The Pomerial Extension of Augustus Author(s): M. T. Boatwright Source: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Vol. 35, No. 1 (1st Qtr., 1986), pp. 13-27 Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435947 . Accessed: 25/03/2011 22:50Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

THE POMERIAL EXTENSION OF AUGUSTUS Most aspects of Rome's pomerium, the sacred boundary of the city, are meagerly documented and open to controversy; this is particularly true of the pomerial extension attributed to Augustus by Tacitus, Cassius Dio and.the vita Aureliani of the Historia Augusta, and dated by Dio to 8 B. C. The silence of all other possible sources including Augustus' Res gestae, the lex de imperio Vespasiani, and literary works such as Suetonius' biography of Augustus, had led most scholars to reject the positive testimonies for Augustus' act and to conclude that Augustus never extended the pomerium.' Although this conclusion is probably correct, the alleged pomerial extension deserves further investigation for the questions it raises concerning the origin of the erroneous tradition about it and for the meaning of the pomerium in the Principate. At first sight the sources attesting Augustus' extension seem trustworthy. Tacitus' general credibility is matched by the facts that Dio is our most prolific source on the pomerium, and that much of the latter's detailed information is corroborated elsewhere.2 The vita Aureliani of the HA has been recently' Those who deny an Augustan extension include: T. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht (Leipzig 1887) I1 1035 note 2, 1072; C. Hulsen, in CIL VI, p. 3106; H. Jordan, "Das Pomerium der Stadt," Hermes 2 (1867) 410; D. Detlefsen, "Das Pomerium Roms und die Grenzen Italiens," Hermes 21 (1886) 516-17; M. Labrousse, "Le Pomerium de la Rome imperiale," MEFR 54 (1937) 167-68 (with other earlier bibliography); A. von Blumenthal, s. v. Pomerium, RE 21 1 (1952) 1873-74; and P. A. Brunt, "Lex de Imperio Vespasiani,"JRS 67 (1977) 104 n. 47. G. Lugli, Fontes ad Topographiam Veteris Urbis Romae Pertinentes I (Rome 1952) 127, doubts it seriously, and the main champion of an Augustan pomerium, J. H. Oliver in "The Augustan Pomerium," MAAR 10 (1932) 145-82, is unconvincing on archaeological criteria. Nevertheless, some scholars accept unquestioningly the pomerial extension of Augustus: see n. 19 below. The lack of good archaeological or epigraphical evidence for the pomerium throughout its history makes the topographical determination of it almost impossible: see, e. g., S. B. Platner and T. Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford 1929) s. v. Pomerium, 392-96; Labrousse, passim; and for a more recent attempt, F. Coarelli, "La porta trionfale e la via dei trionfi," DiwlArch2 (1968) 66-68. The topography of the various pomerial lines will not be discussed in this paper. Throughout this paper I cite Tacitus' Annals in the third Teubner edition of E. Koestermann (Leipzig 1971); Cassius Dio from the Loeb edition by E. W. Cary (London and New York 1914-1927); and the Scriptores HistoYiae Augustae (henceforth HA) in the Teubner edition of E. Hohl (corrected by C. Samberger and W. Seyfarth) (Leipzig 1971). H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum ... (London 1923 ..... ) is hereafter abbreviated as BMC, Emp. 2 The sources for the pomerium are collected most conveniently in Lugli (above, n. 1) 115-31; and are also found in von Blumenthal (above, n. 1) 1867-76, although this latter is inaccurate in details (e. g., he dates Dio 55.6.6 to 7, not 8, B. C.). Labrousse's thorough discussion, (above, n. 1), reaches the untenable conclusion that the pomerium functioned as a custom border during the principate.Historia, Band XXXV/1 (1986)

?) Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH,

Sitz

Stuttgart

14

M. T. BOATWRIGHT

shown to be relatively reliable.3 The information concerning Augustus' pomerial extension, therefore, should not be unthinkingly dismissed. Furthermore, Rome's pomerium was undoubtedly important during the Principate. Tacitus cites Augustus' act as precedent for Claudius' pomerial extension of 47/ 48, which inscribed pomerial cippi and other evidence independently document. Inscriptions also reveal a pomerial extension by Vespasian and Titus in 75, and a restoration of their pomerium by Hadrian in 121. Aurelian's biographer claims that this third-century princeps also extended the pomerium. Yet according to Dio, the Augustan constitutional settlement made obsolete the pomerium's traditional meaning. The full significance of the various rearrangements of the pomerium during the Principate is as yet poorly understood. As we shall see below, evaluation of the literary and documentary testimony suggests that Claudius himself was responsible both for the tradition concerning Augustus' pomerial extension, and for a perhaps new but decidedly emphatic association of pomerial extensions with the expansion of Roman territory. This erudite antiquarian played up both elements of the pomerium's "history" in his political program, and they thus passed into the historical tradition about Rome's sacred boundary. Vespasian and Titus later stressed the pomerium's association with Roman territorial expansion as they sought to legitimize the Flavian rule; Hadrian's unparalleled pomerial restoration evoked Rome's origins and religious traditions. All three "post-Augustan" alterations of the pomerium took place, moreover, within two years of censuses or in conjunction with a physical change in the city, a coincidence that will be seen to explain Dio's reference to an Augustan pomerial extension. In the fourth century Claudius' two-fold emphasis was reaffirmed when Aurelian's biographer recounts an otherwise unknown pomerial extension by Aurelian in an obvious comparison of Aurelian to the glorious principes of Roman history. Most of the physical and many of the other aspects of Rome's pomerium were poorly known and apparently insignificant even in antiquity. Although it was generally agreed that Romulus established the first pomerium with rituals originally Etruscan, the trace of his city boundary was as uncertain as the lines of subsequent extensions, and a supposedly original correspondence of pomerium and city wall was early overlooked or forgotten.4 The discrepancy' T. D. Barnes, The Sourcesof the "Historia Augusta" (Collection Latomus 155; Brussels 1978) 30 and 96. ' Plut. Rom. 11.2-4: Gell. NA 13.14.1-2; Varro. Ling. 5.143; Dion. Hal. 1.88; Livy 1.44.4-5; Suet. frag. P. 313 R. To my knowledge only A. 0. Citarella, "Cursus Triumphalis and Sulcus Primigenius," ParPass 195 (1980) 402 n. 4, disagrees with an Etruscan origin for the pomerium. H. B. Evans, "The Romulean Gates of the Palatine," AJA 84 (1980) 96, convincingly argues that the Romulean pomerium had nothing to do with any fortifications or defensive walls constructed

The Pomerial Extension of Augustus

15

between the inhabited city and the much smaller area under urban auspices was equally obscure (Gell. NA 13.14), as indeed much of the pomerium's line may have been. No inscribed pomerial markers have been found predating those of Claudius, despite Varro's statement that in his day cippi marked the city's boundary (Ling. 5.143).' Although supervision of the pomerium fell to the augurs, there seems to have been no public record of who was responsible for the enlargements of Rome's pomerium or at what times, and such enlargements themselves may have been of little consequence.6 Even the etymology of the word pomerium was variously interpreted,7 though this and other such questions seem to have been of interest only to the antiquarians of Rome. In contrast, the religious, political and juridical functions of the pomerium were extremely important in the Republic. The pomerium was the sacred and ritually defined boundary separating the area under urban auspices from all land outside the city.8 Magistrates had to retake their auspices when they crossed the pomerium, and the demarcation of tribunician power and imperium was associated with it.9 As grants and usurpations of extraordinaryfor Rome's community before the erection of the "Servian" wall. For the distinction of pomerium and murus, see (e. g.) Jordan (above, n. 1) 409; and T. Mommsen, Romische Forschungen II (Berlin 1879) 26-27. Tacitus speaks of cippi when he describes the course of the original pomerium (a foro boario per certis spatiis interiecti lapides ima montis Palaticn>i . .., Ann. 12.24). Oliver (above, n. 1) 175, considers this note anachronistic, apparently because he is thinking only of inscribed cippi. 6 Cicero, an augur, expressly denies that the Etruscans had a special claim to pomerial law: Div. 2.35.75. For the association of the college of augurs and the pomerium, see von Blumenthal (above, n. 1) 1873, and A. Magdelain, "L'Inauguration de l'urbs et l'imperium," MEFR 89 (1977) 11-29. Tacitus' brief comment about pomerial extensions after the very earliest line, mox pro fortuna pomerium actum (Ann. 12.24.2) may reflect a general indifference about the matter; indeed, only the following are said to have extended the pomerium before the imperial period: Titus Tatius? (Tac. Ann. 12.24); Servius Tullius (Livy 1.44.3; Dion. Hal. 4.13.3; Gell. NA 13.14.4); Sulla (Sen. Brev. Vit. 13.8; Tac. Ann. 12.23.2; Gell. NA 13.14.4; Dio 43.50.1); and Caesar (Dio 43.50.1 ; 44.49.1 ; Gell. NA 13.14.4; cf. Cic. ad Att. 13.20.1 ; 13.33.4; 13.35.1). Caesar's pomerial extension is rejected by Mommsen, Rom. Staatsr. 738; as also by Oliver, (above, n. 1) 148, 178-79, although most commentators accept it: e. g., M. T. Griffin, "De Brevitate Vitae," JRS 52 (1962) 109-10; Labrousse (above, n. 1) 168; and Jordan (above, n. 1) 410. The act corresponds well with Caesar's self-portrayal as Romulus, a new founder of the city, a role Sulla also assumed. See S. Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford 1971) 175-79. ' R. Antaya, "The Etymology of Pomerium," AJP 101 (1980) 184-89, summarizes the ancient and modern views, to conclude that the Romans writing about the pomerium had only "the foggiest idea" of their subject, and that the word is of Indo-European origin. 8 Varro, Ling. 5.143; Livy 1.44.4-5; cf. Cic. Div. 2.35.75 and Livy 1.26.6 and 11; Gell. NA 13.14. Cic. Nat. D. 2.4.11; Div. 1.17.33; Livy 42.49.1-3; Dion. Hal. 7.87.6-7; Livy 3.20.6-7; cf. Cic. Leg. 2.23.58; Tac. Ann. 3.19; Gell. NA 15.27.4-5; App. BCiv. 2.31.123; Dio 51.19.6. For the relationship of imperium and pomerium (i. e., the limitation of urban auspices), see the excellent remarks by A. Magdelain, Recherches sur I"'irmperium", loi curiate et les auspices d'investiture la (Paris 1968) 58-72. There is some dispute over exactly where the tribunes' power ended, for Dio9

16

M. T. BOATWRIGHT

powers became alarmingly frequent in the last century of the Republic, these functions came into greater prominence. The restrictions were used to curtail individuals' power (such as that of the tribune Curio in 50 B. C.: App. BCiv. 2.31.123), and were explained in detail in new types of priestly literature. M. Valerius Messala (Rufus, cos. 53), for example, an augur for fifty years, wrote books on the pomerium and auspices.'? The constitutional settlements of Augustus, however, eradicated the vital role the pomerium had assumed in the preceding century. According to Dio, who may here turn to specialized literature like that noted above, the extraordinary powers and honors voted the first princeps enabled Augustus to exercise his tribunician rights outside the city, and his imperium within the pomerium. (This information will be discussed below.) Although no other source attests these changes, the traditional functions of Rome's pomerium henceforth fade into insignificance. Only three times later does the sacred boundary seem to resume its religious and political functions. Tiberius in 7 B. C., Drusus in A. D. 17, and Vespasian and Titus in 71, all retook their auspices before entering the city in ovations and triumphs. Tradition and anachronism, however, were the hallmarks of such celebrations."1 Paradoxically, the very anachronism of the pomerium helps explain the emphasis on Rome's sacred boundary in the Principate. In A. D. 49 Claudius extended the pomerium, an act evidenced not only by inscribed pomerial cippi but also by other varied sources. Tacitus notes the extension as he records Senatorial business of that year, and he appends to the note a digression mentioning as Claudius' precedents Sulla and Augustus and discussing the meaning and Romulean history of Rome's sacred boundary (Ann.12. 3.24. 12

(51.19.6) says that it normally ended at the pomerium, and Livy (3.20.6-7), one mile beyond. See R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy, Books 1-5 (Oxford 1965) ad loc., p. 432; and below, n. 36. 0 W. S. Teuffel, History of Roman Literature 1, rev. L. Schwabe, Eng. trans., G. C. Warr (London 1891) 347-49; M. Schanz and C. Hosius, Geschichte der rom. Literatur 1, 4th ed. (Munich 1927) 598-600. For more information on the man, see R. Hanslik, s. v. M. Valerius Messala Rufus, RE 8 Al (1955) no. 268, cots. 166-69; and for his work on the pomerium and auspices, see Gell. NA 13.14.5, 13.15.3; and Fest. pp. 476, 22; 154, 2 L. A few others later wrote similar works: for example, L. Antistius Vetus the augur: L. Herrmann, 'L. Antistius Vetus et le pomerium," REL 26 (1948) 225-27. " Tiberius: Dio 51.19.6; Drusus: Tac. Ann. 3.19; Vespasian and Titus: Jos. BJ 7.123. See too R. Syme, "Imperator Caesar. A Study in Nomenclature," Historia 7 (1958) 172-88; Mommsen, Rom. Staatsr. 659-62; and W. Ehlers, s. v. Triumphus, RE 7 Al (1939) 493-511. 12 et pomerium urbis auxit Caesar, more prisco, quo uis,qui protulere imperium etiam terminos urbis propagare datur. nec tamen duces Romani, quamquam magnis nationibus subactis, usurpaverant nisi L. Sulla et divus Augustus. regum in eo ambitio vel gloria varne vulgata. sed initium condendi, et quodpomerium Romulusposuerit, noscerebaud absurdum reor.... (Hereupon Tacitus describes the course of Romulus' pomerium.) ... forumque Romanum et Capitolium non a

The PomerialExtensionof Augustus

17

Although Tacitus expressly refers us in 12.24 to the otherwise unidentified acta publica for details about Claudius' pomerial line, it is commonly and justifiably assumed that Claudius himself was Tacitus' ultimate source for this excursus of two chapters on the pomerium. E. Hahn, R. Syme, E. Koestermann and others believe that Tacitus draws upon Claudius' speech to the Senate on the pomerial extension, preserved either in the acta senatus or by another historian. Since these scholars assume the historical veracity of Tacitus, but consider Tacitus' report of Augustus' extension erroneous (primarily ex silentio), they imputethe presumed mistake to Claudius.13 Despite the apparent authority of Claudius, their conclusions must be valid. At first sight the earliest of the three references to an Augustan pomerial extension seems credible. Claudius had been an augur for most of his life, and the augurate was the priestly office particularly associated with the pomerium (cf. e. g., Gell. NA 13.14,5-6); the act which he was citing as precedent was in the recent past, and he was famous for both his exhaustive historical research and his admiration of Augustus."4 On the other hand, it is well known that Claudius was not above manipulating historical knowledge in order to tie himself more closely with the first princeps. As censor in 47/48 and emphasizing his predecessor Augustus, Claudius celebrated the Secular Games that Augustus had held only 64 years earlier. He publicly announced that Augustus had anticipated the regular interval (of 100 years), and in his historical works he exonerated his exemplar from any miscalculation (Suet. Cl. 21.2; cf. Tac. Ann. 11.11) The attempt to put himself in direct line with Augustus, an endeavor noticeable in other areas such as hisRomulo, sed a Tito Tatio additum urbi credidere. mox pro fortuna pomerium auctum. et quos tum Claudius terminos posuerit, facile cognitu et publicis actis perscriptum (Ann. 12.23.2-24). 13 E. Hahn, Die Exkurse in den Annalen des Tacitus (Diss. Munich 1933) 95, 56; R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford 1958) 703-10, 316; and E. Koestermann, Tacitus Annalen, Kommentar III (Heidelberg 1967) 146-47, all postulate Claudius as Tacitus' ultimate source (via the acta senatus), although the latter scholar admits hesitation about 12.23.2. G. B. Townend, "Claudius and the Digressions in Tacitus," RhM 105 (1962) 358-68, arguing against Syme, has as Tacitus' sources the earlier annalists Aufidius Bassus and Pliny, but suggests they used Claudius. C. Questa, Studi sulle fonti degli "Annales" di Tacito, 2nd ed. (Rome 1963) 230-31, suggests that Tacitus went to Claudius' writings. Only A. Momigliano, in his review of Syme's Tacitus (Gnomon 33 [1961] 55-56), rejects Claudius as the ultimate source, and he does so precisely because he doubts the Augustan extension but feels that Claudius would not have made such a mistake. He attributes the error to Tacitus. " For Claudius' adherence to Augustan precedents, see (e. g.) A. Momigliano, Claudius. The Emperor and his Achievement (Oxford 1934) 24-26; and A. Garzetti, From Tiberius to the Antonines, Eng. trans., J. R. Foster (London 1974) 108, 110. B. M. Levick, "Antiquarian or Revolutionary? Claudius Caesar's Conception of his Principate,"AJP99 (1978) 79-105, especially 102-103, argues that Claudius also turned to Caesar as a model, but did not promote this image publicly as he did that of Augustus. Thus it is not surprising that he did not mention Caesar's pomerial extension.

18

M. T. BOATWRIGHT

coinage, here led Claudius to misuse his erudition and fudge the historicalrecord.'5

The case of Claudius' pomerial extension in 49 is similar in that we again see a revival of an ancient tradition and of Augustus' memory. With the extension of the pomerium, however, Claudius linked himself more explicitly with the past. Before digressing on Romulus' pomerium in his speech to the Senate, Claudius apparently justified his own extension as the continuation of a Roman tradition (mos priscus) according to which those who had extended Rome's power (imperium) could extend the city's sacred boundary. He then cited the names of Sulla and Augustus, thus presenting himself as a new founder of the city and the perpetuator of Rome's traditional expansionism at the same time as he allied himself with the more recent past and his revered predecessor. The imperialistic association of Claudius' pomerial extension is stressed elsewhere, and must have been a primary motivation behind the princeps' act. The pomerial cippi marking Claudius' boundary proudly proclaim: Ti. Claudius / Drusi f. Caisar / Aug. Germanicus / pont(ifex) max(imus), trib(unicia) pot(estate) / VIIII, imp. XVI, cos. IIII / censor, p(ater) p(atriae), / auctis populi Romani Ifinibus, pomerium / ampliavit terminavitq(ue) (CIL VI 1231 a).'6 The increases of Rome's territory Claudius heralded with his pomerial extension were primarily in Britain.'" This connection was made even more manifest a few years later (51/52) by the erection of a triumphal arch over the Via Flaminia that E. Rodriguez-Almeida has persuasively suggested marked the new pomerial line.'8 Here the inscription reads: Ti. Clau[dio Drusi f. Cai]sari / Augu/sto Germani'co / pontificti maximo, trib. potes/tat. XI, cos. V, im[p. XX . .. patri pa]triai, senatus po[pulusq(ue)/ Ro/manus, q]uod reges / Brit[anniai] XI [devictos sine] / ulla iactur[a in deditionem acceperiti / gentesque b[arbaras trans Oceanum] / primus in dici/onem populi Romani redegerit] (ILS 216). The fanfare accompanying Claudius' pomerium, which included for the first time the densely populated Aventine within the urban auspices (Gell. NA 13.14.7), clearly demonstrated in Rome Claudius' prowessCf. Syme, Tacitus (above, n. 13) 295, citing Tac. Ann. 12.11.1 and 12.22.2. Information on the ten cippi thus far known (CIL VI 1231 a = 31537 d; 31537 a = ILS 213; CIL 1231 b = 31537 b; 37023; NSc 1913, p. 68 [cf. BullComm 1913, p. 67]; CIL 1231 c = 31537 c; 37024; 37022 a; 37022 ,3 = ILS 213; NSc 1912, p. 197 [cf. BullComm 1912, pp. 259-60]), is conveniently collected by Lugli, (above, n. 1) 128-29. See also J. Poe, in Classical Antiquity (forthcoming). 17 Levick (above, n. 14) 99-100. 18 E. Rodriguez-Almeida, Forma Urbis marmorea: aggiornamento generale, 1980 (Rome 1981) 124, 126. For an earlier triumphal arch that also commemorated Claudius' British victories, see the aureus of 46-47 that depicts a triumphal arch surmounted by an equestrian statue between two trophies, with DE BRITANN(is) on the architrave (BMC, Emp. I, p. 168, no. 29).15 16

The Pomerial Extension of Augustus

19

as an Imperator.In this he definitely modelledhimself on Augustus,whose militarysuccesshad been stressedin Rome throughouthis rule.'9 In emphasizing dependenceof a pomerialextensionon the enlargement the of Rome's imperiumand territory, Claudius may have stretchedthe truth much as he had done in his revivalof the Saecular Games.In Brev. Vit. 13.8, Senecasatirizesa long-windedpedantwho had found proof that Sullawas the last Roman to enlarge the pomerium. According to the pedant, pomerial extensionscould be maderightlyonly when the landaddedto Romanterritory was in Italy. AlthoughClaudiusis nevermentioned,these remarks almost are certainly to be connected within the princeps' notorious fondness for lore and his enlargementof the pomeriumin A. D. 49.20 Such antiquarian technical cavils against Claudius' pomerial extension seem to have been overlooked,however, when Claudius'extension served as precedentfor the and one of Vespasian Titus in 75. Claudius'act was matterfor discussionand ridicule,as muchelse in his rule, but it broughtthepomerium backinto prominence Rome. In A. D. 70 in the in lex de imperio Vespasiani Senate and Roman people expressly granted the Vespasian rightto extendRome'ssacredboundary.2' the This clauseof the law, incidentally,providesalmost certainproof that an Augustanextensionnever took place, since the only precedenthere cited is that of Claudius,whereasin the other provisionsAugustusis adducedas precedentwheneverpossible.22 Vespasian, together with his son and co-censor Titus, extended the pomeriumin 75. This extension is known from inscribedpomerialcippi on which the wording echoes that on Claudius' markers.We find the same emphasison the increaseof Roman territory:[I]mp. Cae[sar]/ Vepasianu[s] (sic)/ Aug., pont(ifex)ma[x(imu3)], trib(unicia) / pot(estate)VI, imp. XI[V] I, p(ater) p(atriae), censor, / cos. VI, desig(natus)VII, T. Caesar Aug. ff] /'9 J. Ober, "Tiberius and the Political Testament of Augustus," Historia 31 (1982) 306-28, has most recently maintained this, surely correct, view of Augustus' principate, and indeed assumes, pp. 317-19, that Augustus actually did extend the pomerium. For Augustus' emphasis on his military prowess, see, e. g., P. A. Brunt, JRS 53 (1963) 170-76; idem, JRS 51 (1961) 235; and R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 440-75. 20 Herrmann (above, n. 10) 222-28 (although he implausibly dates the work to 62 and accepts a Neronian pomerial extension; see n. 41 below); and Griffin (above, n. 6) 109-10 (who dates the work to 55). The arguments of P. Grimal, "La Date du de Brevitate Vitae," REL 25 (1947) 164-77, that the work was written before Claudius' extension, are not convincing: he does not understand Seneca's irony. We should note that all references associating pomerial extensions with territorial expansion are from or after the time of Claudius: Sen. Brev. Vit. 13.8; Tac. Ann. 12.23; Gell. NA 13.14.3; HA, vitAur 12.10; and the cippi of Claudius and Vespasian. 21 CIL VI 930 = ILS 244, lines 14-16; see too M. A. Levi, "I Flavi," ANRW 11.2 (1975) 189. Detlefsen, (above, n. 1) 516-17, associates the new law with the fact that Claudius' territorial gains were outside of Italy, but see n. 20 above. 22 Brunt, "Lex" (above, n. 1) 104 n. 47.

20

M. T. BOATWRIGHT

Vespasianus,imp. VI, / pont(ifex), trib(unicia) pot(estate) IV, / censor, cos. IV, desig(natus) V, auctis p(opuli) R(omani) finibus, / pomerium ampliaverunt terminaveruntque (NSc 1933, p. 241).23 The imperialistic aspect, which Claudius had underscored, occasioned Vespasian's and Titus' interest in the pomerium. The Flavians continually promoted the military basis of their rule. In 71, after ritually spending the night outside the pomerium, Vespasian and Titus had jointly held their triumph over the Jews. The triumph was especially glorious, for (as Josephus says) the city of Rome was celebrating three events: the victory in the campaign against her enemies, the cessation of her civil wars, and the beginnings of her hopes for prosperity (BJ 7.157). The strong emphasis on external war, a palliation of the memory of civil strife, continued after the triumph and was evident in such monuments as Titus' triumphal arch at the Circus Maximus (ILS 264) and the Temple of Peace, dedicated in 75 and displaying the spoils of the Jewish War Jos. BJ 7.158; Dio 66.15). In 76 Vespasian received three, perhaps four, salutations as Imperator, at least a sixth of his total of twenty.24 The pomerial extension in 75 further marked the Flavians' success in foreign military endeavors. Vespasian and Titus' pomerial extension may also have been a way for the new dynasty to assert its claims to be refounding Rome: as Claudius and others emphasized, Romulus had established the original pomerium when he founded the city. An aureus of 69-70 (BMC, Emp. II, p. 87, no. 425) carries on its reverse the legend ROMA RESURGENS and depicts Vespasian, togate, helping to raise a kneeling representation of Roma. The resurrection of Rome was more than propaganda, since the Flavians had to restore the Capitolium, the Temple of Vesta, and other monuments damaged during the fighting in the city in 69. Simultaneously the Flavians undertook additional urban renewal such as the repaving of streets and the shoring up of the banks of the Tiber. Rome of the early Flavian period must have seemed like a new city.25 Vespasian and Titus' pomerial extension fits this context in a practical sense as well, for as censors in 73/74 Vespasian and Titus were responsible for a thorough census of Rome. Pliny summarizes the censorship by defining the

23 For information on the other three cippi found (CIL VI 31538 a, c, b [= 1232 = ILS 248]), see Lugli (above, n. 1) 130. 24 Garzetti (above, n. 14) 253-57, 227. 25 Garzetti, (above, n. 14) 244, makes this point about the work in Rome, noting ILS 252, an inscription of 78 that hails Vespasian as the conservator caerimoniarium publicarum et restitutor aedium sacrum. More detail on the early Flavian building program in Rome is furnished by F. C. Bourne, The Public Works of the Julio-Claudians and Flavians (Princeton 1946) 54-63. In general for this type of propaganda, see J. Beaujeu, La Religion romaine a l'apogee de l'empire I (Paris 1955) 144-48; and Weinstock, Divus Julius (above, n. 6) 175-79.

The Pomerial Extension of Augustus

21

city by the limit of urban construction (P1. NH. 3.5.66-67).26 The coincidence of Vespasian and Titus' physical evaluation of Rome with their extension of its sacred limits is striking when we remember that Claudius' pomerial extension, which included the densely populated Aventine, similarly occurred within two years of his censorship. The two events - census and pomerial extension relate naturally although not necessarily causally, to judge from the confusion between the inhabited city and the city ritually defined (cf. Gell. NA 13.14.4). We shall see below that this coincidence of census and pomerial extension helps explain Dio's reference to an Augustan extension. Practical considerations are even more apparent in the next rearrangementof Rome's pomerium, its reinstatement in 121. Four pomerial cippi, one found in situ, reveal an otherwise undocumented and unparalleled event: on the prompting of Hadrian and according to a senatus consultum, the augural college oversaw a restoration of the pomerium in 121 27 The cippusdiscovered in situ in the northern Campus Martius (NSc 1933, p. 241) reveals one cause for the restoration, for the titulus originally rose from a level almost three meters directly above the level from which rose a pomerial cippus of Vespasian and Titus. On the left sides the Flavian cippus is marked CLVIII, the Hadrianic CLIIX.28 Hadrian had the Flavian course of pomerium restored on a higher level after a natural or artificial elevation of the ground in the Campus Martius had obliterated Vespasian and Titus' line.29 The imperialistic associations of the city's sacred boundary are absent in the Hadrianic rearrangement: as Hadrian had withdrawn Trajan'seastern frontier upon his predecessor's death he could scarcely claim to have increased the26 R. E. A. Palmer, "Customs on Market Goods Imported into the City of Rome," in The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome: Studies in Archaeology and History, eds. J. H. D'Arms and E. C. Kopff (MAAR 36; Rome 1980) 217, suggests that one very likely outcome of the Flavian censorship "was the design, or redesign, of the plan of the city, painted or carved in stone, and posted in ... temple of Peace. In part, this hypothetical plan served as an official record of the city's sacred boundary (pomerium) and fiscal frontier...." 27 For more information on the four cippi (this one, and CIL VI 1233 a = 31539 a; 31539 b [= ILS 31 1]; CIL 1233 b = 31539 c), see Lugli (above, n. 1) 130-31. See text below. Hadrian normally used the title of proconsul only when he was outside of Italy, which may indicate that the pomerial extension actually took place after 21 April 121 (when he inaugurated the Parilia): see W. Weber, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus (Leipzig 1907) 98-99, 104; and note 37 below. 28 P. Romanelli, NSc 1933, pp. 240-44. E. Rodriguez-Almeida, "II Campo Marzio settentrionale: Solarium e Pomerium," RendPontAcc 51-52 (1978-79, 1979-80) [1982] 197 n. 9, notes that the Vespasianic cippus also carries on its right side an (incomplete) inscription noting the distance inter cippos. 29 To my knowledge, the one scholar who has noted this elevation with more than a passing note is F. Coarelli, "II Campo Marzio occidentale," MEFR 89 (1977) 844, who hypothesizes that a disastrous fire struck the Campus Martius around 110. I hope to argue elsewhere that the elevation was planned during the Hadrianic period as a method of flood control.

22

M. T. BOAATWRIGHT

territory of the Roman people. Thus, differing noticeably from the formula on earlier pomerial markers, Hadrian's cippi read: [Ex s(enatus)] c(onsulto), co/Ilegium / au)gurum, auctore / imp.] Caesare divi / Tjraiani Parthici f., / d/ivi Nervae nepote, / T]raiano Hadriano / Aug. pont(ifice) max(imo), trib(unicia) / pot(estate) V, cos. III, procos., / terminos pomerii restituendos curavit (NSc 1933, p. 241). Yet the inscription on the Hadrianic cippi, considered in the context of Hadrian's early rule, gives the restoration added significance that compensates for the deviation from the Claudian and Flavian models. The involvement of both the Senate and the college of augurs in the restoration is explicitly noted; on earlier pomerial cippi the emperors appear alone. The sole mention of Claudius and of Vespasian and Titus on their cippi is certainly warranted, for, as we have seen, a pomerial extension was considered a special political right of the princeps, and the religiousjurisdiction of the pomerium must ultimately have been the business of the pontifex maximus. In contrast, the Hadrianic cippi demonstrate a collaboration of Hadrian with the Senate and with the priestly college traditionally associated with the pomerium. From the beginning of his rule Hadrian had striven to please the suspicious and resentful Senators in Rome;30 the restoration of the pomeriumz manifestly undertaken with ancestral rituals and with Senatorial cooperation, marks the success of his efforts. That the college of augurs undertook the actual restoration also illuminates Hadrian's religious policy in Rome. His assiduous care of Roman rituals (cf. HA, vitHad 22.10) revived and glorified many Roman traditions, and in 121 he transformed the rustic Parilia into a great annual celebration of the founding of Rome.3' According to legends as far back as Ennius, Romulus had founded the city augusto augurio at the time of the original pomerium (apud Varro Rust. 3.1.2, and cf. Enn. apud Cic. Rep. 1.64). The restoration of the pomerium by the college of augurs in 121, therefore, evoked Rome's legendary history, connecting Hadrian to Romulus and associating him with a new founding of the city. This identification was made more explicit later by Hadrianic aurei, denarii, and medallions bearing the legend ROMULUS CONDITOR.32" For the inauspicious beginnings of Hadrian's rule, see (e. g.) Garzetti (above, n. 14) 382-86. Macrob. 8.361 F; for an aureus commemorating the institution of the festival, see BMC, Emp. III, p. 282, no. 333; and P. V. Hill, The Dating and Arrangement of the Undated Coins of Rome, A. D. 98-148 (London 1970) 54. 32 In 136 Hadrian restored an Auguratorium in Rome: CIL VI 976. The coins are: BMC, Emp. III, p. 306, no. 528; pp. 329-30, nos. 709-14; p. 442, no. 1362 t; and p. 443, no. 1362At. The date is uncertain, but surely in the latter part of his rule: BMC, Emp. III, cxli. Beaujeu (above, n. 25) 159-60, treats Hadrian's personal role in the Golden Age he was evoking through coinage and building; on pp. 145, 151, he discusses the theme of Romulus Conditor. For the medallions, see J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Medallions (New York 1944) 143. In this religious context we should31

The Pomerial Extension of Augustus

23

Thus the Hadrianic restoration of the pomerium denotes more than a response to the physical problem caused by an elevation of the Campus Martius some three meters. Yet the coincidence of practical and ideological considerations, noteworthy as well when Claudius and later Vespasian and Titus extended the pomerium near the time of their censorships, seem to account for Dio's erroneous reference to an Augustan extension. In 55.6 Dio reports various honors and powers accorded Augustus in 8 B. C. at the conclusion of his second decade of power. Many of these honors, such as Augustus' acclamation as Imperator, are connected with the success of a short military campaign in Germany; in addition, the princeps accepted permanent commemoration of his birthday at the Circus, extended the pomerium, and allowed the name of the month called Sextilis to be changed to Augustus. Although epigraphical and literary sources corroborate the date of the games and the month's new name, and the reliability of the preceding part of the chapter is equally well established,33C. Hulsen and others have rejected Dio's testimony for Augustus' pomerial extension on arguments ex silentio. These scholars impute Dio's reference to confusion of a pomerial extension with Augustus' administrative reorganization of Rome in 7 B. C. into regiones and vici, which he reports shortly after this passage (in 55.8.6-7; cf. Suet. Aug. 30).34 The city-wide census accompanying Augustus' urban reorganization in 7 B. C. (Suet. Aug. 40.2) gives their theory greater plausibility. This explanation of Dio's reference to an Augustan pomerial extension must be correct, despite the repeated citations of the pomerium Dio makes throughout his narrativeof the period from 55 to 7 B. C. His notes range from remarks about the exclusion from the pomerium of Egyptian deities and of C. Pomptinus before he was allowed to hold his triumph over the Gauls in 55,also note that Trajan'sunprecedented and unique burial within the pomerium (cf. P. Zanker, "Das Trajansforum in Rom," AA [1970] 552-54) occurred some five years before Hadrian's pomerial restoration. 3 W. F. Snyder, "Public Anniversaries in the Roman Empire: The Epigraphical Evidence for their Observance during the First Three Centuries," YCS 7 (1940) 227-30, conveniently collects the literary and documentary evidence for the Natalis divi Augusti celebrated on 23-24 September during Augustus' reign and the first century A. C., and on only 23 September after that; and see R. 0. Fink, A. S. Hoey, and W. F. Snyder, "The Feriale Duranum," YCS 7 (1940) 158-59. Two preserved calendars of very different dates mark the circus games on 23 September: the Fasti Maffeiani (after 8 B. C.), and the Calendar of A. D. 354 (Inscr. It. XIII. 2, pp. 81 and 255). For more information about the successful military movements and their celebration, see T. D. Barnes, "The Victories of Augustus," JRS 64 (1974) 22, with his notes. 3 See note 1 above; and for the administrative reorganization, see J. Bleicken, s. v. Vici Magister, RE 8 A2 (1958) 2480-83. A. Degrassi, Doxa 2 (1949) 84-85, citing a new inscription attesting Augustus' purchase of public land in 8 B. C. in various parts of the city's periphery (AE, 1941, p. 61 = BullComm, 1939, 13ff, identical to CIL VI 874 = 31189), considers that these cippi marking the demarcation of public land in the city, rather than the administrative reorganization into regiones and vici, are responsible for the confused tradition of an Augustan pomerium.

24

M. T. BOATWRIGHT

to accounts concerning the pomerium as it delineated imperium and tribunician powers.5 In this latter category should be classed his notices of the changed meaning of the pomerium under the constitutional settlements of Augustus: in 30 B. C. the Senate voted Octavian a tribunician power transcending its normal geographical restriction to within the pomerium (51.19.6);36 by the titles of consul, proconsul, and Imperator, which Augustus received in 27 and passed to his successors, Roman emperors could put to death knights and Senators even within the pomerium (53.17.5-6);37 and Augustus' grant of a proconsulship for life in 23 meant that he did not have to lay down the office upon entering the pomerium, nor have it renewed again [when he left the sacred boundary] (53.32.5).38 Although all the notices mentioning the pomerium may have come from one source, a specialized work of the late Republic like that of Messalla mentioned above, Dio's problematic use of his sources makes such a conclusion difficult to maintain.39All we can say is that Dio was interested in the pomerium during the late Republic.3 Egyptian deities: 40.47.3-4 and 53.2.4; Pomptinus: 39.65.1; delineating imperium and tribunician powers: 51.19.6; 39.39.6-7; 53.13.3-4; 53.17.4; 39.65.1; 39.63.4; 40.50.2; 41.3.3-4; 41.15.2; 41.16.1; 49.15.3; 55.2.2; and 55.8.1. The other references arc: 44.7.1; 54.25.3; and those noted in the text. Dio refers only one other time to the pomerium, when he reports that in A. D. 211 two wolves chased from the Capitoline were killed, one in the Forum and the other outside the pomerium, just as would happen with Caracalla and Geta (77.1.6). Although the exclusion from the pomerium of foreign deities is now part of the canonical definition of the sacred boundary, only Dio's references noted here can be cited as evidence for the theory, and objectively viewed, they seem to be of political rather than religious motivation. For a general discussion of this religious aspect of the pomerium, see G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Romer, 2nd ed. (Munich 1912) 44-45, 352-56. Magdelain, "Inauguration" (above, n. 6) 25, considers the prohibition to have held only in archaic times. 36 Although his specification that Octavian's new tribunician powers extended outside the pomerium as far as the eighth half-stade (i. e., a mile) is confused, he is correct in general lines, for the emperor's tribunician power after this time seems to have had no geographical restrictions. See J. M. Kelly, Princeps ludex (Weimar 1957) 16; and P. A. Brunt andJ. M. Moore, eds., Res Gestae divi Augusti (Oxford 1967) 12. 37 In 53.17.4 he also says that whenever an emperor is outside the pomerium he is always styled proconsul; but this development occurred first under Trajan: H. A. Andersen, Cassius Dio und die Begrundung des Principates (Berlin 1938) 61 and n. 166. See also note 27 above. York 1960) 3-17, anid 38 A. H. M.Jones, Studies in Roman Government and Law (New P. A. Brunt, in his review of Jones in CR 12 (1962) 70-73, discuss the essence of the change of Augustus' proconsular power to maius imperium in 23 B.C. P.Sattler investigates Dio's attention to Octavian/Augustus' constitutional position, in Augustus und der Senat (Gottingen 1960). For a general discussion of Dio's souLrces throughout his work, see F. Millar, A Study of 3 Cassius Dio (Oxford 1964) 34-38; and particularly for the Augustan books, B. Manuwald, Cassius Dio und Augustus: Philologische Untersuchungen zu den Buchern 45-56 (Wiesbaden 1979), who discerns two main sources joining at 52.19, some subsidiary sources of a biographical or specialized nature, and Dio's own anachronistic perceptions of the Augustan "settlement." See too S. Jameson, "22 or 23?" Historia 18 (1969) 228-29, for the year 23; and Andersen (above, n. 37) 19-23.

The Pomerial Extension of Augustus

25

Dio's history of Claudius' rule after 46 and of all of the Flavians' rules is missing, so we do not know how he recorded their pomerial extensions and whether, like Tacitus, he had Claudius' speech available to him. As we have seen, however, other sources clearly reveal that the Claudian and Flavian extensions both roughly coincided with censuses and were strongly associated with imperial expansion. In his narrative of the years 11-8 B. C., when Augustus was showered with military honors, Dio may have assumed that Augustus further enhanced his status by extending Rome's pomerium about the time of his city-wide census that radically changed the administration ofRome. o

The associations of the pomerium's extension with practical considerations and with imperialism are responsible for the third and final reference to Augustus' enlargement of the pomerium. In the vita Aureliani, the fourthcentury author of the Historia Augusta appends to the report that Aurelian built new walls for Rome in 271 the following notice: nec tamen pomerio addidit eo tempore, sed postea. pomerio autem neminem principum licet addere nisi eum, qui agri barbarici aliqua parte Romanam rem p. locupletaverit. addidit autem Augustus, addidit Traianus, addidit Nero, sub quo Pontus Polemniacus et Alpes Cottiae Romano nomini sunt tributae. (HA, vitAur 21.9-11) The conflation of a pomerial extension with a physical reassessment of the city is obvious in the author's explicit correlation of Aurelian's new walls and the enlargement of the city's sacred boundary. Much of the information on the pomerium in the vitAur is discounted. Nero's, Trajan'sand Aurelian's pomerial extensions are not attested elsewhere, and the first two are particularly suspect in light of the relatively abundant documentation for the early Principate.4' Furthermore, Claudius and Vespasian (together with Titus), the only two emperors unequivocally known to have extended the pomerium, are not mentioned at all. In this context it is" See, e. g., for the military movements and their celebration: Barnes, "Victories" (above, n. 33) 22. At this time the Ara Pacis, commemorating peace won through war, was dedicated, contemporaneously with the erection of the Gnomon of Augustus' Horologium that memorialized the subjugation of Egypt. See S. Weinstock, "Pax and the 'Ara Pacis,"'JRS 50 (1960) 47-48; Brunt and Moore, Res Gestae (above, n. 36) 54-55; E. Buchner, "Solarium Augusti und Ara Pacis," RomMitt 83 (1976) 322. Grimal (above, n. 20) 168-70, stresses that the traditional definition of urban land as ager effatus was obsolete by the Augustan age, when special legislation of 11 and 9 B. C. assimilated for administrative and juridical purposes the city buildings and the buildings contiguous to the city (cf. Front. de aque. 104, 127, 129). 41 W. H. Fisher, "The Augustan Vita Aureliani,"JRS 19 (1929) 142, 133, notes the passage as "worthless", also that the Vita incorrectly gives the length of the wall as 50 miles. (It is in fact ca. 12 mi.) Lugli, (above, n. 1) 129-31, doubts Nero's, Trajan's, but not Aurelian's pomerial extensions. Coarelli, "Porta trionfale" (above, n. 1) 66, accepts only Aurelian's extension out of these three; as does (e. g.) Labrousse (above, n. 1) 170.

26

M. T.

BOATWRIGHT

prima facie hard to find the notice of Augustus' pomerial extension credible, despite T. D. Barnes' recent contention that "it is never . .. permissible to argue that the context of any statement [in the HA] outweighs countervailing external evidence."42 The vita Aureliani may indeed be one of the more accurately factual lives of the last and most unveracious group of biographies in the HA,43 but it is much easier to maintain that its reference to Augustus' extension is wrong than to assume that it is right. W. H. Fisher showed in 1929 that the author of the vitAur wrote in part to demonstrate that a worthy emperor must be a capable and successful general; he also noted that some of the passages in the vita that cannot be tracedto earlier sources are explanations.4 The extended note to Aurelian's pomerial extension has all the appearances of a laudatory and fictitious explanation of the act. The author unchronologically juxtaposes Augustus and Trajan,the two exemplary principespar excellence (cf. Eutropius 8.5.3), in an attempt tO substantiate his portrayal of Aurelian as a great military leader and the restorer of Rome's traditions. If the reference to an Aurelian pomerial extension is valid, then Rome's pomerium may have coincided with the walls of Rome. This is not made clear, however: the technical aspect of the pomerium was far less important to Aurelian's biographer than the associations of the pomerium with Roman military leaders and might. Probably unconsciously, in his explanation of Aurelian's pomerial extension the biographer echoes Claudius' formulation of the meaning of an enlargement of Rome's pomerium. This final notice of the pomerium emphasizes the pomerium's symbolic meaning at the expense of its physical aspects, a characteristic of all our information concerning the city's sacred boundary. The investigation of Augustus' alleged pomerial extension is illuminating both because it sheds light on the creation and perpetuation of a historical tradition, and because it clarifies the symbolic meanings of the pomerium. The history of the pomerium in the Principate underscorces the continuing importance of tradition; almost paradoxically, the principes who exploited the pomerium's associations with Rome's traditions were those responsible for some of Rome's most radical innovations. This certainly is true of Augustus as well. Furthermore, Claudius, Vespasian and Hadrian all ostensibly modeled

Barnes, Sources (above, n. 3) 124. Barnes, Sources (above, n. 3) 30, 96, who cites for further discussion of the biography's sources: A. Lippold, "Der Einfall des Radagais im Jahre 405/406 und die Vita Aureliani der Historia Augusta," BHAC 1970 (1972) 149-65 (on vitAur 18.21). For the controversial identification of the sources for this life, see, e. g., J. Schwartz, "Sur le mode de composition de la vita Aureliani," BHAC 1968/1969 (1970) 239-46. " Fisher (above, n. 41) 145-49.42

43

The Pomerial Extension of Augustus

27

themselves on Augustus. Claudius' fabrication of an Augustan pomerial extension, therefore, is easily comprehensible, as is the survival of his fiction.45 Duke University, Durham NC M. T. Boatwright

45 I thank K. J. Rigsby, A. K. Michels, and P. J. Feldblum for advice on this article; whatever errors of interpretation there may be are, of course, my own. R. Syme's article "The Pomerium in the Historia Augusta" (Historia Augusta Papers [Oxford 1983] 131-45 = BHAC 1975/76 [1978] 217ff), in which the notice of the vitAur about the pomerium serves to prove Aurelius Victor as one source of the HA, came to my attention too late for inclusion in this paper. We concur, however, that Augustus did not extend the pomerium, and that Claudius is the source of Tacitus' information.