use of προσταα (840),Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (‘The settlement of 27 b.c.’, in Deroux, C. [ed.], Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, vol. IV [Brussels, 1986]Google Scholar, esp. 348–53) plausibly argues for the grant to Augustus of a n empire-wide mandate of a supervisory role even where his imperium did not stretch. Although Liebeschuetz suggests that προστασ need not be the translation of any particular Latin term (353, n. 54), it is attractive to see it as the Greek rendering of tutela (cf. the examples at Béranger [n. 48], 256–63).

51 See Fishwick (n. 24), esp. 383–4.

52 Fishwick (n. 24), 385 (my emphasis). Fishwick develops his argument: ‘to credit Augustus with numen… did not make Augustus a god… in strictly theological terms Augustus now became a θε, an inspired man…. Augustus himself never made the ultimate step from manhood to godhead, from possessing numen to being a numen.' In connection with the formal dedication by Tiberius of an ara numinis Augusti in a.d. 6, however, Fishwick notes that ‘to attribute numen to Augustus was an unprecedented departure in that the human emperor was now given the essential property of a god’ (‘Numen Augusti’, Britannia 20 [1989], 232).

53 Cf.Clauss, M., ‘Deuspraesens: Der Kaiser als Gott’, Klio 78 (1996), 419–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This conclusion would be strengthened by the arguments of Gradel, I. (‘Mamia's dedication: Emperor and Genius: the imperial cult in Italy and the genius Coloniae in Pompeii’, Analecta Romana 20 [1992], 43–58Google Scholar ) that municipal cult in Italy was offered to Augustus directly and not to his Genius (cf.Fishwick, D., ‘The inscription of Mamia again’, Epigraphica 57 [1995]Google Scholar, esp. 26–7).

54 Cf. above, pp. 482–3. The conclusion of the preceding exemplum (9.15.1) concerns Herophilus, the false grandson of Marius, and his two appearances in Rome before and after the death of Caesar. The divinae Caesaris vires secured Herophilus’ relegation from Italy; then, postquam ille caelo receptus est the Senate had him murdered. Valerius’ emphasis on the divine has notable similarities to the following Augustan exemplum.

55 Lines 52, 86, 92, 138, 141.

56 Cf. the s. c. de Pisone patre (lines 45–7). The contrast between the virtutes of Tiberius and the numen of Augustus is clear. One inference to be drawn from this is that in official state documents the reigning emperor was not to be presented as divine (as Tiberius wished, see p. 482 and n. 25). Perhaps the juxtaposition with Augustus hints that deification awaits Tiberius because of his virtues (cf.Flower, H. I., ‘Piso in Chicago’, AJPh 120 [1999], 106–7Google Scholar ). At lines 91–2 Divus Augustus and Tiberius, suis principibus, are also juxtaposed as the supreme exemplars of virtues to the Senate, but no distinction is made between the two of them.

57 Cf. Eck (n. 9), 187, n. 515, considering this ‘besonders wichtig’.

58 It is difficult to establish the resonance of the final image in which we see Augustus wielding imperium to have an individual consigned to the galleys. Imperium could have a variety of meanings, e.g. simply ‘command’ or ‘order', or the general authority vested in Augustus or one of the specific grants of imperium made to Augustus which defined his constitutional position, but the first of these is most likely (cf. 1.1.19). At any rate Augustus’ action is a vivid demonstration of the imperial role in the upholding of morality by punishing the wicked, which Valerius celebrates emphatically in the preface.

59 Cf. Bellemore (n. 2), 73: ‘the quality and quantity of material and the wealth of personal, perhaps even trivial detail distinguish this anecdote from those which deal with earlier periods’ and Combès, R., Valère Maxime: Faits et dits mémorables livres IV-VI (Paris, 1997), 226Google Scholar: ‘l'exemplum marque un sommet dans l'œuvre’.

60 For example, Cons. Liviae; Pliny, N.H. 7.84; Cassius Dio 55.2.1. The choice for a statue group of an obscure mythological episode, the recovery of the body of Achilles by Odysseus, in Tiberius’ grotto at Sperlonga has suggested a particular pride by Tiberius in his escorting of Drusus’ body home (see Nisbet, R. G. M., ‘Notes on the text and interpretation of Juvenal’, in Horsfall, N. [ed.], Vir bonus peritus dicendi [London, 1988], 105Google Scholar, n. 29).

61 Cf. Bloomer (n. 3), 227–8. It may be relevant that Livy's history, one of Valerius’ major sources, concluded with the events of 9 b.c. and, as we know from the periocha (142), contained an account of Drusus’ death and Tiberius’ accompaniment of the corpse to Rome, and so presumably recounted Tiberius’ other journey and the final meeting of the brothers. Cf. Bellemore (n. 2), 68–71.

62 See Poulsen, B., ‘The Dioscuri and ruler ideology’, SO 66 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 122–28;Schrömbges, P., Tiberius und die Res publica Romana: Untersuchungen zur Institutionalisierung des frühen römischen Principals (Bonn, 1986), 44–50Google Scholar; Bannon, C. J., The Brothers of Romulus (Princeton, 1997), 178–9.Google Scholar

63 Suet. Tib. 20.3, Dio 55.27.4. The inscription is recreated by Alföldy, G., Studi sull’ epigraphia augustea e tiberiana (Rome, 1992), 39–58.Google Scholar

64 Müller, H. -F. O., Exempla tuenda: Religion, Virtue and Politics in Valerius Maximus (dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1994), 55.Google Scholar

65 E.g. Apollodorus 3.11.2, Pindar, Nem. 10.

66 Fasti 5.709–19.

67 See LIMC s.v. Dioskouroi, 567, Castores, 608.

68 Weileder (n. 4), 166.

69 Suet. Tib. 26.2, Tac. Ann. 1.72.1, 2.87.2. See Combès (n. 2), 12–13; Weileder (n. 4), 266–7.

70 4.3.3: operum suorum pro habitu aetatis magnitudine vitrico pariter ac fratri [Augustis] duobus reipublicae divinis oculis mirifice respondentem. Briscoe rejects Augustis, Pighius’ emendation of the manuscripts’ Augusto, as a gloss on vitrico and fratri.

71 On the probable identity of this man with Sejanus, see Wardle (n. 37), 3–4. Briscoe adopts the reading of G Augusti, but serious consideration should be given to the emendation of Perizonius augusto. Again, if one expects consistency between 4.3.3 (see n. 70) and 9.11 ext. 4, either Valerius uses the noun Augustus of Tiberius or not in both. Although the cognomen Augustus was part of Tiberius’ official titulature used within Rome and throughout the empire, as evidenced by numerous inscriptions and coins, Tiberius refused its formal award by the Senate (Suet. Tib. 26.2, Dio 57.8.1; see Scott, K., ‘Tiberius’ refusal of the title “Augustus”, CPh 27 [1932], 43–50Google Scholar and Levick, B. M., Tiberius the Politician [London, 1976], 247CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 11). If Valerius avoids the noun, he might be thought sensitive to the emperor's wishes in this as in other respects.

72 Cf. the translation by Sherk, R. K., The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian (Cambridge, 1988), 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

73 Weileder (n. 4), 64 argues convincingly that vigilarunt oculi deorum principally refer to Caesar and Augustus, the imperial divi.

74 7.4.4: ducum nostrorum sagacibus consiliis propitius aspiravit.

75 The basic discussion appears in Martin, J. -P., Providentia deorum: recherches sur certains aspects religieux du pouvoir impérial romain (Rome, 1982), 103–34Google Scholar, who rightly stresses the use of providentia in connection with the conspiracy of Sejanus, but ignores this example.

76 For the key role of ambiguity and ambivalence in Roman imperial cult see Stevenson, T. R., ‘The “Divinity” of Caesar and the title Parens Patriae’, in Hillard, T. W., Kearsley, R. A., Nixon, C. E. V., and Nobbs, A. M. (edd.), Ancient History in a Modern University: Proceedings in Honour of Prof E. A. Judge I (Grand Rapids, 1998)Google Scholar, esp. 259–63.

77 8.15 praef.: cui ascensus in caelum patet, quamvis maxima, debito tamen minora sunt quae in terris tribuuntur.

78 Wardle, D., ‘The preface to Valerius Maximus’, Athenaeum 87 (1999), 523–5Google Scholar, and id. (n. 37), 66–74.

79 Wardle (n. 2), 337.

80 As argued by Bloomer (n. 3), 224,228.

81 Cf. p. 479 and n. 4.

82 Cf.Wardle, D., ‘Review of Skidmore [n. 38]’, Scholia 7 (1998), 158–60.Google Scholar

83 For example, Bloomer (n. 3), 160.