136: _imp. Cæsari divi f. Augusto pontifice maxumo imp. XIIII tribunic.
potestate XVII s. p. q. R. quod ejus ductu auspiciisque gentes Alpinæ
omnes quæ a mari supero ad inferum pertinebant sub imperium p. R.
sunt redactæ_—“the Roman senate and people to Cæsar ... Augustus ...
because under his leadership and auspices all the Alpine nations, from
the upper to the lower sea have been brought into subjection to the
Roman empire.” Then follows an enumeration of forty-six peoples. Pliny
adds, “the Cottian states were not annexed because they had not been
hostile;” and an arch at Segusio was placed in honor of Augustus, and
on it are the names of fourteen states, six being repetitions from the
Torbia monument. Cf. C. I. L. V, 7817 and 7231.
The campaigns here referred to are: First, of Varro Murena against the
Salassi in 729. Cf. Strabo, IV, 6, 7, p. 205; Dio, LIII, 25; Livy,
_Epit._, CXXXV; Cass. _ad. ann._ 729; Suet. _Aug._
21. Second, of Publius Silius against the Vennones and Camunni in
738. Cf. Dio, LIV, 20. Third, of Tiberius and Drusus against the Ræti
and Vindelici in 739. Cf. Suet. _Aug._ 21. Fourth, against the
Ligurians of the Maritime Alps in 740. Cf. Dio, LIV, 24. Finally these
regions were formed into the province of Rætia in 747-748.
[124] This naval expedition was connected with the German campaign of
Tiberius in 758. Cf. Vell. II, 106; Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, II, 67,
167.
[125] Strabo, VII, 2, 1, describes an embassy of the Cimbri asking for
“peace and amnesty.” They dwelt in the end of Jutland. Cf. Ptolemy,
II, 10. Below them were the Charudes, whom the mason at Ancyra makes
Charydes, and the Greek translator, thinking of the fable, transforms
into Chalybes, living just south of the Cimbri. Cf. Ptolemy, ii, 11,
12. The Semnones were between the Elbe and the Oder.
[126] When the Egyptian garrisons were weakened on account of the
Arabian expedition, Queen Candace took advantage of it and captured
a number of towns in Upper Egypt. These the præfect, C. Petronius,
re-took, and inflicted severe punishment upon the Æthiopians. This took
place 730-732. Cf. Strabo, XVII, I, 54; Dio, LIV, 5; Pliny, _Hist.
Nat._, VI, 29, 181, 182.
In 1896 Capt. Lyons, R. E., found, at Philæ, an inscription in Latin,
Greek and hieroglyphics, of which Prof. Mahaffy gives this translation:
“Gaius Cornelius, son of Cnaeus Gallus, a Roman knight, appointed
first prefect, after the kings were conquered by Cæsar, son of Divus,
of Alexandria and Egypt—who conquered the revolt of the Thebaid in
fifteen days, having won two pitched battles, together with the capture
of the leaders of his opponents, having taken five cities, some by
assault, some by siege, viz., Boresis, Coptos, Ceramice, Diospolis
the Great, Ombos (?); having slain the leaders of these revolts, and
having brought his army beyond the cataract of the Nile to a point
whither neither the Roman people nor the Kings of Egypt had yet carried
their standards, a military district impassable before his day; having
subdued, to the common terror of all the kings, all the Thebaid, which
was not subject to the kings, and having received the ambassadors of
the Ethiopians at Philæ, and guest-friendship from their king (and
received their king under his protection) and having appointed him
tyrant of the 30-_schoeni_ district of Lower Ethiopia—makes this
thank-offering to the Dii Patrii, and to the Nile, who aided him in his
deeds.” _London Athenæum_, March 14, 1896, and _Sitzungsberichte
d. kgl. Pr. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin_, 1896, I, pp. 469-480.
[127] The Arabian campaign, under C. Aelius Gallus was probably in
729-730. Cf. Dio, LIII, 29; Hor. _Carm._ I, 29, 35; Strabo, XVI,
4, 22, 24. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, VI, 28, 159, 160,
[128] Egypt was made an integral part of the empire after Actium
and the death of Cleopatra, in 724. Its connection with the empire
was peculiar. W. T. Arnold, _Roman Provincial Administration_,
p. 113, says: “The government of Egypt was in many points wholly
exceptional. Julius Cæsar had deliberately abstained from making
it a province of the country (cf. Suet., _Jul._ 35); and when
Augustus added it to the empire he subjected it to an altogether
exceptional treatment. The country was his private property, or rather
the Emperor’s private property; it passed as a matter of course, that
is, from emperor to emperor. Augustus appointed a præfect to represent
him in the province, just as in earlier times the urban prætors had
sent prefects to represent them in the municipalities of Italy. This
præfect was of equestrian, and not of the highest equestrian rank (Tac.
_Ann._, XII, 60; II, 59; _Hist._ I. 11); no senators were
admitted into the province; and the greatest jealousy was shown of the
smallest interference with it. The reasons for the special jealousy
of Egypt shown by Augustus and his successors were partly the great
defensibility of the country (in case of insurrection—ED.), partly
its immense importance as the granary of Rome. 'It was an accepted
principle with our fathers,’ says Pliny, 'that our city could not
possibly be fed and maintained without the resources of Egypt.’” For
a fuller treatment cf. Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsverwaltung_, I,
282-298.
[129] Armenia Major had been raised to greatness by Tigranes I
(658-699) who had been a formidable ally of Mithridates. Pompey finally
subdued him, 688. Henceforth Armenia was in a subject condition.
Tigranes was succeeded by his son Artavasdes. In 718, when Antony
attacked the Parthians, this king sided with him against Phraates of
Parthia, and another Artavasdes, king of Media. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 25.
But presently the two Artavasdes changed relations, the king of Armenia
passing to the Parthian side and he of Media joining Antony. Cf. Plut.,
_Ant._, 52; Dio, XLIX, 33, 44. Antony captured Artavasdes of Armenia
and gave him over to Cleopatra, who killed him in 721. His kingdom
was assigned to Antony’s son Alexander to whom was betrothed Jotape
daughter of Artavasdes of Media. The Armenians made Artaxes, son of
the late Artavasdes, their king. When Octavian overcame Antony he did
not befriend all the Oriental enemies of the latter, but for purposes
of his own set up a rival to Phraates of Parthia in Tiridates. Cf. c.
32. And, angered at the Armenians, who had dealt harshly with certain
Romans in that kingdom, he held as hostages the brothers of king
Artaxes, and set Artavasdes of Media over Armenia Minor as a check upon
Artaxes. Cf. Dio, LI, 16; LIV, 9. In 734 Augustus went to the East to
arrange affairs there. A campaign against Artaxes was planned, but he
was assassinated. Cf. Dio, LIV, 9; Tac., _Ann._, II, 3; Vell., II, 94,
122; Suet. _Aug._, 21; Jos., _Ant._, XV, 4, 3; Eckhel, VI, 98. At this
point the action of Augustus, recorded here in the _Res Gestæ_, takes
place. Augustus follows the example of Pompey, who, in dealing with
Armenia in 688 had contented himself with making the Armenian king
accept his royalty as a gift from Rome. Cf. Cic. _pro Sext._ 27. The
affair was conducted by Tiberius, not yet adopted. Cf. Suet. _Tib._,
9; Vell., II, 122. Henceforth Armenia was regarded as part of the
empire, though its native sovereigns were continued. Cf. Vell., II, 94,
122: “Armenia restored to the control of the Roman people;” “Armenia
retaken.” “The Medes likewise were subjected.” Cf. c. 33.
[130] The reign of Tigranes was brief. The Parthians winning some
success against Rome, stirred up Armenia. Cf. Tac. _Ann._, II,
3; Vell., II, 100. They favored the children of Tigranes, Tigranes
III and Erato. A Roman faction set up his younger brother Artavasdes.
Cf. Tacitus l. c. The suppression of the disorder was enjoined upon
Tiberius. But at this juncture, 748, he went into retirement at Rhodes.
Cf. Dio, LV, 9. Artavasdes died and the young Tigranes courted the
aid of Rome, but was soon killed, probably by Parthian means, and his
sister Erato abdicated. Cf. fragments of Dio, cited by Mommsen, _R.
G._, p. 113, and Dio, LV, 10. Tacitus confirms the delivery of
Armenia to Ariobarzanes by Gaius. Cf. _Ann._, II, 3; and Dio, LV,
10. The Parthian faction did not accept him, and it was in a contest
over him that Gaius received a wound, of which he died, Feb. 21, 757.
Cf. C. I. L. I, p. 472. For the succession of Artavasdes, cf. Dio,
LV, 10. The Tigranes IV, next mentioned “of the royal house of the
Armenians” was a grandson of Herod the Great, of Judea, on the one
side, and of Archelaus, King of Cappadocia, and probably an Armenian
princess on the other. Cf. Tac. _Ann._ VI, 40; XIV, 26; Jos.,
_Ant._ XVIII, 5, 4; _Wars_, I, 28, 1.
[131] For Sicily and Sardinia, cf. c. 25 and notes.
By the treaty of Brundisium, Antony had received Macedonia, Achaia,
Asia, Pontus, Bithynia, Cilicia, Cyprus, Syria, Crete, Cyrenaica. The
five last named he had given over to foreign kings. As to Asia and
Bithynia, Dio, XLIX, 41 and Plut. _Ant._ 54, are in conflict.
But the _Res Gestæ_ tends to confirm the latter. Lycaonia and
Pamphylia were taken from the province of Cilicia and given to
Amyntas, King of Galatia. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 32. He extended Egypt again
by restoring to it Cyprus. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 32, 41; Plut. l. c.; Strabo,
XIV, 6, 6: he granted to Cleopatra and Cæsarion, her son by Julius
Cæsar, the coast land of Syria, Tyre and Sidon excepted, cf. Jos.
_Ant._ XV, 4, 1; _Wars_, I, 18, 5; also Coele-Syria, cf. Jos.
_Ant._ XV, 3, 8; Plut. l. c.; Ituraea, Judaea and Arabia Nabataea,
cf. Dio, XLIX, 32; Jos. _Ant._ XV, 4, 1; 5, 3; _Wars_, I, 18,
5; 20, 3; parts of Cilicia, cf. Strabo, XIV, 5, 3; 5, 6: and perhaps
Crete also, cf. Dio, XLIX, 32: and Cyrenaica, cf. Plut. l. c. To his
younger son Ptolemy Philadelphus he gave Syria, and part of Cilicia,
cf. Dio, XLIX, 41; Plut. l. c.: for the elder, Alexander he planned a
kingdom made up of Armenia, Media and Parthia, cf. Livy, _Epit._
CXXXI; Plutarch, l. c. These alienations of Roman territory were made
the occasion of Octavian’s attack upon Antony. Cf. Dio, L, 1; Plut. l.
c.
[132] Mommsen believes that Augustus founded only military colonies.
Zumpt thinks otherwise. Cf. _Comment Epig._, I, 362.
[133] Known colonies of Augustus are: In Africa, Carthage, cf. C. I. L.
VIII, p. 133; Dio, LII, 43; App. _Pun._ CXXXVI. In Sicily, Panhormus,
Thermes, Tyndaris, cf. Dio, LIV, 7; Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, III, 8, 88;
89; 90. Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsverwaltung_ I, 246, names seven colonies
of Augustus in Sicily. In Macedonia, Dyrrachium, Philippi, cf. Dio,
LI, 4. Cassandrea, cf. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, IV, 10. In Hither Spain,
Cæsaraugusta, cf. coin in Eckhel I, 37, which also gives the numbers
of the legions whose veterans were colonized here: _leg. IV_, _leg.
VI_, _leg. X_. Marquardt _op. cit._, I, 256, names six colonies of
Augustus here. In Farther Spain, Emerita, cf. Eckhel I, 12, and 19,
_leg. V_, _X_; Marquardt, _op. cit._, I, 257. In Achaia, Patrae, cf.
C. I. L. III, p. 95, _leg. X_, _XII_. In Asia, Alexandrea of the
Troad, cf. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, V, 30. In Syria, Berytus, cf. Eckhel
III, 356, _leg. V_, _VIII_; Heliopolis, cf. Eckhel, III, 334. In
Gallia Narbonensis, Reii and Aquae Sextiae, cf. Herzog, _Gall. Narb.
inscr._ n. 113, 356. In Pisidia, Antioch, cf. Eckhel III, 18; Cremna,
cf. Eckhel III, 20; Olbasa, cf. Eckhel, III, 20; Parlais, cf. Ramsay,
_Bull. de Corr. Hell._, VII, p. 318.
No colonies are assigned to Sardinia, the three Gauls and two
Germanies, Raetia, Noricum, Bithynia, Pontus, Galatia, Galatian Pontus,
Paphlagonia, part of Phrygia, Lycaonia, Isauria, Cilicia, Cyprus,
Crete, Egypt, Cyrenaica. As for parts of the empire under subject
kings, such as Thrace, Cappadocia, Mauretania, no account is taken of
them, though there were certainly colonies in Mauretania, at Cartenna
and Tupusuctu. Cf. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, V, 2, 20; C. I. L., VIII,
8857.
[134] Cf. an article by Mommsen, _Hermes_, XVIII, 161 ff. on the
“Colonies of Italy from Sulla to Vespasian.”
When Augustus wrote, Italy was separated from Illyricum by the river
Arsia. Yet Illyricum was not counted by him as a province. It had
colonies at Emona, Iader, Salona, and possibly at Epidaurus and Narona.
Cf. C. I. L., III, pp. 489, 374, 304, 287, 291. Mommsen thinks this
omission was intended by Augustus; that he had been able to satisfy
some of his veterans, to whom Italian farms had been promised, with
lands over the Italian border in Illyricum, and because he could not
call it a province, nor yet a part of Italy, he eludes the difficulty
by omitting the Illyrian colonies.
The names of the twenty-eight Italian colonies are somewhat difficult
to establish. Several perplexing questions rise in the attempt. What
of the colonies founded by Antony and Octavian as triumvirs? Were they
Antoniæ Juliæ, or some Juliæ and others Antoniæ? If the former were
true and they dropped the name Antoniæ, the result would be far more
than twenty-eight Julian and Augustan colonies. The second probability
is more likely, and that the colonies Antoniæ simply dropped their name
after Actium.
A third difficulty rises in the case of the enlargement of old
colonies and their resettlement, as, _e. g._, of Minturnæ.
Cf. Hyginus, _De Lim._, p. 177. Mommsen gives a list which
nearly meets the statement of Augustus. 1. Ariminum, _Augusta_;
2. Ateste; 3. _Augusta_ Prætoria; 4. _Julia Augusta_
Taurinorum; 5. Beneventum, _Julia Augusta_; 6. Bononia; 7.
Brixia, _Augusta_; 8. Capua, _Julia Augusta_; 9. Castrum
novum Etruriæ, _Julia_; 10. Concordia, _Julia_; 11. Cumæ
(?) _Julia_; 12. Dertona, _Julia_; 13. Fanum Fortunæ,
_Julia_; 14. Falerio; 15. Hispellum, _Julia_; 16. Lucus
Feroniæ, _Julia_; 17. Minturnæ; 18. Nola, _Augusta_; 19.
Parentium, _Julia_; 20. Parma, _Julia Augusta_; 21. Pisae,
_Julia_; 22. Pisaurum, _Julia_; 23. Pola, _Julia_;
24. Sæna (?), _Julia_; 25. Sora, _Julia_; 26. Suessa,
_Julia_; 27. Sutrium, _Julia_; 28. Tuder, _Julia_;
29, Venafrum, _Julia Augusta_. Cf. Marquardt, _Röm.
Staatsverwaltung_, I, 118-132.
[135] Of standards recovered in Spain and Gaul we have no further
knowledge. It may be that in the Cantabrian war of 728, 729, some such
thing took place.
Appian, _Illyr._ XII, XXV, XXVIII, narrates the capture of
standards by the Dalmatians from Gabinius in 706, and their restoration
to Augustus in 721. These were then placed in the Octavian portico; and
probably later transferred to the temple of Mars.
[136] The standards had been lost by Crassus and Antony. Cf. Justin,
XLII, 5, 11; Livy, _Epit._, CXLI; Suetonius, _Aug._ 21;
Vell., II, 91; Vergil, _Æn._ VII, 606; Horace, _Carm._, I,
12, 56; III, 5, 4; Dio, LIII, 33; LIV, 8; Cass. _Chron._ ad. 734;
Oros., VI, 21; Florus IV, 12; Eutropius, VII, 9. One detachment of
Antonius’ army, under L. Decidius Saxa, was exterminated in 714, and
another in 718 under Oppius Statianus. Cf. Livy, _Ep._ CXXI; Dio,
XLVIII, 24.
Tiberius received the standards from the Parthians in 734. Cf. Dio,
LIV, 8, etc.; Suet. _Tib._ 9. Eckhel, VI, 95, shows a coin with
a Parthian on bended knee presenting a standard to Augustus. Cf. also
Horace, _Epis._, I, 12, 27; Oros., VI, 21, 29; and c. 32 of the
inscription.
There were two temples of Mars Ultor, a smaller one on the Capitoline,
and a larger in the forum, dedicated in 752. The standards were removed
to the larger temple. Cf. Dio, LV, 10; Horace, _Carm._, IV, 5, 16;
_Epis._, I, 18, 56; Propertius, III, 10, 3; Ovid, _Trist._
II, 295; _Fasti_, V, 549; VI, 459.
[137] Augustus himself had fought the Pannonians in 719, 720. Cf. Dio,
XLIX, 36-38. The campaigns of Tiberius were from 742 to 745. Cf. Vell.
II, 96; Dio, LIV, 31, 34; LV, 2; Suet. _Tib._, 9.
[138] This statement varies somewhat from Dio, L, 24, who says Augustus
reached the Danube in 720, and from Suetonius, _Tib._ 16, who
assigns the complete subjection of the district to 759.
[139] The Dacians had become organized and strong in the latter years
of the Roman republic. Cf. Justin. XXXII, 3; Jordanis, _Get._, XI,
67; Strabo, XVI, 2, 39; VII, 3, 5; 11; Suet. _Aug._, 44. Julius Cæsar
was about to proceed against them when he died. Cf. Suet. _Jul._, 44;
_Aug._, 8; App. _B. C._, II, 110; III, 25, 37; _Illyr._, 13; Vell., II.
59; Livy, _Epit._, CXVII. In 719 Augustus began his Illyrican campaign
by occupying Segesta on the Save, whence he threatened the Dacians
and Bastarnæ. Cf. App. _Illyr._, 22, 23. Antony is responsible for
the statement that Augustus sought to secure the goodwill of Cotiso,
king of the Getæ (Dacians), by giving him his daughter and by himself
marrying a daughter of Cotiso. Cf. Suetonius, _Aug._, 63. Cotiso
refused the alliance and joined the party of Antony. Cf. Dio, L, 6; LI,
22. Antony’s story as to the proposed marriages is hardly credible,
and may have been invented by him to offset his own alliance with
Cleopatra. During the struggle between Antony and Octavian, an invasion
of the Dacians was the constant dread of Italy. Cf. Vergil, _Georg._,
II, 497; Hor. _Sat._, II, 6, 53; _Carm._, III, 6, 13. When Antony was
overthrown M. Crassus undertook the suppression of the Dacians, and
triumphed, July 4, 727. Cf. Dio, LI, 23; Tab. Triumph. But Dacian
incursions were still frequent. Dio records one in 738, cf. LIV, 20;
and one in 744, cf. LIV, 36. Probably it was in this latter incursion
that the defeat here alluded to was met by them. Finally an army was
sent against them under Lentulus, in 759. Cf. Dio, LV, 30; Strabo, VII,
12 and 13; Suet. _Aug._, 21; Florus, IV, 12, 19, 20; Tac. _Ann._, IV,
44.
[140] Cf. Suet. _Aug._, 21; Flor. IV, 12, 62; _Oros._, VI,
21, 19, says that deputies of Indians and Scythians came to Augustus
at Tarracona in 728 or 729; Dio, LIV, 9, that deputies from India came
to him at Samos in 734. Strabo gives the name of the Indian king as
Porus. Cf. XV., 1, 4 and 73. Cf. also Ver. _Georg._, II, 170;
_Aen._, VI, 794; VIII, 705; Hor. _Carm._, I, 12, 56; _Carm.
Saec._, 55, 56; _Carm._, IV, 14, 41.
[141] For a general statement, cf. Suetonius, _Aug._ 21. For the
Scythians, cf. Note 140 , above. For the Bastarnæ, cf. Livy, _Ep._
CXXXIV; Dio, LI, 23, 24. For the Sarmatæ, cf. Flor. l. c.; Strabo,
II, 5, 30; Tac. _Ann._, VI, 33; Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, II,
108, 246; VI, 7, 19; VI, 5, 16; VI, 13, 40. Vergil refers to them as
Gelones. Cf. _Aen._, VIII, 725. Cf. also Hor. _Carm._, II, 9;
III, 8, 23. For the Albani and Iberi, cf. Dio, XLIX, 24. For the Medes,
cf. c. 27 and notes.
[142] For Phraates and Tiridates, cf. Justin, XLII, 5; Dio, LI, 18.
Tiridates had supplanted Phraates and in turn was driven out by him. He
then, in 724, came to Augustus for aid. But the latter was anxious to
regain the lost standards from Parthia, and simply played off Tiridates
against Phraates by setting him over Syria. Dio, in the passage cited,
makes mention of a son of Phraates who was captured by Tiridates and
given up to Augustus. This was possibly the Phraates here mentioned,
though there are difficulties in the way of this explanation. For
Augustus implies the voluntary coming of a reigning king, not the
delivery of an abducted prince. We know that in 731 Tiridates was in
Rome asking that Parthia be assigned to him, and that at the same time
Phraates sent an embassy begging the restitution of his son. Cf. Dio,
LIII, 33. Augustus laid the matter before the senate, and by their
advice restored the prince in exchange for the standards, but did not
yield to the plea of Tiridates.
[143] Cf. c. 27.
[144] A people east of the Tigris, and west of Media Atropatane.
Nothing is known of Artaxares. For the Adiabeni and their kingdom, cf.
Strabo, XVI, 1, 19; Tac. _Ann._, XII, 13; Josephus, _Ant._,
XX, 2, 1.
[145] Augustus several times was on the point of invading Britain. Cf.
Dio, XLIX, 38, for 720; LIII, 22, 25, for 727, 728. The poets have many
prophecies of victories in Britain. Cf. Ver. _Georg._, I, 30,
written in 724; III, 25; Hor. _Epode_, VII, 7; _Carm._, I.
35, 29, of the year 727, 728; _Carm._, III, 5; I, 21, 15; III, 4,
33; IV, 14, 48. But nothing came of these plans. Cf. Strabo, IV, 5, 3,
for embassies from Britain. Coins of Dumnobellaunus have been found.
Cf. J. Evans, _Coins of the Ancient Britons_ (London, 1864), p.
198, and the following plate 4, Nos. 6-12.
[146] The great defeat of Lollius in 738 was by the Sicambri, joined
with the Usipites and Tencteri. Cf. Dio, LIV, 20; Vell., II, 97; Suet.,
_Aug._, 23. There was a temporary peace. Cf. Horace, _Carm._,
IV, 2. 36; 14, 51. They rebelled in 742, and were put down, first by
Drusus and later by Tiberius. Cf. Dio, LIV, 32, 33, 36. In 746 they
were completely subjugated and removed into Gaul. Cf. Dio, LV, 6; Vell.
II, 97; Suet., _Aug._, 21; _Tib._, 9; Tac. _Ann._, II,
26; XII, 39; Strabo, VII, 1, 3. Probably the coming of Maelo was during
this surrender of 746.
[147] The Marcomani were a branch of the Suevi. Cf. Tac., _Germ._,
XXXVIII; _Ann._, II, 44, 62.
[148] The four sons were Seraspedes, Rhodaspedes, Vonones and
Phraates, with the wives of two of them and four children. Cf. Strabo,
XVI, 1, 28; VI, 4, 2; Justin, XLII, 5, 11; Vell., II, 94; Tac.,
_Ann._, II, 1; Oros., VI, 21, 29; Suet., _Aug._ 21, 43; Jos.,
_Antiq._, XVIII, 2, 4. They were sent to be out of harm’s way
during troubles in Parthia, according to all but Josephus, who says
they were removed so as not to hinder the succession of Phraataces, an
illegitimate son. When Phraates died, Phraataces in vain asked Augustus
for the return of the princes. This was c. 750. Cf. Dio, fragments,
Ursin. 39. The two elder princes died in Rome. Cf. C. I. L., VI, 7799.
Vonones was sent back by Augustus. Cf. c. 33, Note 149; Phraates was
returned by Tiberius in 788. Cf. Tac., _Ann._, VI, 31; Dio, LVIII,
16. Probably the princes were sent to Augustus in 744. Cf. Mommsen,
_R. G._, p. 141.
[149] The comment of Mommsen here seems too severe. He says: “The
writer magnifies his splendors beyond what is exact: for the Parthians
and Medes asked Augustus, not so much to appoint kings for them, as
to restore to them those to whom the kingdom had fallen by hereditary
right.” Such a criticism seems to overlook the force of the word
_petitos_, as applied to _reges_: they got the kings they “asked for.”
Phraataces was reigning in 754. Cf. Dio, LV, 10; Vell. II, 101. He was
succeeded by Orodes for a short time. Then came the choice of Vonones.
Cf. Jos. _Ant._ XVIII, 2, 4; Tac. _Ann._ II, 1. Josephus
gives no date. Tacitus implies 770. Augustus, however, returned
Vonones, and the date must be much earlier, probably c. 760. A Parthian
embassy was in Rome between 757 and 759. Cf. Suet. _Tib._, 16.
Coins also show the name of Vonones in 761. Cf. Gardner, _Parthian
Coinage_, p. 46. His reign was very brief. Cf. Tacitus and Josephus,
ll. cc.
[150] Cf. c. 27.
[151] This chapter is possibly the most weighty in the whole
inscription, inasmuch as it sets forth the view of his policy which
Augustus wished the world to hold. How far his statements in the
opening and closing sentences represent his own actual notions of his
relations to the sovereign power in Rome is a matter of debate. For a
full discussion Mommsen, _Röm. St._ II, p. 723, ff., may be read,
and Gardthausen, _Aug._ Iᵉʳ Th. IIᵉʳ Bd., pp. 485-540 and IIᵉʳ
Th., pp. 277-299.
The question is: Did Augustus in any real sense restore the republic,
or did he conceive of himself as monarch, but find it politic to
suppress all outward marks of royalty? Was his chief concern to
maintain the peace and prosperity of the Roman people, with as little
alteration as possible of the old constitutional forms, or was his
object the building up of power for his own sake? This is confessedly
one of the riddles of history. The best that can be done is to study
his actions, estimating their worth and tendency, and leaving the
motives of the great statesman where he hid them,—locked in his own
bosom.