Augustus’ Moral Reforms and
the Senate: An Analysis
Date: 30.06.16.
Supervisor: Dr. Jaap-Jan Flinterman
Degree: Classics and Ancient Civilizations: Ancient History Word Count: 22, 910.
1
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student --- who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Graduate School of Humanities is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
2
Contents Page
Introduction ... 3
Chapter One: Outline of the Laws ... 6
Methodological Issues ... 6
Content of the laws ... 12
Chapter Two: Historiographic Interpretations ... 19
Demographic ... 19
Economic ... 24
Ideological... 27
Chapter Three: The function of Augustus’ moral reforms ... 31
The Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and the Lex Papia Poppaea ... 32
Ideological ... 33
Practical... 41
The Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis ... 47
Ideological ... 48
Practical... 52
Conclusion ... 60
Bibliography ... 63
Translated Primary Sources ... 63
3
Introduction
Oh, that I had never married and died without children!1
Augustus apparently made this plea after the adultery of his daughter Julia, and it is indicative of the problems marriage and childbearing caused him both in public and in private. During his reign, Augustus oversaw the transition from Roman Republic to Principate, and made fundamental changes to the social and political structure. One of Augustus’ key innovations was his legislative programme of moral reforms which encouraged marriage and
childbearing, and criminalized adultery. The function of these laws is essential for
understanding Augustus’ reign, and the nature of his relationship with the senate and wider elite. By analysing the legislation, it is possible to determine the interaction of social and political, public and private, Princeps and senate that characterized the new phase of Roman history.
However, despite their importance, the implications of the legislation have not been fully examined. The historiographic debate has reached something of an impasse, and this must be addressed. In the Res Gestae, Augustus states:
By new statutes passed on my initiative I restored many good examples of our forbearers that were disappearing from the current age, and I personally handed on to posterity examples of many things for them to imitate.2
This statement is a direct reference to the moral reforms that he introduced. In The
Cambridge Ancient History, Crook argues that the Res Gestae illustrates the ‘simple truth about what [Augustus] conceived his legislation to have been for.’3 This is indicative of the
debate concerning the function of the legislation, which has come full circle to conclude that Augustus should be taken at his word. Instead of attempting a comprehensive analysis of their overall social and political function, ancient historians have increasingly focused their attentions on individual effects of the laws. As such, there is a methodological gap for a new analysis which considers how the complex motivations and aims of each of the laws were part of a single, wider strategy to enhance Augustus’ position.
1 Suet. Aug. 65.
2 Res. Gest. 8: Cooley 2009, 35 highlights that the biographic inscription of Augustus’ achievement was ‘clearly
a political document; this is not the place to look for an objective account of Augustus’ career’.
4
This thesis will, therefore, correct the oversight in the debate, examine the function of the moral reforms which Augustus passed, and place them in the wider context of his power as Princeps. As a precise definition is a prerequisite for further study, Chapter One will outline the contents of the legislation that will be referred to as ‘Augustus’ moral reforms.’ The laws are not extant, and so the chapter will examine the methodological issues with attempting to reconstruct them from a variety of sources, and the implications that this has for our ability to interpret the laws. After the legislation has been outlined, Chapter Two will analyse the existing historiographic debate and interpretation of why the legislation was introduced. The aims of the laws are not immediately apparent, and so this has led to vastly disparate conclusions. Split into sub sections concerning demographic, economic and ideological interpretations, the chapter will examine the oversights in the existing debate. Chapter Three, and the remainder of the thesis, will then present my new analysis of the practical and ideological functions of the legislation. The laws will be examined individually to illustrate how they interacted to shape Augustus’ relationship with the senatorial elite. Indeed, the rhetoric in the primary source material will be cross referenced with the evidence of their effects, to indicate how they had specific ideological and practical functions. Whilst the primary narrative sources provide several case studies of how the laws were applied, these have been thus far neglected by ancient historians. Therefore, by analysing these examples, it will be possible to accurately determine the precise functions of the laws. As the conclusion shall illustrate, the moral reforms were designed to have a dual purpose to
strengthen the collective position of the senate and elite, but undermine the individual influence of senators. This conclusion has significant implications for our understanding of the nature of Augustus’ power and the survival of the Principate into the third century.
However, the group that will be referred to as the Senate, and senatorial elite, is not self-evident, and so the term must first be defined. Hopkins and Burton offer a succinct outline of the distinction between the senate and the senatorial order.4 In the Republican
period, the two were interchangeable, but Augustus’ moral reforms were among the first to indicative a specific ordo which included the immediate family of men that were in the senate. As such, whilst the term ‘senate’ shall be used to refer to the traditional administrative body, the ‘senatorial elite’ shall be used to refer to this emerging ordo, comprising of the immediate family of senators. The wider term elite also encompasses the equestrian ordo, who were themselves potential future senators, and influential members of Roman upper
5
class society. Indeed, the equestrians must be included in the analysis of the senate as a social and political body, as they exhibited the same behavioural patterns, and had an increasing role in the practical governance of the Principate.5 That is not to say, however, that the
remainder of the Roman population will not feature in this analysis, but they shall be considered through their relationship with the elite bodies. The parameters of this study follow the period of Augustus’ sole rule from the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE to his death in 14 CE. However, the legislation cannot be analysed in isolation, and so it will be necessary to consider the conditions of the Roman civil war and end of the Republic, as well as the reign of Augustus’ adopted son and successor Tiberius. Many of the case studies that will be examined occurred during Tiberius’ 14-37 CE reign, but they can nonetheless be used to determine how the legislation was designed to function both in the long and the short term. Whilst any consideration of the Principate must cover its geographic limits, the nature of this subject necessitates a disproportionate focus on Italy, and Rome itself. For example, the senatorial group whose relationship with the legislation shall be examined, resided at least in part in the capital. Within these parameters, the exact legislation which comprised Augustus’ moral reforms shall next be outlined in Chapter One.
6
Chapter One: Outline of the Laws
Before analysing how Augustus’ moral reforms affected his relationship with the senate and elite, one must first have an accurate understanding of the legislation itself. As such, this chapter will present an overview of the laws, and primary source material which is most relevant to the study. The beginning of the Roman Empire is an unusually well documented period of history, and so poetry and artistic works can be added to build a complex picture of both the underlying aims, and effects of the legislation. This chapter will first present the methodological problems of legal, narrative, and poetic texts. As there is such a wide variety of literary texts, this chapter, and indeed thesis, will focus on the artistic works contemporary to Augustus which reflect the context in which the laws were enacted. Using later narrative histories and legislative records is, unfortunately, unavoidable and so the unique challenged which this presents will be detailed. However, as they include both direct outlines of the legislation, and particular case studies of their implementation, the histories provide us with an essential overview of how the moral reforms functioned. After this analysis, the provisions of the three laws that comprised the moral legislation; the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis and the Lex Papia Poppaea will be reconstructed from these sources. As the legislation is complex, and not extant, the sub-section will focus on outlining the main tenets, and the sanctions and rewards used to enforce them.
Methodological Issues
The reconstruction of the laws must begin with Justinian’s Digest, which is the only official legal record of Augustan legislation. The work was begun in 530 CE, and is a compilation of over 3 million lines of earlier legal discourses on laws from the republic.6 Within the text, the
Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea have mainly been preserved through the analyses of Ulpian, who worked in the early third century.7 Alongside Paul, and the other authors, Ulpian was a highly skilled jurist
and so the work is both technical and informative. Logistically, the Digest is divided into 50 books, which are subdivided into titles, and then individual pronouncements. References to
6 Humfrees 2005, 167. 7 Harries 2004, 7.
7
Augustus’ moral legislation can be found in a variety of these books, as the compilers
attempted to place references to the laws, including revisions, in chronological order. For the purposes of this study, the most useful section is Book 48, which included eight titles entirely devoted to the laws passed by the deified Augustus.’8 Within this, Title 5 deals directly with
the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis. The reconstructions occasionally include direct quotes that reflect the third century interpretation of the laws, but the Digest is, as Harries says ‘a net full of holes.’9 The dating of the legal discourses used, and the compilation of the Digest
itself, is problematic, and so the precise content of Augustus’ laws is irrecoverable. The jurists present multiple practical examples to indicate how the legislation was later
interpreted, but this does not necessarily reflect the original intention or tone.10 Nonetheless,
the Digest is an invaluable text for reconstructing the legislation, as the material can be cross referenced with earlier sources to provide an outline of at least the main provisions.
The legal record of the Digest can best be supplemented by histories written during Augustus’ reign, but there was an apparent decline in the practise during this period. Indeed, Toher argues that the decline in narrative history writing was a significant one. Rather than being the result of a deliberate policy of repression, Toher suggests that this is indicative of the inextricable link between the practice of history writing, and events contemporary to the authors.11 Narrative histories had previously been a method of documenting, and achieving
political prestige in the senate. The changes which Augustus made to the method of governance, and the position of senate, undermined this practise, and so narrative histories markedly declined.12
History writing was revived as the new regime became entrenched, and so Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio provide us with slightly later works which discuss Augustus’ reign. Whilst these are not the only ancient histories which discuss Augustus, they are unique in directly discussing the moral legislation, as well as particular examples of its application.13
However, the perception of morality, and its political associations, plays a key function in the
8 Dig. 48.5.1.
9 Harries 2004, 25 argues that the extensive editing and lack of context has affected our ability to recover
specific details about any of the laws.
10 For example, in Dig. 48.5.16(15) Ulpian explains that ‘Pomponius also thinks that it should be stated that so
long as the husband is holding the magistracy, the father’s right to bring an accusation should also be held up, to prevent the husband’s right…being taken away from him.’
11 Toher 1990, 142.
12 Miles 1995, 224 explicitly links this decline to the ‘complexities of the Augustan programme.’
13 For example, Velleius Paterculus’ Compedium provides a contemporary account of the life of a senator during
the reign of Augustus and Tiberius. However, he focuses primarily on the military campaigns which he was involved in, and so is not immediately useful for examining the moral reforms, which he does not refer to.
8
narrative of these text. Roman narratives were by nature moralistic, with the moral character and behaviour of figures presented as reflections of their success or failure. For example, an apparently ‘just’ moral leader, such as Augustus, is presented as a competent emperor, whereas an immoral one, such as Nero, is an archetypally poor ruler. 14 This framework was
not only a literary device, but was a reflection of contemporary political ideas. Up until the later empire, Augustus’ reign was heralded as a ‘golden age’ of literature, culture, morality and political harmony, and these categories are often conflated.15 Augustus’ moral reforms
played a key part in this characterisation, both in the collective memory and literature, and so this complicates the recovery of a historical truth about Augustus’ reforms. This does not, however, render historical narratives useless, but means that their pronouncements must be carefully analysed.
Tacitus’ Annals is a key example of this phenomenon, and begins with the reign of Tiberius, Augustus’ successor. In the opening of his history, Tacitus laments how ‘the rising tide of flattery exercised a deterrent effect’ on those who wished to write a narrative of the Augustan Age.16 The author was a senator writing in the mid-second century, and so offers a
unique perspective on the effect of the legislation on subsequent generations. A key theme in the history is the senate’s relationship with imperial rulers, and Augustus’ legislation is presented as a key part of this.17 Whilst his narrative begins with the death of Augustus,
Tacitus nevertheless includes frequent digressions, such as on the origin of the Lex Papia Poppaea to provide context for Tiberius’ actions.18 Cowen argues that Tiberius’ relationship
with Augustus is a key theme in the Annals, and the Princeps is used throughout the narrative as the basic model to compare Tiberius to.19 Augustus’ behaviour is not idealized, but it is
depicted as the paradigm for a successful Princeps. As such, Tacitus’ criticism of the moral legislation is indicative of their reception, even amongst those who supported Augustus. Tacitus is a famously scathing historian, and he emphasises the treason trials which Tiberius apparently conducted. Many of these trials include sexual misconduct as a theme, and so they indirectly illustrate the effect of the moral legislation only a short time after Augustus’ death. Within this context, Tacitus also emphasised the rise of informers, delatores who benefitted from the sanctions imposed by the moral legislation, and this detail is absent from other
14 Suet. Aug. 21.2.
15 Burgersdijk 2016, presents a good overview of this phenomenon. 16 Tac. Ann. 1.1.
17 Tac.Ann.1.2. characterises Augustus’ reign as one of ‘slavish obedience’ from the upper class. 18 Tac. Ann. 3.25.
9
sources. 20 As such, Tacitus’ history, although not explicitly focussed on the reign of
Augustus, is a key source for both the origin and wider effects of the Augustus’ moral reforms.
The legislation was also indirectly discussed by ancient narrative sources, and Suetonius’ biography of Augustus provides a key example of this approach. His Lives of the Caesars, is a collection of imperial biographies from Julius Caesar to Domitian which include a variety of historical details. Tacitus and Suetonius were contemporaries, and so their
accounts of the same period reflect a particular perception of Augustus’ reforms. However, during the second century, Suetonius worked as keeper of the imperial archives, and so his writings were based upon invaluable primary source material.21 He presents information
thematically rather than chronologically, and so it is at times imprecise. Nonetheless, when the work is cross referenced against other narratives, and the legal sources, it is possible to reconstruct the wider tone of the reform programme. Suetonius was a childless member of the equestrian class and so was granted an exemption from the provisions of the Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea which penalised childlessness. 22 As such,
Suetonius personally experienced the evolution and application of Augustus’ moral reforms, and this is reflected in the attention which he pays them in the biography. The text itself focusses on Augustus’ personal character and public leadership, but the moral legislation is presented as a direct reflection of both of these aspects. 23 Suetonius discusses the
implementation of the reforms, their effects and reception, in detail, and so his biography yields important insights.
In contrast, Cassius Dio published his Roman History in the third century, and so his narrative provides a different perspective. 24 Whilst not all are extant, the original text had 80
books, from Rome’s Trojan origins, to Dio’s own career under Severus Alexander. Of these, twelve were dedicated to the 57 year reign of Augustus, and Kemezis argues that this
suggests a deliberate focus on his reign. The moral legislation plays a key role, and Kemezis
20 Tac. Ann. 3.25. is particularly vexed by this effect of the laws and the alarming rise of delatores, so this
shapes his depiction of the laws. It is a consideration of this aspect which ‘prompts [him] to go into some detail about the origins of the laws’ and so this frames the entire discussion.
21 Whilst the exact dating is unclear, Wallace-Hadrill 1983, 1 suggests that the books were published within a
decade of Hadrian’s accession in 117 CE.
22 Wallace-Hadrill 1983, 11.
23Suet. Aug. 24.1.For example, the fact that ‘[Augustus] revised old laws and in some cases enacted new ones’ is
used as an example of Augustus’ competence as a ruler, and implicitly refers to the moral legislation, which was presented as a mixture of old and new laws.
24 The exact date of publication is unclear, but Swan 2004, 3 suggests that a first edition was circulated in
10
argues that it was used to construct Augustus as a paradigmic ruler, in contrast to the Severan dynasty under which Cassius Dio lived.25 Dio’s opinion on the Severans can be discerned
from a fictitious speech by Agrippa which features in the beginning of the account of Augustus’ reign. In it, the ideal character traits of a ruler are outlined, and the advice to ‘supervise the lives of your subjects’ foreshadows the later focus on Augustus’ moral
reforms.26 Yet, Agrippa’s ‘fear [that] history may repeat itself’ can instead be interpreted as a
reference to the third century crisis, which the Severans oversaw.27 A crucial part of Dio’s
narrative on Augustus’ moral reforms, is a long speech which Augustus apparently gave in 9 CE to the equestrian men when they protested his legislation on marriage.28 This speech too,
must be analysed with a focus on events contemporary to its author, and the way that these interact with the depiction of Augustus. Whilst it is unlikely to have reflected an actual event, Csillig suggests that the incident is a key indicator of what Augustus’ perceived motivations were some two hundred years later.29 Cassius Dio was a married senator, and so the
provisions of the law had a direct effect on both his public and private life.30
These narrative sources can be supplemented with poetic works, from which one can infer much about the contemporary context and tone of the legislation. Horace is the most obvious example of this phenomenon, as he was commissioned to write poetry in favour of the Princeps. Despite having fought against Augustus at the Battle of Philippi, Horace’s poetry ardently supported the victorious Augustus.31 Whilst Horace cannot be regarded as a
government spokesperson, his pronouncements nonetheless form part of the image that Augustus attempted to project to his contemporaries. For example, the Carmen Saeculare praises Augustus and the return of ‘Modesty and Virtue’ along with ‘Good Faith, Peace and Honour’.32 This illustrates the components that Augustus himself wanted to promote, as well
as how integral moral considerations were to his characterisation as a successful ruler. Indeed, Zanker explicitly links the content of the poem to Augustus’ moral laws, and so it is essential for understanding the nature of the programme.33 The Odes are also filled with
direct, and indirect, references to Augustus and the reforms of his reign, and these can be
25 Kemezis 2007, 273. 26 Cass. Dio.52.34.4. 27 Cass. Dio 52.20.3. 28 Cass. Dio. 56.1-11. 29 Csillig 1976, 35.
30 Millar 1964, 13 highlights the effects of Dio’s own personal circumstances on the composition of this speech. 31 Nisbet 2007, 7.
32 Hor. Carm. Saec. 25. 33 Zanker 1990, 176.
11
analysed to discern his ideological aims.34 For example, Ode 3.24, has been translated as ‘The
Need for Moral Restraint’, and can be interpreted as implicit promotion of Augustus’ moral legislation. Within in it, Horace laments the need for a ruler to ‘curb lawless licence’ and moral disgrace.35 When considered alongside the legal texts and narrative sources, such
literature is invaluable in highlighting the prevailing moods in first century Rome, and the specific ideology promoted by the Princeps.
In contrast, Ovid had a more antagonistic relationship with Augustus, both as a poet and a roman citizen. The tone of Ovid’s work is indicative of contemporary opposition to the legislation, as he mocked Augustus’ reforms. For example, Elegy XIX in Book II of his Amors, explains that ‘He’s only stealing sand from the empty beach, the man who makes love to the wife of a fool’ in a direct allusion to adultery forbidden by the law.36 However, this
theme was dangerous, as the Ars Amatoria’s discussion of ‘safe love-making and permitted secrecy’, was apparently interpreted as a handbook for practicing adultery which contravened the new laws.37 The work has been linked to Ovid’s infamous 8 CE exile on ‘the charge that
by an obscene poem I have taught foul adultery.’38 It has now been established that this
charge must have been a pretext for another offence, perhaps linked to Julia’s exile in the same year.39 However, the fact that such an accusation was permissible highlights the
increasing links between perceptions of personal immorality and political dissent.
The importance of a variety of source material is evident from Propertius’ Elegies, which provides key information to help date the legislation. Within 2.7, ‘A Threat Removed’, he refers to the ‘repeal of the law, whose erstwhile issuance caused us to weep for many hours in case it parted us!’40 The piece is dedicated to Propertius’ mistress, and apparently
refers to their escape from a law which would force them to marry. Badian argues that this allusion is evidence that in 28 BCE, when the poem was written, Augustus made a failed attempt to implement moral reforms. Fantham questions this dating, and suggests that Propertius was reacting to a rumour, rather than any serious attempt to legislate.41 However,
34 See, for example Hor. Carm 3.14, ‘The Return of Augustus’, which celebrates his triumphant return from
Spain.
35 Hor. Carm. 3.24.25-30. 36 Ov. Am.2.19.45.
37 Ov. Ars am. 1.34: Volk 2010, 103 suggests that with this Ovid was mocking the moral legislation. 38 Ov. Pont. 2.243-50.
39 Volk 2010, 31 is but one of many historians who have highlighted this link, and the implausibility of the
charge Ovid mentions.
40 Prop. 2.7.12. 41 Fantham 2006, 37.
12
this debate concerning the dating distracts from the real significance of the Elegies. The poem strongly suggests that that a proposal for a law promoting marriage law was rejected shortly after the Battle of Actium.42 As such, it is possible to infer that the legislative programme was
either a pressing personal concern for Augustus, or directly linked to contemporary events. This dating has different implications for any understanding of Augustus’ aims, and suggests that the programme may have been linked to the specific events of that year. Propertius highlights how a short line can have huge implications for our understanding of the content, aims and effects of Augustus moral reforms.
Content of the laws
If the legal, narrative and poetic sources are combined together, it is possible to reconstruct the main provisions of Augustus’ moral reforms introduced. Fundamentally, the laws were the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus and the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis of 18 BCE, and the Lex Papia Poppaea of 9 CE. However, the similarity of their subject matter means that they have been conflated as the Lex Julia et Papia in both the contemporary and later literature.43 The Lex Papia Poppaea was explicitly an update of the previous Lex Julia de
maritandis, and this similarity makes analysing the individual laws difficult.44 The issue is
compounded by the fact that Augustus himself simply refers to the ‘passage of new laws’ in the Res Gestae, which unhelpfully conflates his entire legislative programme.45 Suetonius
adopted a similar strategy, and explicitly referred to laws on ‘excessive expenditure, adultery, chastity, electoral improprieties and the regulation of marriages’ which he sporadically elaborated on.46 However, in order to analyse the precise aims and effects of the legislation it
is necessary to, as far as is possible, consider them individually.
The Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus formed the crux of the legislative programme, and encouraged Roman citizens to marry and have children. To ensure clarity, the provisions relating to marriage will first be outlined, along with the rewards and sanctions imposed, and then those associated with having legitimate children within these unions. The law was
42 Badian 1985, 82-98 analyses this argument in detail, and the fact that the law is not mentioned in any other
contemporary source material, indicates that it was merely a proposal rather than a complete law. Augustus was known to moot suggestions before legislating.
43 Crawford 1996, 802 comments on this phenomenon. For example, Dig.1.9.5 is the first mention of the
legislation, and refers to the ‘Lex Julia et Papia. Historians such as Csillig 1976, 77 refer to the ‘objectives of the Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea’ More recently, Harries 2004, 13 refers to the ‘restrictions imposed on the childless by the Lex Julia et Papia’.
44 Tac. Ann. 3.25. and Cass. Dio. 56.10.3 45 Res Gestae 8.
13
originally thirty- five chapters long and made marriage the legal duty of all adult Roman citizens.47 Citizens who remained unmarried were defined as caelibes, and penalised by the
law. Alongside this were guidelines which restricted the types of marriages which senators could make. Paul discusses this aspect in the Digest, and directly quotes a substantial part of the text which was extant in the third century.
A senator, or his son, or his grandson, or his great-grandson by his son, or grandson shall not knowingly or fraudulently become betrothed to, or marry a freedwoman, or a woman who is or has been an actor, or whose father or mother are have been actors. Nor shall the daughter of a senator, or a granddaughter by his son, or a great-granddaughter by his grandson become betrothed to or marry, knowingly or fraudulently, a freedman, or a man who is or has been an actor or whose father or mother is or has been an actor.48
Senators were also forbidden to marry any woman ‘convicted of a criminal offence.’49
Prohibited marriages were not annulled, but ignored, and the participants treated as if they remained unmarried. This was itself contrary to the law, and so the couple were subject to the penalties which were imposed on the unmarried.50
The benefits of obeying the law were both social and political, and affected all areas of society. The exact nature of these rewards are ambiguous, but they were reflected in the seating arrangements at the arena. Suetonius explains that Augustus ‘assigned their own rows’ in the arena to ‘married men of the common people’ which was a mark of their elevated status.51 Cassius Dio indicates that unmarried men and women were banned from
‘watch[ing] public shows and attending banquets’, as this was temporarily lifted for the Secular Games.52 Whilst neither of these are explicitly linked to the Lex Julia de maritandis
ordinibus, it is apparent that the marital legislation infringed on the ability of Roman citizens to fully participate in society.53 The benefits also affected politics, as married men were
regarded as senior to bachelors. This is implied by Cassius Dio, as he points out that, when he promoted Gaius, Augustus ‘gave him a wife so that he might enjoy the additional dignity
47 Treggiari 1993, 61: The details of this provision have not survived, but it can be implied from the chapters
which are extant. The Lex Papia Poppaea amends the ages at which this was mandatory, and so makes clear that this was a central point of the Lex Julia.
48 Dig. 23.2.44 49 Dig. 23.2.43.10. 50 Treggiari 1993, 63. 51 Suet. Aug. 44. 52 Cass. Dio 54.30.5.
14
possessed by a married man.’54 Suetonius also highlights an incident at the beginning of
Tiberius’ reign, where he removed a man who had ‘married a woman on the day before the distribution of posts and divorced her the day afterwards.’ This is a point which will be expanded upon in Chapter Three, and implies that marriage improved one’s eligibility for a position.55 Both references, though vague, explicitly link the benefits to being married, and so
it is reasonable to trace the rewards to the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus.56
In contrast, the sanctions which caelibes faced predominantly related to their
inheritance rights. It was apparently common for unmarried men to routinely increase their wealth through bequests in the wills of wealthy childless men, and so the prohibitions
targeted these ‘legacy-hunters’. As such, caelibes were forbidden to be named in wills where they were outside of the sixth degree of family relations to the deceased.57 Alongside this,
Augustus weakened the power of directives in wills that made inheritance conditional on, for example, the recipient remaining unmarried.58
Within legitimate marriage, the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus also encouraged childbearing by sanctioning those who did not have children, orbi, and awarding privileges to families with many. The clearest direct evidence of these rewards is from Paul’s exposition on the benefits for married freedmen, which increased incrementally with each child. For example, fathering a single legitimate child ‘of the age of five years’ was enough to release a freedman ‘from the obligation of performing services’ to his former patron.59 ‘A freedman
who shall have two or more male of female children in his power’ was exempt from
rendering his patron ‘any services.’ This was on the condition that the children had not ‘hired out his services fight with wild beasts’, and so had retained their social status. The rewards were extensive, and the freedmen was also excused from ‘perform[ing] any work by way of
54 Cass. Dio 55.10.18. 55 Suet. Tib. 43.
56 Treggiari 1993, 66 does so emphatically.
57 Treggiari 1993, 72 argues that this can be inferred from Gaius 2.111, but it is difficult to specifically relate it
to the Lex Julia rather than the Lex Papia.
58 Dig. 35.1.64: ‘Where a legacy is bequeathed under the following condition, "If she should not marry Lucius
Titius," Julianus says that the law will not apply.’
59 Dig.38.1.37: There is some ambiguity concerning the age at which children would earn their parent’s rewards,
and the Digest here refers to the age of five years. Treggiari 1993, 68 is explicit that, in general, the children actually had to ‘survive’ until maturity, although there is some debate over whether men killed in warfare counted as being alive for the purposes of the legislation. The Lex Irnitana V. 56: although not directly linked to the Augustan legislation, provides more precise evidence of how children were legally regarded. For example, precedent is given to a man ‘provided that two children lost after the giving of the name or one child over puberty lost.’ The name day, in the weeks after the birth, and puberty were thus points at which children generally could earn their parents legal advantages.
15
gift or service or anything else which he has sworn, promised or bound himself to do…. In return for his freedom.’60
Direct evidence for the rewards which the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus offered the upper classes to encourage childbearing is scarcer, but Treggiari has done much to
reconstruct them from a variety of more obscure sources. It is clear that they increased in line with the social position of those affected, and so the legislation supported the traditional hierarchies of the state. For the elite, the benefits were public as well as private, as their social status was a reflection of their political role. The law apparently allowed men to subtract one year from the minimum age of office for every child that they had, and
designated that the senior consul was the one with the most children.61 Significantly, the law
also offered benefits to women who had multiple children, rather than just to their husbands. For freeborn women, three children granted freedom from guardianship, whilst freedwomen were required to have four.62 Wallace-Hadrill highlights that the legislation promoted three
children as the ideal number to get the maximum benefits in Rome.63 This is supported by a
reference by Cassius Dio to the fact that Livia had her name ‘inscribed upon the list of mothers who had borne three children.’ As such, it can be assumed that this was the optimum number.64 Rome had a very high child mortality rate, and so aiming for three surviving
children, was an attempt to create a substantial increase in the birth-rate.
The Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, also implemented in 18 BCE, was the first Roman law to make adultery a criminal offence.65 Fundamentally, the legislation criminalised
the extramarital affairs of women, and the men with whom they had sexual relations.66 It
outlined the method of accusing and prosecuting the parties involved, the penalties for those who assisted them, and the rights of the fathers and husbands of the offending woman. In his discussion, the jurist Modestinus highlights that the original law did not directly distinguish between intercourse undertaken with a widow; stuprum, or married women; adulterium. As
60 Dig.38.1.37. 61 Treggiari, 1993, 66.
62 Treggiari 1993, 69, convincingly infers as much from Gaius 1.145.
63 Wallace-Hadrill, 2009, 255 notes that inside Rome, the number was 3, but this increased to 5 in the rest of
Italy, and possibly reflects the difficult living conditions of the capital.
64 Cass. Dio. 55.2.6.
65 Crawford 1996, 781 convincingly dates it to 18 BCE: Richlin 1986, 226 highlights the lack of a precedent. 66 Edwards 1993, 38 makes this point explicit.
16
such, the scope of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis was much wider than the title implies.67
The law also outlines the exact procedure for accusing any citizens of adultery. As Rome was without a state police force, accusations could be brought by any private
individual, although minors under twenty-five years of age were too young to become state informants.68 Husbands were obliged to divorce their wives as soon as they became aware of
the adultery, and then had sixty days to make a formal accusation, in which time fathers also had the right to report it.After this, any citizen could report the crime, and had four months to make an accusation. 69 Romans could be accused of adultery up to five years after the event if
sufficient proof was provided.70 These formal accusations had to specify the place of the
crime, the persons committing it, and, if not the precise date, at least the month when it had occurred.71 Cases were then tried in the quaestio de adulteriis, although, as will be discussed
in Chapter Three, a small number appeared before the senate.72
If accusations against the man and the woman involved were successful, the
punishments were severe. The first book of the Digest highlights that, men of ‘honourable’ upper class rank faced the ‘penalty of confiscation of half their property.’ In contrast men of ‘inferior station’ were subject to ‘corporal punishment in addition to banishment.’73 Women
of all ranks were apparently given the status of infamia even if an accusation against them was rescinded.74 Paul suggests that convicted adulteresses were exiled to an island, and so
many ancient historians argue that this was the original sanction.75 However, as will be
elaborated on it Chapter Three, Cohen has convincingly argued that the exile ad insulum was only used after Augustus exiled his daughter Julia, and so had no basis in the laws.76 The Lex
Julia de maritandis ordinibus also forbade senators to marry women accused of a criminal offence, and so adulteresses could not remarry within the upper classes.
67 Dig. 50.16.101. 68 Dig. 48.5.16(15).6.
69 Dig. 48.5.4.1. ‘The power to accuse is granted [only] after the husband and the father; for after the sixty-day
period, four months are allowed to third parties.’ 48.5.31(30).1 states that ‘sixty days are computed from the time of divorce.’
70 Dig. 48.5.12(11).4; 48.5.32(31) clarifies that ‘the term of five years should be reckoned continuously.’ 71 Dig. 48.2.3.
72 Garnsey 1967, 56-60 traces the role of these courts until the Severan Age. 73 Dig. 4.18.4.
74 Dig. 23.2.43.12 Ulpian extends this provision to mean that women were given this status, even if the
accusation was unfounded.
75 Cohen 2008, 213-214; Edwards, 1993, 40 lists this as a punishment.
76 Cohen 2008, 217 suggests that this punishment was the result of his authority as her father, rather than as
17
However, these public sanctions were accompanied by private ones, and the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis details the precise circumstances in which it was permitted to kill a couple caught committing adultery. The original text has been preserved, and says that any father that bears witness may ‘kill his daughter without delay.’ Ulpian interpreted this to mean that he should immediately ‘kill both of them with one blow and one attack.’77 The
same right was not completely extended to the husband, who did not have the unconditional right to ‘kill the woman and any adulterer.’78 Whilst such provisions appear severe, Cohen
explains that the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis actually reduced the ability of men to kill the perpetrators, by reducing the circumstances in which it was permitted.79 Augustus
transformed adultery from an issue that would be dealt with in the private family home, to one that had to be dealt with in a public according to the rule of law.
The law also included punishments for those who so were accomplices to the crime. For example, Tacitus notes that Titius Labeo was almost prosecuted for failing to ‘enforce the statutory penalty’ when he knew about his wife’s adultery, and this crime was known as ‘pandering.’ Labeo was released as he was technically still within the first sixty days, but it was a serious offence.80 Ulpian carefully analyses this aspect of the legislation, and defines
the offender as ‘a husband who acquires anything from the adultery of his wife and also for one who keeps her after she has been caught in adultery.’81 Also targeted were people who
directly facilitated the crime by, for example, providing a property for the act or its planning.82
However, there was significant opposition to, and evasion of, the marital legislation, and so Augustus was forced to use the 9 CE Lex Papia Poppaea to update both the sanctions and rewards. Cassius Dio and Tacitus both highlight that it was an amendment to the previous Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus.83 Dio’s Augustus announced in his speech to the Roman
equestrians that those who cooperated would be rewarded with ‘other honours and offices’,
77 Dig.48.5.24(23).4; Canterella 1991, 233 argues that the reason for this distinction was to eliminate the
possibility that adultery accusations be used as an excuse for political murders. By limiting the unconditional right to fathers, the opportunity to do so was significantly reduced.
78 Dig. 48.5.23(22).4. 79 Cohen 1991, 124. 80 Tac. Ann. 2.84.
81 Dig. 48.5.2.2 Edwards 1993, 57 argues that pandering was a key social fear, and reflects how attacks of
female immorality actually directed at male family members and their weakness in being unable to control the behavior of their wives and daughters.
82 Dig. 48.5.10(9) (such as fields, baths or houses). 83 Cass. Dio 56.6.5; Tac. Ann. 3.25.
18
whilst there would be ‘increased the penalties for the disobedient.’84 As aforementioned, the
speech did not reflect a real event, but the increase in both rewards and penalties can be corroborated with other source material. It is difficult to ascertain the specific provisions of the Lex Papia Poppaea, as it is so often conflated with the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus. Nevertheless, it is possible to infer that the main changes that the Lex Papia Poppaea made was to the parameters of who the legislation applies to. For example, the ages at which citizens were obliged to be married were altered to the between 20-50 for women, and 25-60 for men.85 After the end of one marriage, women were given a longer grace period of three
years before they were obliged to remarry.86 The rewards for having children within
legitimate marriages were also increased, although only a small part of this aspect can be reconstructed. Treggiari also argues that Augustus eased restrictions on spouses inheriting from one another. A single child qualified a woman to inherit her husband’s property on his death, and this was a significant relaxation.87
The legislation also tightened the sanctions in other areas. For example, the maximum length for engagements was also reduced to two years, in response to evasion of the law with extremely long betrothals.88The sanctions which restricted the inheritance rights of the
caelibes, were extended to punish orbi. The key change, was that orbi forfeited their property to the ‘state as universal parent’ upon their death, and so could not leave bequests to friends.89
Of bequests that others made to them, half were forfeited to the state, or forcibly given to other, related descendants within the third degree.90 For freedmen, the law was stricter, and
stipulated that, unless a freedman had three children or descendants, his patron was able to claim a third of his estate.91 Tacitus highlights that these penalties boosted the treasury, but
also led to a rise in the practise of informing. For example, delatores, were entitled to a percentage of the forfeited estate if they reported any people who violated the laws.92 After
the Lex Papia Poppaea, this practise became increasingly onerous, and so acted as an indirect deterrent to potential lawbreakers.93
84 Cass. Dio 56.6.5. 85 Treggiari 1993, 66. 86 Suet. Aug. 34.
87 Treggiari 1993, 70 links this to the frequency of younger women being married to older men. 88 Cass. Dio 54.16.7.
89 Tac. Ann. 3.28. 90 Treggiari 1993, 72.
91 Treggiari 1993, 74 highlights that this aspect was frequently cited by later jurists i.e. in Gaius 3.42 ff. 92 Tac. Ann. 3.25.
19
Chapter Two: Historiographic Interpretations
The Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, Lex Julia de ordinibus maritandis, and the Lex Papia Poppaea were a complex set of laws, and so their purpose was equally complicated. The aims of Augustus’ moral reforms reflect how he constructed his authority as Princeps over the Roman state and senate. As such, this chapter will present a close analysis of the existing historiography, and highlight the clear oversights, which will be addressed in Chapter Three. Ancient historians continue to debate how they should be interpreted, but there is no general consensus. The chapter will loosely split the existing interpretations into demographic, economic and ideological approaches, and these will be examined in turn. Indeed, the fact that the interpretations of the Lex Julia et Papia, as most of the following historians refer to them, can be split into three distinct sections, is indicative of the failure of ancient historians to present an inclusive analysis. The first part of the chapter will be the longest, and examine the traditional explanations of the laws. These primarily focus on the potential practical reasons for their implementation. As such, I will begin with the historians who argue that the legislation was designed to increase the size of the Roman population, and the extent to which this is supported by the primary source material. The next section will analyse the main economic interpretations of the aims of the laws which can be split into two distinct approaches. As such, I will first examine the argument that the laws were designed to increase the wealth of the state, and then that they were designed to impact the familial wealth of the elite. Lastly, the third section of this chapter will examine whether the laws had an ideological purpose. This is also a complex argument, and so will loosely be split into three sub sections according to the groups which historians suggest that the ideology was attempting to support. Such an analysis will illustrate the oversights in the existing debate which this thesis will address.
Demographic
The simplest explanation for the Lex Julia et Papia is that it was a practical response to a demographic problem within the Roman population. This is a complex hypothesis, and so
20
this section will present a break down the arguments of the ancient historians who support it. First I will examine the debate regarding whether the laws were designed to increase the size of the entire population, or just that of the senate. The rhetoric of the primary source material, will then be cross referenced with the content of the laws and evidence of their effects to determine the validity of this approach.
Perhaps the earliest historian to offer a demographic explanation was James Field in his 1945 ‘The Purpose of the Lex Iulia et Papia Poppaea.’ Using language that is now outdated, Field argues that the legislation was ‘purely eugenic and demographic in its
conception’ and designed to simply increase the size of all layers of the Roman population.94
Nevertheless, this interpretation has remained influential and Brunt provides an updated version of it in his Italian Manpower. Brunt conducts a precise quantitative analysis of the census figures from Augustus’ reign, and concludes that Augustus’ motivation was ‘purely demographic.’95 For example, the figures given in the Res Gestae were the first to count
women and children, rather than just adult males. This change, Brunt argues, is indicative of a concern with the precise size and structure of the entire population, which was mainly comprised of the lower classes, and how this impacted on the number of potential army recruits.96 The civil wars and upheaval of the end of the republic resulted in a period of
unusually high mortality amongst the entire population. Whilst the servile population may have kept the overall figures equal, there was a concerning drop in the traditional Roman citizen body.97 Brunt attributed this relative decline, at least in part, to the unusually high
levels of caelibes and orbi.98 Thus, a decline in traditional moral behaviours had undermined
the army recruitment from the lower classes, and so it was imperative that the entire population of the Principate be increased.99
Hin directly addresses Brunt’s argument, and her aim is to ‘undermine the view that this period was characterised by a substantial decline in fertility.’ For example, Brunt argues that economic necessity led lower class workers to postpone marriage until they were
financially able to support a family. This resulted in lower marriage and childbearing rates
94 Field 1945, 399 makes explicit the link between expanding the population of the lower classes, and the
eventual increase in the numbers of the upper class through recruitment.
95 Brunt 1971, 114.
96 Brunt 1971,113 cites Augustus Res Gestae 2 BCE 4,063,000, 8 BCE 4,233,000 and 14 CE 4,937,000. 97 Brunt 1971, 388.
98 Brunt 1971, 9. 99 Brunt, 1971 114.
21
amongst the traditional lower classes.100 Despite the economic pressures of the upper classes,
Hin argues that a reduction in the fertility of the lower class according to this model would not have had any effect on behaviour of the elite.101 Thus, it is inaccurate to suggest that the
Lex Julia et Papia were designed to reverse a decline in the size of the Roman population, as there was no pattern between the moral behaviours of upper and lower classes.
Indeed, the demographic argument has been increasingly criticised. Hopkins suggests that Brunt relies too heavily on the perceptions of the narrative literary sources for his
conclusions, which reflect those implied by, for example, Cassius Dio.102 Cassius Dio’s 9 CE
reflects the Princeps’ perceived motivations and aims. Dio’s Augustus emphasises the necessity of demographic expansion to allow Rome to continue to ‘surpass the rest of the world not only in manly virtue of [her] citizens, but also in the size of [her] population.’103
This dimension is repeated as Augustus declares he will ‘never cease [his] efforts to
encourage you to increase our population.’104 The desire to increase the population is closely
linked to Roman virtue and so it is clear that, by the third century, the laws were perceived to have had specific demographic aims. Brunt’s hypothesis is similar to the argument presented by Dio, as he argues that the legislation was designed to increase the size of the entire
population.
However, this is a misinterpretation of the speech, as Dio clearly states that it was given to the minority equestrian class. Augustus acknowledges that this group were ‘few…in all compared with the great mass of the city’s population.’ 105 The context of the speech will
be further analysed in Chapter Three, but this audience undermines the rhetorical focus on demographic expansion. As such, Galinsky argues that the Augustus’ motive cannot have been to increase the size of the entire Roman population. This aim is incompatible with the legislation’s clear concern with the birth-rate of the minority upper class.106 The rewards for
marriage and childbearing, as Chapter One, outlined, clearly favoured the elite. Thus, there is a significant discrepancy between the perceptions of contemporaries such as Dio whom Brunt relies upon, and the actual focus of the legislation.
100 Brunt 1971, 138. 101 Hin 2013, 174-175. 102 Hopkins 1972, 193. 103 Cass. Dio 56.1.2. 104 Cass. Dio 56.1.4.
105 Cass. Dio 56.1.2 highlights Augustus’ 9 CE speech, which was directly addressed to the equestrian class. 106 Galinsky 1981, 129.
22
This is a point which Treggiari makes explicit with her analysis of the exact content of the laws. The minor provisions of the moral reforms, she argues, highlight how the laws had a different function than that presented in the contemporary rhetoric. For example, Treggiari explains that the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus prohibited serving soldiers from marrying. This is not compatible with the desire to increase the size of the population, or the number of men joining the army. Treggiari also argues that the restrictions which were placed on whom senators could marry, were designed to make it more difficult for the elite to find suitable partners, or to have children.107 She concludes that the apparent inconsistency
between Augustus’ desire to increase the entire population size, and the content of the
legislation, does not in fact suggest that this interpretation of his aims is incorrect. Whilst it is true that ancient law is not always coherent, this conclusion is tenuous and Treggiari neglects to properly analyse the differences which she has identified. These discrepancies indicate that the moral reforms had a different function which Treggiari has not considered and so can be used to discern the actual purpose of the legislation. Indeed, it is clear that that the aim of the purpose of Augustus’ moral reforms was not to increase the size of the Roman population.
Moreover, even Brunt highlighted that the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus only applied to freedmen, or equestrians worth over 100,000 sesterces. This figure was traditionally the threshold for serving on an Italian municipal council, and so reflects a preoccupation with the birth-rate of the economic, political and social elite.108 Hopkins and Burton expand on this
point, and argue that the population decline that Augustus was concerned with was limited to the upper classes.109 Crucially, they make the distinction between problems with biological
renewal which ensured that the population remained stable, and social renewal which determined whether elite families could maintain the same positions. Hopkins and Burton suggest that the demographic crisis which Augustus was concerned with was in fact social. During the Principate, the upper classes were increasingly unable to ensure that their descendants retained the same social and political positions.110 Indeed, Hopkins and Burton
argue that the very existence of the moral reforms provide direct evidence of a declining aristocratic birth rate, as they were a direct and explicit attempt to reverse it.111 However, they
concede that they ‘they cannot prove’ that there was a decline and this undermines the
107 Treggiari 1971, 64. 108 Brunt 1971, 565.
109 Hopkins and Burton 1983a, 73. 110 Hopkins, and Burton 1983b, 194. 111 Hopkins, and Burton 1983a, 95.
23
credibility of their other arguments.112 Hahn and Leunissen have also challenged the statistical
basis of their interpretation.113 Whilst they agree that Hopkins and Burton’s overall arguments
are persuasive, Hahn and Leunissen are scathing of the data which they use to illustrate the apparent ‘non-inheritability of the consulate.’114 Instead, Hahn and Leunissen argue, the issue
of social inheritance should be analysed through the connections and careers of individual families, rather than on a quantitative basis.115 Whilst a holistic approach is of course
preferable, they are overzealous in suggesting that the statistical method should be entirely abandoned. Indeed, it is vital for attempting to discern the actual effect of the legislation on the Roman state, and population.
Hin adopts a different methodological approach to expand upon this, and analyses the actual effects of the Lex Julia et Papia on the marriage and birth-rates. Whilst Brunt excludes illegitimate birth-rate from his analysis, Hin considers how it interacted with the moral reforms.116 She argues that the fertility of the upper classes broadly matched that of the wider
population. However, their legitimate birth-rate was lower than the total figure, and this impacted the social status of the children born.117 Elite men and women, Hin argues, had less
legitimate children within their marriages compared to the lower classes. Instead, affairs with concubines and slaves led to only a percentage of their children being socially or legally recognised as the offspring of the elite.118 These bastards could not inherit the family name,
or social position, or be counted on census figures.119 Hin argues that it was this decline
which accounted for the perceived fertility problems amongst the upper classes which Dio refers to. Thus, Augustus’ moral reforms can be interpreted as an attempt to reverse the decline in the legitimate birth rate of the elite. Whilst this argument is but a small section of Hin’s demographic study, it deserves a lot more attention. Whereas other historians have simply focussed on the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus and the promotion of marriage, this interpretation also considers the role of the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis. For example, the prohibition of adultery would have directly contributed to an increase in the legitimate birth and marriage rate.
112 Hopkins, and Burton, 1983a, 78. 113 Hahn and Leunissen 1990, 81. 114 Hahn and Leunissen 1990, 62. 115 Hahn and Leunissen 1990, 72. 116 Brunt 1971, 136.
117 See Hin 2013, 206.
118 McGinn 1991, 338 argues that the moral legislation actually increased the use of concubines, but children
born as a result of such unions were not regarded as legitimate.
24
This concern with the legitimate birth-rate of the elite is evident from a closer reading of Cassius Dio’s 9 CE speech.120 Augustus scathingly challenges the assembled equestrians
that ‘there is none among you who either sleeps or eats alone’ and this is a clear reference to the prevalence of illicit relationships.121 The men also ‘refuse[d] to beget children even in
lawful wedlock’ and this implies that they all had fathered illegitimate children.122 Thus, the
speech indicates that Dio was aware of the legislation’s focus on the problem of children born outside of equestrian marriages. Although the scale of the problem is unclear, it was clearly a matter of concern for contemporaries. For example, in Ode 4.5, Horace celebrates ‘mothers having similar children.’123 The piece was composed during Augustus’ reign, and illustrates
that this effect was perceived as one of the most significant benefits of the Augustus’ rule, and the moral reforms.
Economic
The difficulty in determining accurate statistics concerning the Roman population, means that many historians remain unconvinced of the validity of the demographic argument. As such, it has instead been argued that the Lex Julia et Papia was designed to have a specific economic effect. This section will consider the main economic interpretations, and these can be split into two distinct sub-sections. Tacitus explicitly states that the legislation was motivated by the need to boost the income of the treasury, and so the validity of this argument will be examined first. The second half of this section will then consider the argument that the laws were designed to have a specific economic effect on the elite whom they targeted. Indeed, Wallace- Hadrill argues that the sanctions and rewards in the Lex Julia et Papia
overwhelmingly related to inheritance rights, and this suggests that they were part of a wider policy to control who met the economic threshold for membership of the elite. Traditionally, ancient historians have been scathing of any economic interpretation of the legislation. For example, Field argued that economic interpretations were driven by the fact that ‘a suit over a bequest is always more interesting than a rising birth rate.’124 However, this ignores the real
merits of such an approach.
120 Hin 2013, 207 argues that, whilst the speech which he attributes to Augustus cannot be considered as a
verbatim account, it nonetheless represented key contemporary beliefs.
121 Cass. Dio 56.7.1. 122 Cass. Dio 56.5.5. 123 Hor. Carm. 4.5.11. 124 Field 1945, 415.
25
The ancient commentators emphasise the economic motivations of moral reforms, and so this is a claim that must be seriously examined. Tacitus is typically cynical of the purpose of the Lex Papia Poppaea:
This had been organised by Augustus in his later years, as a supplement to the Julia legislation, to tighten the sanctions against celibacy, and to increase revenue. 125
The Lex Papia Poppaea strengthened both the sanctions and rewards of the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus and the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, and the potential increase in revenue was perceived as a key motive. According to Tacitus, this had serious consequences during Augustus’ reign:
There were spies, encouraged by inducements from the Papian-Poppaean law, under which failure to earn the advantages of parenthood meant loss of property to the State as universal parent. 126
This is a direct attack on the delatores, whom Tacitus regarded as an abhorrent side effect of the legislation. He highlights the substantial revenue which they produced by alerting the state to violators of the laws. The very fact that so many were menaced by informers suggests that there were a large number of citizens who were in danger of having to forfeit their
property. Wallace-Hadrill expands upon this, and is ‘confident’ that the state increased its revenue as a direct result of the Lex Julia et Papia.127
Hopkins and Burton have expanded upon this point, and link the moral reforms to the 5% tax on bequests which Augustus introduced in 6 CE. Whilst this did not officially form part of the Lex Julia et Papia, the tax only applied to bequests to persons unrelated to the deceased, and this reflects the sanctions on inheritances which the moral reforms imposed. As such, the moral reforms can be interpreted as part of Augustus’ wider economic strategy.128
By taxing inheritances, Augustus betrayed his interest in them as an important source of imperial revenue. These taxes and penalties were the most damaging to senators such as Tacitus who had significant wealth to lose. As such, his interpretation of the moral reforms reflects his personal perception and concerns. One must be careful not to overstate these economic motives, as it is impossible to quantify the money raised. Indeed, the control of
125 Tac. Ann. 3.25. 126 Tac. Ann. 3.28.
127 Wallace-Hadrill 2009, 270. 128 Hopkins 1983, 243.
26
property and increase in imperial revenue cannot be regarded as the sole aim of the laws, but rather a desirable by product of a complex legislative programme.
Wallace-Hadrill also analyses the rise of informers, but argues that they indicate that the legislation had a different economic purpose. Delatores could receive a proportion of the property that the state gained from their information, and so the wealthy elite were the most attractive targets.129 Whilst Tacitus and Wallace-Hadrill both suggest that the laws had an
economic purpose, Wallace-Hadrill argues that they were designed to regulate the finances of elite families, rather than the state treasury. The complex system of economic rewards and sanctions clearly illustrates that the laws were aimed at the propertied upper classes, whom they could most affect.130As Chapter One highlighted, the sanctions restricted the inheritance
rights of Romans according to the amount of children they had. Wallace-Hadrill argues that the moral reforms were introduced to stabilise the transmission of status and property
amongst the upper class, and so reinforce the elite social order.131 Crucially, he suggests that
encouraging marriage and childbearing ensured that property was inherited in a predictable manner, and so stabilised the relative status of elite families.
Moreover, Wallace-Hadrill precisely analyses the content of the legislation, and suggests that the promotion of three as the ideal number of children for senators was specifically designed to ensure that they had a single heir to inherit. Within Roman Italy, it was common practise for inheritances to be divided equally amongst remaining children, and so this increased the risk of splitting estates.132 He argues that there was, statistically, a 1/3
chance that any child would die, and so three children gave the best chance of a single one surviving. Despite having similar mortality rates, freedmen were required to have more children before they gained any benefits, as anything less than three children meant that they would forfeit some of their estate. Wallace-Hadrill argues that the number was calculated to make it difficult for the children of freedmen to inherit enough wealth to qualify for entrance to the equestrian or senatorial orders.133 Thus, the moral reforms were designed to ensure the
stability of the traditional elite members, and prevent freedmen from joining. In their earlier work, Hopkins and Burton suggested that an average of five or six children births per family were required to ensure population stability, and this corroborates Wallace-Hadrill’s
129 Wallace-Hadrill 2009, 253. 130 Wallace-Hadrill 2009, 250. 131 Wallace-Hadrill 2009, 253 132 Hopkins, and Burton, 1983a, 43. 133 Wallace-Hadrill 2009, 256.
27
suggestion that three would result in their being only one heir. Indeed, these statistics further undermine the argument that Augustus was attempting to enact any real increase in the size of the Roman population.134 Nevertheless, Brunt argues that figure was actually
‘discouragingly high’ target, and so these figures were contentious.135
Whilst Wallace-Hadrill’s hypothesis offers an invaluable perspective on Augustus’ reforms, his argument is undermined by its reliance on such tenuous data. The statistical data required to determine the exact mortality rate of the Roman Republic and Principate simply does not exist, and so it is difficult to establish whether the figure was higher or lower than average. Indeed, the claim that Roman legislation was enacted on the basis of an analysis of child mortality statistics is unconvincing as they did not exist. Wallace-Hadrill credits Augustus with a level of precision planning which was not characteristic of Roman law. Indeed, Treggiari illustrates the fundamental inconsistencies within the legislation, and cannot be reconciled with Wallace-Hadrill’s argument. He does concede that the legislation may not have been the result of any ‘cool calculation’ but this is not a strong enough
refutation.136 Nevertheless, Wallace- Hadrill’s interpretation illustrates the necessity of
integrating an economic perspective into the analysis of the legislation. Whilst the legislation is too complex to have been solely aimed at economic manipulation or gains, Wallace-Hadrill demonstrates the importance of applying an analysis that is not solely based on the
interpretations of the contemporary narrative sources. Ideological
As it has been proven that the demographic and economic motives are not sufficient to explain the purpose of the legislation, ancient historians have increasingly argued that their purpose was ideological. However, there is a debate concerning the focus of this ideology, and so this section will be loosely split into three. The first to be examined is the argument that the laws were designed to support the ideology of Augustus as Princeps, and his rule of the wider Roman population. Next, the section will analyse the suggestion that the ideology promoted by the legislation was designed to enhance the perception of the entire Roman state, and directed at the territories which they conquered. Lastly, the section will consider the suggestion that the ideology was in fact aimed at the supporting the Roman class structure, and the supremacy of the senate as the social and political elite.
134 Hopkins, and Burton, 1983a, 95. 135 Brunt 1971, 563.
