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.

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 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.

In two letters addressed to a certain Montanus, Pliny’s focus is on the once powerful imperial freedman Pallas. In his first letter (7.29) Pliny tells how he accidentally came across Pallas’ tomb and read an inscription engraved on it, which he now quotes as a particularly blatant example of the freedman’s arrogance and hypocrisy. Pliny’s feelings about Pallas are those of indignatio mitigated by risus; both words evoke satire and in fact references to satire and other literary genres (paradoxography, antiquarian literature and the palliata) are scattered throughout this short letter. In the second letter of this pair (8.6), we are told that Pliny, now took the trouble to trace the senatorial decree referred to in the inscription. Thus for a moment we encounter Pliny the historian, or rather Pliny the antiquarian – but he is quickly replaced by Pliny the political moralist. Pliny voices his indignation at the senators’ debasement but, crucially, does not give any details about the reasons for honouring Pallas or the circumstances behind it. Evidently Pliny did not deem it advisable to consult available historical accounts of the event and to learn more about its context (see Tac. Ann. 12.53 and cf. Plin. HN 35.201).

Dio in his imperial narrative has a distinctive technique of evaluating emperors, based on how he saw the informational constraints of the monarchical state. He tends to frame his assessments of emperors as descriptions of how they were perceived by contemporaries rather than as his own unique insights into how they ‘really’ were. This chapter applies James C. Scott's concept of ‘public transcripts’ and ‘hidden transcripts’ to Dio’s methodological statements and then his narrative of the Julio-Claudian, Flavian and Antonine emperors. Dio is a self-consciously acute and skeptical observer of the performance of imperial power and the reception of that performance by contemporary observers. This for him is a major component of what historiography exists to record in an environment where the actual realities of power politics cannot be fully known or discussed. The chapter concludes by looking at how this narrative stance changes in Dio’s contemporary narrative, in which he is a personal witness, but the emperors are youthful figureheads, whose performances become ever more detached from either the realities of politics or the experience of the senatorial aristocracy.