8/13/2019 283226

1/9

8/13/2019 283226

2/9

Vol. lxvii] Imperial Succession 47

V.-Second Thoughts on the Imperial Succession fromNerva to Commodus 1RUSSEL MORTIMER GEER

BROWN UNIVERSITY

According to the orthodox view, when Marcus Aurelius designated hisson, Commodus, as his successor, he broke a century-old tradition thatthe best man available should be called to the purple. Actually no suchtradition existed. Nerva's choice of Trajan was dictated by circum-stances beyond the control of the aged emperor. Hadrian and Marcuswere the nearest male kin of Trajan and Pius, and in each case the bondwas strengthened by a dynastic marriage. Verus owed his elevation tohis relationship to Aelius Caesar. Finally when Hadrian in his firstsettlement passed over two near kinsmen, he paid the highest tribute tothe strength of the dynastic tradition by putting them out of the way.The succession was as definitely dynastic in the second century as inthe first.

The emperor adopted the best man among the best men,that is, among the members of the senatorial class. ... Inhis family life the emperor had to disregard his love for his ownchildren; he had to look for the best man among his peers andraise him to the throne by adoption.Such was the policy of all the Roman emperors of thesecond century down to Commodus.. . 2

In making his son his partner in power and in leaving himas his successor, Marcus broke a tradition which now, afternearly a century of observance, was firmly rooted. 3These sentences from Rostovtzeff's Social and EconomicHistory of the Roman Empire contain an unusually positivestatement of what we may call the orthodox view of imperialsuccession in the second century; but with various qualifica-tions this view may be found, either expressed or implied, in1In this paper I am deliberately ignoring the various constitutional mattersinvolved in the imperial succession, and I am writing as if each emperor pos-sessed in law, as he did in fact, the power of naming his successor.2 M. Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of theRoman Empire (Oxford,Clarendon Press, 1926), 116f.

3 Rostovtzeff, op. cit.344.

8/13/2019 283226

3/9

Russel Mortimer Geermost of the histories of the period from the time of Gibbon tothe present.4 It can, however, get little support either fromthe actual facts of the succession or from the writings ofcontemporaries.Dio Chrysostom has much to say about kingship as anobligation, but in the only passage that has any connectionwith our problem he upholds the importance of the tie ofblood.5 Tacitus in his Histories and Pliny in the Panegyricpraise in eloquent terms the principle of succession by thefree choice of the best by the best,6 but we must rememberthat both were writing under Trajan, and that both naturallypraised the actual means by which Trajan came to the throne.Neither of them is any evidence for the motives of Nerva, orfor either the theory or the practice of the rest of the century.Dio Cassius, writing a century later, has a few words in praiseof Nerva's act in adopting Trajan, but nothing to suggest thatthe historian regarded this as setting an example followedby later rulers. In fact, he feels it necessary to give toHadrian an oration explaining his action in selecting Aeliusand Pius.7

When we examine the actual recorded facts, we find littleevidence for any established tradition that the best availableman, regardless of relation to the reigning prince, was chosenby him as his successor.

Although this paper does not concern itself with the electionof Nerva, it may be worth while to point out that that amiableold gentleman had been before his accession 'chiefly distin-guished for the pliancy of character that had enabled him to

4E.g. Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, editedby J. B. Bury (London, 1896), 1.84; H. Schiller, Geschichteder RomischenKaiserzeit (Gotha, 1883-1887), 1.638; M. Cary, History of Rome down to theReign of Constantine(London, Macmillan, 1935), 629; Hugh Last in CambridgeAncient History xi.413f. Perhaps equally significant are such passing allusionsas that in M. H. Fisch, Alexander and the Stoics, Amer. Jour. Philol. LVIII(1937), 65.6 Dio Chrys. Orationes3.119-121.6 Tac. Hist. 1.15f; Plin. Paneg. 7.6.7Dio Cassius (Xiphilinus) 68.4.1; 69.20. In the second passage the succes-sion of a natural son is regarded as normal.

48 [1936

8/13/2019 283226

4/9

Imperial Successionremain on good terms with Nero, Vespasian, Titus, and exceptfor a short time with Domitian,8 and that his sudden elevationto the principate may have been due, at least in part, to thefact (if, indeed, it is a fact) that he was one of the few menalive who could claim a family tie with the house of Augustus.9Nerva's selection of Trajan seems to be an example of thechoice of the best qualified man as imperial successor, 0butwe can hardly see in it any sign of a conscious policy on thepart of Nerva. Faced with a serious crisis he desperatelyneeded the support of a strong military power, and he foundit by promising the succession to the governor of UpperGermany, that is to the general who could reach Rome mostquickly, either to support the Princeps or to seize the Princi-pate. The relatives whom he passed over could not havehelped him (they were so unimportant that we do not evenknow their names), and he was not likely to forget that Galba'sfolly in a like case had opened the way for Otho.In considering the succession of Hadrian, I shall assumefor the sake of the argument that, whether or not Trajanformally adopted him, he did intend him to succeed. Other-wise the whole theory of the selection of the best by the bestbreaks down. It is hardly necessary to repeat the well known

8E. Groag and A. Stein, Prosopographia Imperii Romani (Berlin and Leipzig,Walter de Gruyter, 1933) II2.293.9This relationship, first pointed out by A. Groag, Jahreshefte des Oster-reichischenArchdologischenInstituts xxi/xxiI (1924), 425-436, is accepted with-out discussion by R. P. Longden, Cam. Anc. Hist. xI.189, although there aretwo weak links in the chain. The Laenas who was father of Nerva's mother,

Sergia Plautilla (C.I.L. vi.31297), may not have been the C. Octavius Laenaswhose son married Rubellia Bassa (C.I.L. xiv.2610). Moreover, while thelatter was certainly the daughter of the C. Rubellius Blandus who in 33 marriedJulia, daughter of Drusus (Tac. Ann. 6.27.1), it is quite possible that Blandus,who had been consul sometime before 21 (Tac. Ann. 3.51.1), had been pre-viously married and that Rubellia was a child of the earlier marriage. IfGroag's conjecture is sound, Nerva's uncle married the daughter of a marriagethat had been made at about the time of Nerva's birth. This is, of course,possible, but the ratio temporis can hardly be said to strengthen the argument.10Nerva had no sons, but he did pass over certain kinsmen (Dio [Xiphilinus]68.4.1), who may have belonged to the family of the Octavius Laenas mentionedin the last note.

49ol. Ixvii]

8/13/2019 283226

5/9

Russel Mortimer Geerfacts that Hadrian's father was Trajan's first cousin, that whenHadrian's father died, Trajan became one of his guardians,directed his education, and started him in public life, thatTrajan was the determining influence on his whole career.The marriage of Hadrian to Vibia Sabina, grandniece ofTrajan, which quite certainly took place soon after Trajan'ssuccession, can hardly lack dynastic significance, and the titleAugusta, conferred before 107 on Vibia's mother and grand-mother,1l suggests that Trajan wished to emphasize thedynastic importance of the union. I do not wish to denythe ability of Hadrian, but there can be no doubt that hiswhole active career, including his succession, was determinedby his relationship to Trajan; and, moreover, it is hard tobelieve that Trajan would otherwise have interested himselfin the fortunes of a man so unlike himself in every way. Thesuccession was as definitely dynastic as any in the firstcentury.12Thus far all is plain. When, however, we try to interpretthe complicated series of events that led to the successionof Antoninus Pius, we are in difficulties. The facts are wellestablished, thanks chiefly to coins and inscriptions, but weare in the dark as to motives. Little light is shed by theepitome of Dio Cassius, still less by the confused accounts ofthe writers of the imperial biographies. Hadrian had no sonsor daughters, but long before he came to the throne his sister,Domitia Paulina, had married L. Julius Ursus Servianus.

11 .I.L. xi.1333; C.I.G. 2576, 2577. For the details of Hadrian's life beforehe became emperor see Prosop. Imp. Rom. I2.28-31, or for a fuller discussion,Wm. D. Gray, A Study of the Life of Hadrian Prior to his Accession, SmithCollege Studies in History Iv [1919], 141-209).12It may make the closeness of the relationship a little clearer if we pointout that had Trajan been a private citizen and died intestate, his propertywould have been distributed between Hadrian's wife, Vibia Sabina, and herunmarried sister, the younger Matidia. If they had refused the inheritance,it would have gone to Hadrian and his sister, Domitia Paulina. (Cf. W. W.Buckland, Textbookof Roman Law2 [Cambridge,University Press, 1932], 370f.)Thus Hadrian was the natural heir to any property of such a nature that awoman could not acquire it. This, of course, is of no legal importance for theimperial succession, but may have had a good deal of practical importance.

50 [1936

8/13/2019 283226

6/9

Vol. lxvii] Imperial Succession 51Their one child, Julia, married Cn. Pedanius Fuscus Salinator,and from them was born a son, Pedanius Fuscus. AlthoughHadrian had not been on friendly terms with his sister, whowas now dead, and had had difficulties with her husband,13he admired his ability, granting him at the age of 87 a thirdconsulship, the highest honor that could then be given asenator. He had, indeed, so high an opinion of his abilityand -so much regard for the strength of the claim to successionbased on relationship, that when he did pass over him andhis grandson (Salinator seems to have been dead) in favor ofL. Ceionius Commodus (Aelius Caesar), he felt it necessaryto get rid of both of them by forcing them to suicide.14 Nowriter, ancient or modern, has found a satisfactory explanationfor the adoption of Aelius and his designation as successor tothe purple. It is possible that Aelius, who was noted onlyfor his beauty and his love of luxury, may have taken theplace formerly filled by Antinous. It is equally possible thatHadrian was moved by belated remorse for the execution ofC. Avidius Nigrinus, Aelius' step-father and father-in-law,15in 118. Neither explanation has much to commend it. What-ever may have been Hadrian's purpose, we certainly cannotsee in his action the selection of the best by the best.16

13Dio Cassius (Xiphilinus) 69.11.4; Spartianus Hadrian 2.6f.14Dio Cassius (Xiphilinus) 69.17; Spartianus Hadrian 15.8, 23.2. Thedanger lay in the certainty that they, as next of kin to the emperor, would forma natural focal point for all the elements discontented with the proposed settle-ment. In spite of Spartianus Hadrian 23.2, neither Hadrian nor anyone elsecan at that time have seriously considered either the aged man or the boy as apossible successor. The statement that Servianus was fitted to succeed (Dio[Xiphilinus] 69.17.3) should probably be ascribed to Trajan with the manuscriptsof Xiphilinus rather than to Hadrian with Zonaras 11.24 and the editors ofDio. (Cf. Groag in Pauly-Wissowa, x.885.)

15 Prosop. Imp. Rom. I2.286.16The explanation offered by Wilhelm Weber, Cam. Anc. Hist. xi.322, iseven less satisfactory. Weber states as a fact that Hadrian destined the suc-cession for Annius Verus (Marcus Aurelius), then fifteen years old, and thathe regarded Aelius as a mere place-holder for the boy. This seems highlyimprobable. Aelius had a son of his own (the later emperor, L. Verus), andalthough this son was not brought into the imperial family by the adoption ofAelius (C.I.L. xv.732 is to be believed rather than Capitolinus Verus 1.3, 2.1),

8/13/2019 283226

7/9

8/13/2019 283226

8/9

8/13/2019 283226

9/9

Russel Mortimer GeerL. Aelius Caesar. Finally Hadrian, who in his first settlementdeliberately passed over two near kinsmen, paid the highesttribute to the strength of the dynastic tradition by puttingthese two kinsmen out of the way lest they become a rallyingpoint for discontent.It was unfortunate for Rome that Commodus did not diein childhood with his twin brother, for then Marcus couldhave passed the imperial position naturally and safely to hisson-in-law, the able and loyal general, Ti. Claudius Pom-peianus.21 With Commodus alive this would have been aninvitation to civil war. Probably Marcus thought of no othercourse than to have Commodus as his successor. Certainlyno other course was possible under the conditions. EvenHadrian would hardly have murdered his own son.

21 The marriage of Lucilla with the much older Pompeianus was certainlydynastic. It was opposed by Faustina as well as by Lucilla herself, who wasstill in mourning for her husband, L. Verus, but it was insisted upon by theemperor when the death oi M. Annius Verus Caesar on the eve of the Germancampaign of 169 left him with only one son, the eight year old Commodus.(Capitolinus Marcus 20.6-21.3. For the dates of birth and death of Marcus'sons, see Prosop. Imp. Rom. I2.123f.) If the latter had followed his fivebrothers before the death of Marcus, Pompeianus would have succeeded, andwith his sons the throne would have reverted to the blood of Pius and Marcus.

54 [1936