CUP (2024) h/b 241pp £77 (ISBN 97810009476676)
E. is an Associate Professor of Classics at Wright State University and her book is a reworked version of her graduate dissertation. Her proposition is that during his lifetime Augustus developed a charisma which enabled him more readily to consolidate an effective non-republican model for the Roman state. When he died his successor Tiberius had no appetite to develop a charisma of his own but was anxious to promote that of his predecessor to ensure that this beneficial effect continued past his death. In the jargon this is known as ‘routinisation’. This in turn benefited, although perhaps with diminishing returns, the whole of the Julio/Claudian principate. As a result, charisma did not need to be redeveloped by any emperor until the Flavians took over in AD 69.
In a series of chapters E. comprehensively examines all the ways in which Tiberius encouraged citizens and subjects to welcome the continuance of the Augustan model, from his consistent promotion of the cult of the imperial family (although he began to play down that of Julius Caesar), through the conscious maintenance of policy precedents set by Augustus, to the use of imperial images throughout the Empire and the endorsement he received from contemporary writers; and finally to the less endearing development towards the end of his reign, when alleged abuse of the imperial family was used to stimulate prosecutions for maiestas (disrespect of Augustus).
Her style is freeflowing and lucid. Thirty-seven pages of bibliography bear witness to the thoroughness of her research. She undoubtedly establishes that for many of the empire’s citizens Augustus had acquired a numinous aura which made a positive contribution to his new model state and that, although Tiberius had no appetite to acquire a similar outcome for himself, he was very willing to continue to promote Augustus’ aura—and to a lesser extent similar auras of other members of the Julio/Claudian family—in order to maintain institutional cement. She also establishes that Tiberius’ policies in this area did indeed benefit the security of both the state and the family.
She probably establishes that Tiberius knew what he was doing, but she is less clear whether promoting the interest of the Julio-Claudian family was a prime aim or merely a by-product of the need to consolidate the post-republic settlement. More problematic perhaps is the question of whether it is helpful to describe Augustus’ particular aura as ‘charisma’.
E. takes her definition of charisma and its accompanying taxonomy from Max Weber, whose interest in the concept was stimulated by the careers of Hitler and Mussolini. For Weber the key characteristic of the charismatic individual is the ability to inspire, attract and fascinate a wide group of people (examples given are Teddy Roosvelt and Mick Jagger). For the Greeks and early Christians, the key characteristic of charisma was the ability to convey to a wide group of people the sense that the individual was infused with the goodwill of the gods or of God.
According to Weber, charisma usually dies with the individual, but in a few cases the effect can continue into the next generation by what he terms routinisation. In several cases this continuation is assisted by a close colleague of the charismatic individual—examples, Jesus by Peter and Paul, Lenin by Stalin. For recent examples of routinisation, E. includes Walt Disney and the Disney Corporation and Jeff Bezoz and Amazon. A similar relationship can clearly be attributed to Tiberius and Augustus.
Augustus did not apparently ever claim charisma for himself, nor did anyone in antiquity attribute it to him, but in the Res Gestae he does claim that he possessed auctoritas which explained why he had not needed to acquire additional potestas. It is arguable that Tiberius may have acted as he did to retain this auctoritas for his successor beyond Augustus’ death.
Fortunately, it is possible to enjoy this comprehensive description of an important element of the way in which Tiberius governed during his years of the principate without fully buying into E.’s proposition.
Roger Barnes