The African Emperor?The Origins, Career and Rise to Power of Septimius Severus

By

Richard Cawley

A dissertation submitted to the University of Wales in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Master of Arts in Ancient History.

Department of ClassicsUniversity of Wales Lampeter

1

Dr. David ShotterTeacher and Friend

2

AbstractSeptimius Severus, Roman emperor from 193 to 211CE, is one of the most important and yet

misunderstood figures of ancient times. This is partly due to his complex personality, partly to

the nature of the evidence and partly to his African heritage. These factors have deeply affected

the historical record since antiquity; subsequent treatments of the emperor have either overplayed

or under valued the significance of Africa, resulting in a serious dislocation of Septimius from

his proper historical context. As such, this dissertation argues that it is only by accounting for

these essential aspects that an accurate contextual framework can be constructed.

It is the avowed aim of this dissertation to redress these faults by examining the African

background of Septimius, and what that meant to him before and during his bid for the throne.

This paper attempts to tackle this important question through three distinct, though inter-related

approaches. The first chapter addresses the question of Septimius’ actual origins and seeks to

explore the relationship of his family to Lepcis, his home city, and Lepcis’ relationship with

Rome. Chapter two extends the scope of discussion by examining Septimius’ senatorial career.

Particular attention is paid to the nature of provincial African society and its impact upon

Septimius’ career progress.

In the third chapter, Septimius’ part in the overthrow of Commodus is assessed. Focus is then

given to Septimius’ own rise to power, as well as the origins of his key supporters and its

significance. The conclusion attempts to draw these themes together and to assess their overall

importance.

3

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to gratefully record the assistance I have received in writing

this dissertation, from a number of different sources. Firstly, I would like to thank God for His

help, guidance and support. In what has, at times, been a trying task, it has been an immense

source of comfort to remember the words of the Quran: ‘Indeed, God is with the patient’.

Secondly, I would like to thank the Classics Department of the University of Wales Lampeter.

In particular, my studies at Lampeter were undertaken with the aid of a Classics Department

bursary. I would therefore like to show my appreciation to Professor Rosemary Wright, the

former Head of the Classics Department. I would also like to record my gratitude for the

assistance and support of Keith Hopwood, my supervisor. Without his help and his patience

especially, I would not have completed my studies. I would also like to thank a number of other

people, whose help has been invaluable and very much appreciated. In particular, Dr. Mahmud

Al-Meshhedani for the generous use of his excellent facilities, Adam Badi for his help with

proof-reading and Ismail Hacinebioglu for his excellent Turkish coffee, which saw me through

many a dark night. Last and by no means least, I would like to thank my wife, Irum Romesa

Cawley. Without her steadfast belief and gentle encouragement, I would undoubtedly have

given up.

Just as I am glad to record the help I have received, I am also keen to point out that I alone bear

the sole responsibility for any and all mistakes, whether of fact or interpretation. In writing this

dissertation I have tried to convey to the reader my own deep interest in the subject. If I have

succeeded in this aim then I will be satisfied that my work has been of some use. In spite of this,

I am sure that many errors have escaped detection; I hope the reader will generously overlook

them. With this in mind, I would like to close with the words of an anonymous judge from

twelfth century Syria:

‘Never have I met an author who is not ready to proclaim on the morrow of publishing his book, “O, had I expressed this differently, how much better it would have been! Had this been moved forward, it would have read better and had that been omitted it would have certainly been preferable”. In such experience there is indeed a great lesson; it provides full evidence that defect characterises all the works of man’.

4

5

Abbreviations

In order to avoid repetition a number of special abbreviations have been used in this dissertation. All other abbreviations follow standard conventions.

Alfoldy, Senat Alfoldy, G. (1968), Septimius Severus und der Senat, Bonner Jahrbucher168, pp.112-160.

Barbieri, Albo Barbieri, G. (1952), L’Albo Senatorio Da Settimio Severo a Carino (193-285), Rome: Antonia Signorelli

BMC Mattingly, H. (1975, 2nd Edition, prepared by Carson, R.A.G. & Hill, P.V.), Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, London: British Museum Publications.

Birley, Coup Birley, A.R. (1969), ‘The Coups d’Etat of the Year 193’, Bonner Jahrbucher 169, pp.248-280.

Birley, Septimius Birley, A.R. (1999, Revised Edition), Septimius Severus. The African Emperor, London: Routledge.

Leunissen, Konsuln Leunissen, P.M.M. (1989), Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander (180-235 n.Chr.), Amsterdam

Libya Di Vita, et al (1999), Libya: The Lost Cities of the Roman Empire, Cologne: Konneman.

Thomasson, FA Thomasson, B.E. (1996), Fasti Africani, Stockholm: SevenskaInstitutet I Rom

Thomasson, LP Thomasson, B.E. (1984), Laterculi Praesidium, Gothenburg: Gothenburg UP.

Whittaker, Revolt Whittaker, C.R. (1964), ‘The Revolt of Papirius Dionysius A.D. 190’, Historia 13, pp.348-369.

6

ContentsAbstract 3Acknowledgements 4Abbreviations 5Stemma viii

Introduction 8

Chapter One: Lepcis Magna and the gens Septimia 17

Chapter Two: Septimius and the Cursus Honorum 42

Chapter Three: Septimius’ Rise to Power 70

Conclusion 100

Appendix: Statius and the gens Septimia 105

Bibliography 110

7

IntroductionSeptimius Severus, emperor of Rome from 193-211CE, was one of the most difficult and yet one

of the most intriguing men of antiquity. Today, some eighteen hundred years after his death, he

still excites strong emotions amongst students of ancient history, stimulating both intense regard

and intense animosity in almost equal measure.

The elusive figure behind the legend remains both complex and enigmatic. Born into one of

Roman Africa’s leading families, most probably in 145CE, he had a fairly ordinary senatorial

career before becoming part of a conspiracy to topple the emperor Commodus and, in the chaotic

period afterwards, he launched his own, ultimately successful, bid for power1. After defeating

two rival claimants in four years of civil war, Septimius became the undisputed ruler of the

Roman world in 197CE.

It is perhaps fitting that Septimius’ personality was similarly complex. Although he was a keen

student and stood in awe of the liberal arts, religion and history in particular, he removed books

of sacred lore from Egypt, closed the tomb of Alexander the Great and mutilated the famous

statue of Memnon2. He was also as capable of ruthless cruelty as of open-handed generosity.

Those who stood in his way were persecuted without mercy, whilst his close supporters were

treated with patient indulgence3. ‘Towards friends not forgetful, to enemies most oppressive’ is

Dio’s judgement (Dio 77(76). 16.1).

It is therefore no surprise to discover two distinct historical traditions, which ancient writers were

unable to reconcile fully4. The Historia Augusta remarks that:

1 Septimius’ date of birth is disputed. HA Sev. 1.3-4 states plainly that Septimius was born ‘six days before the Ides of April, in the first consulship of Severus and the second of Erucius Clarus’ (HA Sev. 1.3-4); that is, on 8 th April 146. Elsewhere, a number of conflicting dates are given. Towards the end of the vita (HA Sev.22.1), the author contradicts himself, stating that Septimius died at the age of eighty-nine. The same claim is repeated in the largely fictitious Life of Pescennius Niger ( HA Nig.5.1). Although these fantastic claims do not definitively refute a date of birth in 146CE, they do seriously wound the author’s credibility as a truthful witness. Dio, in his summation of the reign, disagrees somewhat; he states that Septimius was sixty-five years, nine months and twenty-five days old when he died on 4 th February 211CE (Dio 76 (77). 15.2, 17.4). According to Dio’s calculation therefore, Septimius was born on 11th April 145CE. See Birley (1970), p.65; Septimius, App. 2 no. 27; Syme (1971b), 42; Barton (1972), 71. Cf. Platnauer (1918), 38; Hammond (1940), p.139; Magie (1960), 371, who all argue for 146CE.2 HA Sev 17.3-4; Dio 76.13.1-2. 3 Alfoldy Senat, p.122. 4 See Herodian’s account of Septimius’ march on Rome (2.9.9-14.3) which is full of the author’s admiration for the emperor. For his accusations of duplicity see 2.9.13 and 2.14.3-4, amongst others.

8

‘the senate declared that Severus either should never have been born at all or never should have died, because on the one hand, he had proved too cruel, and on the other, too useful to the state’(HA Sev. 18.7-8).

Modern writers, deeply affected by this dichotomy, have been equally attracted and repelled by

the character of Septimius. To Gibbon, he was a tireless and able ruler and yet fatally flawed; he

was inherently deceitful, had a ‘dark and jealous temper’ and was ultimately the ‘principal author

of the decline of the Roman Empire’5. This harsh verdict sprang largely from Gibbon’s own

unconscious acceptance of ancient stereotypes. Africans, the descendants of Hannibal, were

innately unfaithful and could not therefore be trusted; an African emperor would therefore

possess these qualities in larger measure. Miller, writing in the early twentieth century, is

characterised by many similar ideas. He praises his ‘realism unembarrassed by historical

sympathies or scruples’ whilst elsewhere, he remarks that ‘To such a man the Roman tradition

was alien’6. Miller felt that Septimius’ unsubtle approach to government sprang directly from his

Punic background. He describes the period as a kind of Carthaginian revenge, Septimius being a

‘New Hannibal on the throne of the Caesars’7.

Later writers, conscious of this failing, sought to bring Septimius within the Greco-Roman fold.

Where before he had been the archetypal other, he now became the ‘Roman Bureaucrat’8. This

re-evaluation was given further impetus by the growth of epigraphic studies. The increasingly

sophisticated analyses of senatorial career patterns demonstrated that Septimius’ own progress

stood firmly within the traditional framework of patronage. This process reached its logical

conclusion with the attempt of one scholar to argue that Septimius was, in fact, from a family of

Italian émigrés9.

Despite these advances, intense debate regarding Septimius’ heritage, and its ultimate

significance, continues10. As we have seen, this is due in part to our own historical prejudices. It

5 Gibbon (Womersley ed. 1994), 140, 148, 150.6 Miller (1939) 24.7 Miller, op. cit., 26. See also, Platnaeur (1918), 38; Graham (1902), 75-80.8 The title of Hammond (1940), pp.137-174.9 Barnes (1967), pp.97-104. 10 Birley Septimius, App. 2.

9

is in large measure also due to the ambiguous nature of the evidence itself. Septimius is clearly

connected with Africa in the literature of the period, whilst his own imperial propaganda

(largely, but not restricted to, the coinage and inscriptions) makes frequent mention of his home

city and province. In spite of many tantalising remarks, there are few unequivocal statements of

the emperor’s true allegiances. To use one particularly clear example, the Historia Augusta

remarks enigmatically that the Septizonium was built in the capital so as to ‘…strike the eyes of

those who came to Rome from Africa’ (SHA Severus 24.3). Does this mean, as some have

thought, that Septimius was thereby somehow rewarding his fellow compatriots with a

monument in their honour in the capital, or does it merely reflect what our sources believed his

motives to be? Also, as this is an isolated reference, in an ambiguous source, we may even

justifiably question its veracity. In any case, the complexity of the relationship between

Septimius and Africa is made clear. By any measure therefore, Africa plays a key role in

understanding Septimius and his era, which any informed discussion must address.

During the initial research for this dissertation it soon became apparent that the key to the larger

question lay within Septimius’ relationships with his senatorial peers. The central question of

the place of Africa and Africans under Septimius can only be addressed by first examining his

route to power. Before any attempt to study the character of Septimius’ principate can be

undertaken, it is necessary to examine the pillars upon which his reign was based. In other

words, we must acquaint ourselves fully with those responsible for helping Septimius into

power.

Given the range and intended scope of this paper, it is not the objective here to undertake an

exhaustive biographical study. Rather, focus will be given to three particularly significant

aspects, which it is hoped, will shed valuable light on the wider question. Thus in Chapter One,

we will explore the connections of Septimius and his family to their apparent home city. We will

examine the historical development of Lepcis and look closely at the impact of Roman rule upon

native traditions. We will then take a detailed look at the origins of Septimius’ family (the gens

Septimii). This will necessitate an in-depth examination of the relationship between individual

members and will involve recourse to much epigraphic and prosopographical evidence, though

with due recognition of the limits of such techniques.

10

In the second chapter, focus will be given to the development of Septimius’ earlier career, from

his first official post in the mid-160s CE up to his first provincial command in Gaul in 188CE.

We will examine his rise through the ranks chronologically, and attempt to isolate significant

episodes where his connections with the wider Roman world become clear. The second chapter

will also attempt to discuss the principal features of Romano-African society, its concerns and

preoccupations. Although due consideration will be given to the constraints of space, such an

analysis is vital; before we can properly understand the impact of Africa and Africans on Rome

and Septimius, we must first understand Rome’s effect on Africa.

In the third chapter, the present study will conclude with an examination of Septimius’ later

career, from 189CE until the defeat of his last rival Clodius Albinus in 197CE. In an influential

article, Birley has argued that an emerging African faction, which had its ultimate victory with

Septimius’ own accession, orchestrated the key events of this latter period. To test this theory, a

step-by-step examination of the significant events and principal characters will be necessary.

Before we can begin, we must pause for a moment and examine our source material. Despite

some significant gaps, the literary, epigraphic, numismatic and archaeological record for the

Severan period is relatively full. Given this, it is expedient that we look at them in greater detail.

Arguably the most accurate source for the Severan period is the Roman History of the senator

Dio Cassius Cocceianus. Born at Bithynian Nicaea to a wealthy senatorial family, most probably

in 163-164CE, Dio was ‘…the only man who knew Severus personally and left a judgement of

him to posterity’11. Dio’s career, which saw consulships in c.204 and 229, though not

outstanding, brought him into contact with the emperor and many of the period’s chief figures12.

For the Severan era itself, Dio’s work is only extant in two late epitomes, which despite some

faults are remarkably close to the original where it is possible to check13. 11 L. Cassius Dio Cocceianus, henceforth Dio, seems to have been from a senatorial family first appearing in the Julio-Claudian period. He may also have been related to the famous second century rhetorician Dio of Prusa. The evidence is presented by Millar (1964), 9-11; Syme (1971d), pp.135-145; PIR 2 C492.12 For Dio’s career see Millar, op. cit., 15-24; Syme, ibid. Dio first rose to prominence during Septimius’ early years, when he wrote a pamphlet on the ‘dreams and portents which gave Severus reason to hope for the imperial power’ (73 (74) .23.1-2).13 The History, which seems to have originally contained eighty books, has only partially survived. Books 36 to 54 (from 68 to 10BCE) have survived in their substantially original form. Books 55-60 (from 9BCE-46CE) survive in sizeable fragments. Scraps of books 79-80 (from the death of Caracalla to midway through the reign of Elagabalus) are also extant. Two epitomes of

11

Despite a tendency to wander, Dio’s work is generally reliable. Firstly, as we have seen, he

knew the emperor personally. Secondly, as a senator, Dio was present himself during certain key

episodes14. As a senior consular, Dio also had access to senatorial archives15. Moreover, despite

some examples of gross sycophancy, his overall view of Septimius remains remarkably

balanced16. Finally, notwithstanding a certain chronological weakness and a penchant for

archaisms, Dio’s work is a substantially trustworthy account of the Severan period.

The work of the Greek writer Herodian forms our second major written source. Like Dio,

Herodian was Septimius’ contemporary. However, unlike Dio, Herodian is an altogether more

shadowy figure. Little is known about him for certain. It is possible that he lived between

approximately 180 and 238CE, it is also possible that he was a junior senator17. His work is

divided into 7 books and chronological precision is not a strong point18. He is somewhat naïve,

literary style frequently takes precedence over accuracy and the distortion of events to fit

rhetorical devices is common19. Herodian is sometimes guilty of basic errors and occasionally he

omits significant material20. Yet despite these faults, he does supply us with some otherwise

unknown information and seems to have been genuinely interested in his subject21.

The collection of imperial biographies, known today as the Historia Augusta, forms the period’s

third major literary source. The Historia, which is arguably the most notorious historical work

of antiquity, claims to be the work of six authors writing under Diocletian and Constantine.

Dio’s work still survive, one written in the eleventh century by Xiphilinus of Trapezus (books 36-80) and another in the twelfth century by Ioannes Zonaras. See Millar, op. cit., 1-3.14 Such as the night on which Didius Julianus was acclaimed emperor, Dio 73.12.2-5. 15 See 77 (76). 16.4-5. 16 For enthusiastic passages, see 74.1.3-5; cf. HA Sev. 7.1-3; Her. 2.14.1. For criticisms, see 74.4.1-5; 74.5.6-7; 76.16.1-17; Millar, op. cit., 138-140.17 Whittaker (1969), x-xviii, xxxiii, suggests that Herodian may have been present in Rome during the last years of Commodus until 193CE, though this is uncertain.18 Rather than give firm dates, Herodian commonly uses phrases such as ‘for a few years…’ (1.8.1), and ‘soon after this…’ (1.9.7; 1.10.1). Reference to events occurring ‘after one or two days…’ (2.6.3), and ‘after one or two days…on the third day…’ (7.4.6; 7.8.9) should therefore be treated with caution: Whittaker, op. cit., xxxix-xl.19 Naiveté: Her. 4.11.9. Style: 2.9.3.20 At 1.9.1 he neglects to mention the presence of Ulpius Marcellus in Britain, whilst in 2.2.10 he seemingly forgets to refer to Pertinax’ vital donative to the Praetorian Guard. More seriously, however, he fails to mention Severus’ second Parthian war, which he undoubtedly knew about (see 3.5.1ff). Although generally in awe of Septimius’ military achievements, he fails to record the formation of the new provinces of Numidia and Mesopotamia (3.10.1-3; 3.7.7-8).21 Commodus’ presence in the north during his father’s northern wars is only recorded by Herodian (1.5.3), as is Niger’s alliance with foreign kings (3.1.2-3). See Whittaker, op. cit., xlii; lii-liii

12

Current scholarly consensus rejects this however, and holds a single author responsible, most

probably writing under Theodosius22.

Despite this apparent agreement, intense debate regarding the work’s likely sources and the

relative strengths and weaknesses of individual lives continues. Although an in-depth discussion

of these important problems is well beyond the scope of this short introduction, a few relevant

points can be made. The vita Severi is of most relevance to the present study. Although

generally accurate, there is much invention, archaism and outright fabrication, as well as serious

dislocation of events. Also, the later stages of the vita are compressed into a virtual summary,

the author becoming bored with ‘minor details’ (HA Sev. 17.5)23. The other relevant lives are of

varying quality. The lives from Antoninus Pius through to Didius Julianus are of generally good

quality, with much otherwise unknown material. The lives of Septimius’ challengers Clodius

Albinus and Pescennius Niger, and other more ephemeral figures, are virtual fictions24. Scholars,

long aware of a qualitative difference in the earlier lives, have argued that the editor of the

Historia made use of a number of older literary sources25. Syme argues that the basic source of

the earlier lives was Ignotus, an unattested and otherwise unknown author, ending his account

during the reign of Caracalla26.

Our other literary sources may be summed up briefly. The Church Father Tertullian makes a few

references to the state of Africa and Christianity under Septimius27. Given Septimius’ penchant

for legal matters, rescripts (imperial replies to legal petitions) are understandably plentiful28. The

‘uneven and at times incongruous’ De Caesaribus of Aurelius Victor, most probably written

around 358CE, devotes a fair amount of space to Septimius. Apart from some anecdotal

references to the emperor’s thirst for learning, it is mostly erroneous29. Eutropius’ Breviarium,

written at much the same time, is of much the same quality and is described by Jones as ‘an

22 See Syme (1971a), pp.1-16.23 In HA Sev. 20.2, Caracalla is said to be Severus’ son by his first wife. This is contradicted at 3.9 and 4.2 where Caracalla’s correct parentage is given. Between HA Sev. 14.11-16.7, the author loses his way during the second Parthian war in 198CE; a long interpolation, datable to 203CE, then appears, followed almost as suddenly by a return to 198CE. See Birley Septimius, 206; Magie (1960), 403-405; Syme (1971b), pp.30-53; Syme (1971d), pp.135-145. 24 See Magie, op. cit., xii-xxxiv; Syme (1971b), pp.30-31.25 See Birley Septimius, 206-207 for a summary. 26 Syme (1971b), pp.51-52; largely followed by Leaning (1989), pp.548-565.27 Glover (1966), 120-125. 28 See Honore (1962), pp.-162-232.29 Bird (1994), xii-xiv; xv. Victor makes the false claim that Severus was responsible for building Hadrian’s Wall: De Caes. 20.

13

elegant summary for gentlemen who had not the patience to plough through Livy’30. The

scattered and confused references found in other such late writers need not delay us here31.

Inscriptions form the second major source of evidence. African cities, which had their own

traditions of inscribing records on stone, swiftly adopted the Roman ‘epigraphic habit’, to judge

from the region’s approximately 40,000 extant Latin inscriptions. Septimius’ home city of

Lepcis has a wealth of such inscriptions. These documents are vital in a number of ways.

Firstly, the languages inscribed on these monuments are an important indication of social

change. The survival of Punic and Libyan inscriptions helps reveal the complexity of

Tripolitanian culture. Latin inscriptions, and their social and spatial contexts, illustrate the width

and depth of Romanisation in Lepcis. As will become clear in Chapter one, such information is

vital in assessing Septimius’ early life.

Inscriptions from elsewhere in the empire are also important to this study. These documents

record vital information about the origins, careers and outlooks of the imperial aristocracy. They

can also illustrate the connections between individuals and groups. For instance, the Septimii are

recorded on a number of inscriptions that help us to reconstruct, with some degree of accuracy,

the family’s relationships with Lepcis and the wider empire32. Inscriptions can also help reveal

developing trends. Thus the social, administrative, political and military changes of the Severan

era are all illuminated by epigraphic material. There are however, some significant drawbacks,

which are worth noting. The primary disadvantage of epigraphic evidence is its selectivity. In

general, only especially noteworthy events are recorded, which means that much of the day-to-

day information, of the type vital to modern historians, is missing. Secondly, the survival of

inscriptions is based entirely upon random factors. This makes statistical analyses especially

difficult. Thirdly, inscriptions rarely allow access to the mentalities of the ancient world. As

Wallace-Hadrill points out, ‘Inscriptions only divulge formalities, not the background of

patronage and intrigue that in practice made a career’33.

30 Jones (1973), 1010. The Breviarium was probably written during Eutropius’ spare time. The work is full of erroneous and legendary material; Brev. 20 states that Caracalla married his mother Julia. See Bird (1993), vii-lvii.31 See Birley Septimius, 207. 32 See Barton (1977), pp.1-13. 33 Wallace-Hadrill, op. cit., 6.

14

The Roman coinage is another meaningful source of information. Successive emperors used the

coinage as a means of disseminating official propaganda. The use of subtle and richly symbolic

imagery helped the imperial government to highlight specific themes; coin issues could

emphasise an emperor’s strength, mercy or religious beliefs.

Septimius’ manipulation of the coinage was particularly adept. For example, the literary sources

indicate that Septimius declared before the senate that he would take Pertinax as a role model34.

Thereafter, virtually his entire coinage makes reference to his apparent mentor. The name

Pertinax is added to Septimius’ official nomenclature35. During mid-193, a special denarius

commemorating the consecration of Pertinax was issued36. An especially significant issue recalls

another important episode. Dio states that shortly before Pertinax’ death, Septimius dreamt that

a horse threw Pertinax from the saddle, which was then given to him37. This dream, widely

publicised as an omen, was made reality in 201 when an equestrian statue was set up in the

forum. A sestertius issued shortly afterwards bears a depiction of this statue, with the legend

SEVERVS PIVS AVG and OPTIMO PRINC SPQR TR P VIII SC (Figure 13)38. Other issues

publicise Septimius’ religious piety towards Lepcis’ ancestral deities, Liber Pater and Bacchus,

and his dedication of a temple at Rome to Eshmun, whilst others still honour his home province

of Africa39.

It is important to bear in mind however, that the coinage has its own peculiar drawbacks. Firstly,

coins need not always reflect the actual will of the emperor under whom they were minted; some

are better understood as a kind of bureaucratic ‘default setting’. Secondly, there is a limit to the

amount of information that even the most tantalising coin can reveal. Issues honouring Africa do

not by themselves disclose Septimius’ true feelings. Despite these drawbacks, this study will

make repeated recourse to numismatic material where appropriate.

34 Her. 2.14.3. 35 The name Pertinax is found on virtually all Severan coinage. See BMC V, 21-25 for a few examples of this otherwise ubiquitous issue.36 BMC V, 25, nos. 36 & 37, pl.6.6 & 6.7. The obverse legend reads DIVVS PERT PIVS PATER. The reverse shows an eagle standing upon a globe with the legend CONSEC[RAT]IO.37 Dio 74 (75). 3.2-3. 38 BMC V, 624, no.801a; Hill (1977), 24 no.802; Hill (1989), 68 n.141.39 See Hill (1977), nos. 64a, 84, 102, 280, 285, 300, 303, for Liber Pater and Bacchus. The temple of Eshmun is referred to in Hill, op. cit., nos. 890-892; Hill (1989), 31. For Severan coins referring to Africa, see Hill (1977), nos. 69, 94, 110, 875, 914.

15

Archaeological evidence forms another useful body of information. There are two distinct types

of archaeological data relevant to the present study. Firstly, there are the material remains of

Tripolitania, Septimius’ birthplace. The wealth of the region’s native culture is a significant

factor in determining its cultural allegiances. Hence it is an essential part of illustrating the

environment in which Septimius spent his formative years. Fortunately, Tripolitania has been

increasingly surveyed in recent years, its fascinating economic, social and military history are

now being increasingly brought to light40. Secondly, archaeology is an extremely useful means

of assessing Septimius’ own building programmes, and the ideological content within them.

Two of his projects are of special relevance. The complete refurbishment of Lepcis under

Septimius reveals a mass of vital data, especially in how the emperor wanted to be publicly

perceived41. The remains of Severan building work at Rome and elsewhere form another

category, of which the remains of his Triumphal Arch at Rome is the most important example.

In any case, the part to be played by archaeological research in this study is made clear.

This introductory chapter has attempted to explore the current fascination with Septimius and his

era. The principal factor behind Septimius’ appeal has been shown to be his provincial origin.

The ambiguity and debate surrounding his apparent African heritage has in many ways made him

the archetypal example of historical uncertainty and scholarly misconception. It is with these

ideas in mind that our true examination of the emperor’s background can begin.

40 Mattingly & Hitchner (1995), pp.165-213. 41 See Ward-Perkins (1993), passim.

16

Chapter One: Lepcis Magna and the Gens Septimia.

Ancient writers perceived a deep connection between Septimius and Africa. Herodian calls him

a ‘Libyan’ (2.9.2-3), whilst later writers, such as Victor and the author of the Historia Augusta,

all make him a native of Lepcis42. John Malalas, in his sixth century chronicle, interestingly

describes the emperor as a man of medium height, with ‘dark skin’ (12.19). Although this is

almost certainly wrong, it shows the continuing strength of the connection, some three hundred

years after his death43.

In this chapter, we shall examine this association for ourselves by attempting to assess where

exactly the emperor’s roots lay. Before however, we can look at the origins of the gens Septimia,

we need to place our discussion in its proper context by tracing briefly the history of their native

city and its relationship with Rome.

Septimius seems to have been born in 145CE, at Lepcis Magna, then the largest city of

Tripolitania44. Geographically, the ruins of Lepcis lie along the Syrtic coast of Libya, at the

mouth of the Wadi Lebdah, toward the eastern end of the Gefara plain. The city seems to have

been founded during the mid-seventh century BCE by Phoenician settlers, whilst its near

neighbours, Sabratha and Oea, were probably established a little later, during the sixth and fifth

centuries respectively45. However, the original names of all three cities are Libyan in form rather

than Punic, which suggests the possibility of some kind of older native settlement46. Despite this,

the earliest archaeologically attested settlement at Lepcis seems to have been under the later

Forum Vetus, although later on a new site was established on an island in the harbour (called

Neapolis)47.

42 Victor De Caes. 20.19; HA Sev. 1.2; Eutropius Brev. 8.18; Ausonius Opus 14.21.3-4.43 Malalas’ usefulness for the Severan era is limited. He is at the mercy of faulty sources and is himself often guilty of basic errors. In any case, Dio (77.16.1) contradicts Malalas’ physical description of Septimius. See Jeffreys (1990), 167-216; Croke (1990), pp.1-26. In the Berlin tondo, a small colour cameo, the emperor is shown standing with his wife and sons. Although he is noticeably darker than his ‘pale’ family, this reflects a convention of ancient portraiture, in which a dark male contrasts a pale female. For examples, see Hanfmann (1964), pl. XVIII-XX, pl. XXIX, pl. XLII-XLIII, pl. XLVIII; Rozenberg (1993), 129, pl. 61; Grant (1975), 33-36, 52-53, and 144-145.44 Ancient Lepcis probably covered some 7,000 sq. km.: Barton (1995), pp.7-9; cf. Mattingly (1995), 143. 45 Mattingly, op. cit., 116; MacKendrick (1980), 143.46 Birley Septimius, 3.47 Mattingly, op. cit., 117; Jones (1989), pp.92-95.

17

Figure 1: Lepcis.

Notwithstanding its adequate harbour facilities, it was the city’s agricultural and economic

potential that quickly established it as the region’s premier urban centre. This potential was

based upon a fortunate combination of climatic and geographic factors, which meant that the

city’s territory covered some of Tripolitania’s most fertile and well-weathered land48. As such, it

attracted the glowing praise of Herodotus, who remarked that the nearby River Cinyps (the

modern Wadi el-Caam valley) was:

‘…equal to any country in the world for cereal crops and is nothing like the rest of Libya. The soil here is black and springs of water abound so that there is no fear of drought and heavy rains – for it rains in that part of Libya – do no harm when they soak the ground. The returns of the harvest come up to the Babylonian measures…the Cinyps region yields three hundred fold’ (Herodotus, 4.198).

With the aid of artificial irrigation techniques, Lepcis could both feed itself and generate a

reasonable grain surplus. It also seems to have had a good source of timber in the nearby Gebel

Msellata region49. In addition, the city was the focus of an ancient trans-Saharan trade route,

which made it a small, yet important, market for gold, slaves and exotic animals from West

48 Sjöström (1993), 4-16; Mattingly, op. cit., 8-9, 24-26.49 Hdt. 4.175.

18

Africa50. However, the city’s most important asset was the olive. The olive tree, which can

survive in arid areas with little attention, was ideally suited to local conditions. In a good year

the city could produce vast quantities of oil for domestic use and export, which created

substantial revenue51. It is not, therefore, surprising that Lepcis’ Carthaginian over-lords were

able to extract one talent per day in tribute, whilst Caesar could later impose the enormous fine

of three million pounds of olive oil per year52.

Given this wealth, the city was an attractive target. Competition for control of the region’s

resources was fierce. Indeed, from its very beginnings, Lepcis had to use its wits to survive. Not

only did it have to contend with its ambitious neighbours and local tribes, it also had to defend

itself from outside attack. During the late sixth century, a Spartan adventurer named Doreius

founded a strong rival base at the mouth of the Wadi el-Caam. It took an uneasy alliance of

Carthaginians, Macae and other Libyans to dislodge Doreius from his camp53.

When Lepcis next appears in the historical record, it was again fighting off the unwanted

attentions of outsiders. The Roman destruction of Carthaginian supremacy, during the third and

second centuries, created a regional power vacuum into which stepped the Roman-appointee

Massinissa. This powerful and dynamic Numidian king repeatedly attempted to wrest control of

the emporium from its former masters and by the 160s BCE had finally succeeded in establishing

some kind of suzerainty54. Despite his victory however, Lepcis seems to have enjoyed a large

measure of autonomy; soon afterwards it began to mint its own coinage55. This semi-

independence was possibly the result of a growing Roman interest in Africa, which sought to

exploit the county’s considerable natural resources. In any case, the half-century following the

final destruction of Carthage in 149BCE saw a government-inspired expansion of Italian

business interests throughout the province. It also saw the arrival of large numbers of Italian

50 Mattingly, op. cit., 155-157. The Saharan caravan route passed through Garama, ‘capital’ of the Garamantian tribe. See Daniels (1970), passim.51 Mattingly, op. cit., 143; Mattingly (1988), p.31; Barton, op. cit., p.7; Carandini (1983), p.151.52 Livy 34.62; Caesar BAfr.7, 9, 29,97; BC 38; Plutarch Caesar 55.53 Hdt. 5.42.54 Livy 29.33. See Birley Septimius, 4-7; Badian (1996), pp.799-800.55 Muller et al (1977), 70-75.

19

settlers, principally retired veterans, who were granted wide lands in the conquered territories

and formed into a number of coloniae, most notably at Carthage and Utica56.

Lepcis responded to the outbreak of the Jugurthine war in 112BCE by seeking a direct alliance

with Rome. The city’s ruling clique sought help against one Hamilcar, a renegade Lepcitane and

ally of Jugurtha, who had made several attempts to wrest control from them57. The emporium’s

strategic importance, as well as a hefty bribe, ensured Roman support; Lepcis became an allied

state and Roman troops arrived, suppressing the revolt. In return, the city was obliged to make

‘donations’ to the private funds of three successive consuls58.

The city’s active participation in Roman politics led to it becoming embroiled in the disastrous

civil war of the mid-first century. Shortly before the war, Lepcis was involved in a border

dispute with Juba I of Numidia. Significantly, a senatorial commission found in Lepcis’ favour.

Possibly influenced by this turn of events, Juba sided with Pompey and used the ensuing conflict

to seize control of the emporium, with the aid of a pro-Numidian party within the city itself. The

Republican victory over Curio at Utica confirmed Juba in his control, which led to the execution

of a number of Caesarian sympathisers. The tide turned against Juba however, with the death of

Pompey in Egypt in 48BCE. Despite regrouping under Cato at Lepcis, Republican forces in

Africa were overwhelmed by Caesar two years later59. Consequently, the city was fined an

enormous three million pounds of olive oil per year60.

56 The Italian business community at Cirta is a good example, as is Herennius, the Roman banker based at Lepcis in the early first century. The colony at Carthage, founded under the auspices of Gaius Gracchus, was soon abandoned. See Sallust BJ 20.2-3; 26.1-3; Cicero II Verr.1.14; 5.155f; Thompson (1969a), pp.132-181; Thompson (1969b), pp.235-249; Sherwin-White (1939), 172ff; Strabo Geog. 17.832-833.57 Sallust BJ 77.1-2.58 Sallust BJ 77.2-4. L. Calpurnius Bestia (cos. 111), Sp. Postumius Albinus (cos. 110) and Q. Caecilius Metellus (cos. 109). Broughton (1951), 540-545.59 See Caesar BC 2.37; BA 97. 60 Caesar BAfr.7, 9, 29, 97; BC 11, 38; Plutarch Caesar 55.

20

Figure 2: The Market of Annobal Tapapius Rufus

Despite this apparent setback, the region recovered rapidly under Augustus. Regardless of some

early campaigning in the Fezzan, Tripolitania was peacefully absorbed into the newly formed

province of Africa Proconsularis61. Lepcis’ evident wealth and ambition made it one of the

area’s principal cities. As such, its leading citizens began to adopt Roman customs and

architectural fashions. Thus in 8BCE, one Annobal Tapapius Rufus, whose name shows an

accurate understanding of Roman nomenclature, built a large new tholos-style market along the

Via Trionfale, in apparent imitation of the capital’s new macellum. A few years later, under the

proconsul Cn. Calpurnius Piso, a new Roman-style Forum was laid out62. A large new Theatre in

the city’s western district, paid for by Annobal, followed this in 2CE63.

Ten years later, his compatriot Iddibal built a temple to Venus and the spirit of Augustus (the

Chalcidicum), as well as paying for a college of fifteen attendant priests64. This was the first

61 Unusually, an ex-consul with military command governed Africa. Caligula removed this anomaly by restricting the proconsul to civilian affairs and granting the legate of III Augusta control over the entire southern border of Numidia. Wilson et al (1996), p.34. Conventional wisdom dates the foundation of Proconsularis to 27BCE. Shaw (1995b), 369-380, proposes the much earlier date of c.40-39BCE. L. Cornelius Balbus, proconsul in 20 BCE, fought several campaigns against the Garamantes and Gaetuli. Pliny NH 5.5.36; Vell. Pat. 2.51.3. Syme (1939), 80, 235, 325, 339, 367; Daniels (1987), 223-265; Daniels (1989), p.45.62 The Forum Vetus is dated by IRT520 to Piso’s proconsulship (5BCE – 2CE), Haynes, op. cit., 85-90.63 IRT 319; Libya, 56-69; Haynes, op. cit., 89-95; MacKendrick, op. cit., 148; Birley Septimius, 13-15. The Tapapii are one of the most important families in first century Lepcis.64 IRT 324; Libya, 70-75. The man’s full name was Iddibal Caphada Aemilius.

21

such temple in an allied treaty-state and, interestingly, its dedication recalls Venus Genetrix, the

patron deity of the Julian house65. During the last two years of Augustus’ life, Annobal made yet

another public donation, erecting a Temple to Rome and Augustus on the Northwest side of the

Forum66. Two other major forum temples may well have been constructed at around this time,

one dedicated to Liber Pater and the other to an as yet unknown deity67. Work also began on the

Carthage to Alexandria highway, with sizeable sections being laid out at nearby Oea and

Tacape68.

Figure 3: A Plan of the Theatre of Annobal Tapapius Rufus

The civic donations of the Tapapii have their counterparts in other cities of the empire. At

Pompeii, for example, the early Augustan period saw a very similar re-modelling. Like their

Lepcitane contemporaries, leading Pompeian families cemented their social position by

financing the construction of public buildings and amenities, as well as refurbishing existing

ones. Thus M. Holconius Celer and M. Holconius Rufus (who seems to have been a younger

brother) paid for a major renovation of Pompeii’s theatre, for which Rufus was called

‘benefactor of colony’69. Rufus also paid for restoration work on the temple of Apollo70 and

65 Libya, 75; Haynes, op. cit., 92-93. 66 IRT 321-323; Haynes, op. cit., 89-90.67 Haynes, op. cit., 88-89, 90.68 See AE 1952.232; 1905.177; Goodchild (1969), pp.155-171; Thomasson (1984), col. 373.69 Zanker (1998), 107-109; 79; Laurence (1994), 32-34. 70 Zanker, op. cit., 79-82.

22

interestingly, Eumachia, a female member of another notable family, paid for the construction of

an expensive Chalcidicum71.

During Tiberius’ reign, Tripolitania’s apparent tranquillity was broken by the revolt of

Tacfarinas, a former Roman auxiliary soldier. The dispute, which seems to have been caused by

interference with traditional migration routes, lasted for seven years before being brought under

control and involved the transfer of an entire legion from the Danube frontier72. Tacitus notes the

interest that Tacfarinas’ exotic looking Garamantian allies caused at Rome when they brought

news of their unconditional surrender73. Lepcis probably served as the campaign headquarters.

P. Cornelius Dolabella, the victorious general, placed a dedication to Victoria Augusta inside the

city’s Forum74.

Figure 4: The Chalcidicum at Lepcis

Under Claudius and Nero, the city’s public amenities were further expanded. In 45-46CE a large

statue-group was dedicated to Claudius and placed in the Forum75. Shortly afterwards, the

71 Zanker, op. cit., 93-102. 72 Tac. Ann.2.52; Whittaker (1978), pp.344-345; Whittaker (1983), pp.110-111.73 Tac. Ann.3.20-21, 73-74; 4.23-26.74 AE 1960, 107. 75 IRT 337, 339-340.

23

Forum itself was refurbished. The floor was completely re-paved in white limestone and a

colonnaded portico added in the Northwest corner. This expensive restoration was important

enough to be dedicated by the then proconsul, Pompeius Silvanus. The work was paid for by

G’y ben Hanno in honour of his grandson G’y. His adoptive grandson Ba’alyaton Qmd’ ben

M’qr supervised the project76. The grateful city responded by erecting a statue of G’y nearby77.

Under Nero, a new amphitheatre was added and the city’s vital harbour underwent major

renovation work78. Part of the new harbour complex was a large new portico, dedicated in 62CE

by the proconsul Orfitus and his legate Silius Celer and financed by Ithymbal Sabinus Tapapius,

the ‘curator of public money’79.

Figure 5: Lepcis City Centre

The conflict caused by Nero’s suicide allowed a territorial dispute between Lepcis and

neighbouring Oea to escalate into open war. Oea, taking full advantage of Rome’s distraction,

allied itself with the Garamantes and attacked Lepcis. After Vespasian’s victory at Cremona,

Valerius Festus led a punitive expedition against the tribesmen and quickly restored order80.

Rutilius Gallicus was sent to calm the situation further, as a specially appointed provincial

76 The work is recorded in a bilingual inscription. IRT 338 gives the Latin text and IPT 26 gives the Punic translation. G’y ben Hanno may be the brother of the sufes during whose term the Forum statue group was dedicated. See IPT 22; Libya, 76.77 IRT 615, here given the extra name Phelyssam.78 Libya, 80-83. 79 IRT 341, dedicated 10th Dec. 61 – 9th Dec. 62. The Punic text (IPT 23) honours Ithymbal’s aunt Arishut, the daughter of Yatonbaal ‘the builder’. For the harbour, see Libya, 80-83.80 Tacitus Hist. 4.50; Pliny NH 5.5.36-38; Barton (1995), p.7.

24

governor. Vespasian rewarded Lepcis’ loyalty in 78CE, granting it the ius Latii (‘or Latin

right’)81. This meant that all city officials automatically received Roman citizenship. Unusually

however, although the municipal priests (the mahazim) were called by their Latin equivalents

(aediles), its chief magistrates, the sufetes, remained distinctly African82. As such, the number of

Roman citizens dramatically increased. In response to this largesse, a new temple to

Cybele/Magna Mater was placed inside the Forum; Vespasian was honoured by the erection of a

triumphal arch at Lepcis, near the later Byzantine Gate83. The city also paid for a pair of

honorary statues of the proconsul and his wife to be erected in their home city of Turin84.

Figure 6: The Hadrianic Baths at Lepcis

Lepcitanes during the late first and early second centuries were affluent and upwardly mobile.

Thus under Domitian, one Septimius became part of the literary circle of Statius, an influential

court poet85. The city was sufficiently well connected to successfully convict a wealthy ex-

proconsul of Africa, Marius Priscus, of extortion and murder. The trial came to court in 100CE

and was deemed important enough for Trajan himself to attend. Lepcis hired the services of

81 Birley Septimius, 16.82 IRT 342, 346, 347; Sherwin-White, op. cit., 52f., 109f., 195ff. IRT 305 has IIIv[ir…] pot. IPT 30 gives mahazim. See also IPT 9.83 IRT 342. 84 CIL5.6990. Although only the statue to Gallicus’ wife survives, it seems to have been one of a pair. See IRT 300; Libya, 76, dedicated in 72CE.85 Statius Silvae 4 praef. 10.

25

several senior advocates, including Tacitus, the Younger Pliny and Ti Julius Ferox (cos.99)86.

Although the lost revenue was never returned, Trajan may well have felt that the city had been

harshly treated. This may explain why Lepcis’ first senator, ’ …]o Front[o]ni’, is recorded soon

afterwards87. In any case, during 109-110CE, Trajan granted Lepcis the singular honour of

becoming a Roman colony. It now became a fully Roman urban settlement, with the sufetes

being transformed into duumviri. Septimius’ eponymous grandfather served as its first duumvir.

The city was exempted from tribute and perhaps most significantly, all freeborn Lepcitanes

became Roman citizens88. In gratitude, the people of Lepcis dedicated a large quadrifons arch to

Trajan, close to the Market and Chalcidicum89.

The city’s growth continued under Hadrian with the construction in 119-120CE of an aqueduct,

which brought water into the city from the Wadi el-Caam. Q. Servius Candidus, a member of a

local family probably enfranchised under Claudius, paid for the work90. In 137CE an immense

new public baths was inaugurated. Placed cleverly on alluvial soil reclaimed from the Wadi

Lebdah, the Baths were monumental in scale and modelled on the imperial baths at Rome,

though with significant variations91. By the time of Antoninus Pius, Lepcis had become one of

Africa’s chief cities. Many of the city’s public monuments were re-faced with marble. Ti.

Plautius Lupus, a duumvir from an eminent senatorial family, seems to have paid for much of the

work, whilst his contemporary Rusonianus restored the Theatre (now over a hundred years old)92.

One inscription of particular interest records the dedication of a statue of Cupid to the emperor

by C. Claudius Septimius [A]fer93. This man seems to have been the father of Lepcis’ first

consuls, P. Septimius Aper (cos.153) and C. Septimius Severus (cos.160), and is presumably

related to the future emperor. Septimius’ own father, P. Septimius Geta, who may well have

served as an aedile, set up a statue to Septimia Polla his sister at about this time which was,

according to Duncan-Jones, ‘the most…expensive in Africa’94.

86 Pliny Ep. 2.11; Syme (1958), 70-71; Birley, Septimius 21; Birley (1988), p.6; Talbert (1983), 284.87 IRT 624; Reynolds (1955), p.129.88 IRT 412; 353; 284; MacKendrick, op. cit., 149; Sherwin-White, op. cit., 38.89 IRT 353; Libya, 86. 90 IRT 357-359. This important amenity allowed the construction of a number of fountains throughout Lepcis, Libya, 89-90. IRT 275 records Candidus making a dedication to the temple of Liber Pater.91 Libya, 92-95. 92 Ti. Plautius Lupus: IRT 593, 632, 634. Libya, 95-96, gives Plautianus, whilst IRT 263 reads Rufinianus.93 IRT 316.94 Duncan-Jones (1962), no.68.

26

By the mid-second century, Lepcis had become one of Africa’s leading cities. In the course of

little over a century, the emporium went from an allied, though still ‘foreign’, city to a

municipium and thence to a fully-fledged Roman colony. An examination of the spread of

Roman citizenship and the Latin tongue demonstrates Lepcis’ desire for upward mobility still

further.

The first thing to note about Lepcis during the first century was its conspicuous lack of

immigrants. In marked contrast to the rest of Africa, the city did not see the official

establishment of a large Italian community in its midst95. Thus although individual Italians did

settle at Lepcis, like the banker T. Herennius during the early first century BCE, there was no

mass influx of settlers96. Consequently, immigrant families make up a surprisingly small

percentage of Lepcis’ known nobility. Of particular importance are the Fulvii Lepcitani, who are

first attested under Augustus, and who are seemingly connected to Septimius through Fulvia Pia,

his mother97. Other examples include the Perperna Lepcitanus, recorded on an inscription

dedicated to Tiberius, and the family of Carminius Saturninus, who set up an inscription in the

city’s main street98. The complete lack of any organised body of resident Roman citizens, such

as a conventus civium Romanorum or a pagus also demonstrates the absence of a large Italian

community99. There is no record of there ever having been any such organisation at Lepcis.

These corporations are found throughout North Africa and because of their high status, they

exerted a disproportionate influence on their respective cities100. That Lepcis did not have such a

corporation suggests that the native aristocracy retained their importance under Roman rule101.

95 For Africa, see Thompson, op. cit., pp.132-181.96 Cic. In Verrem 2.5.155; Thompson (1969b), p.236.97 IRT 320; 328. The epithet ‘Lepcitani’ seems to have been intended to distinguish this family from others with the same name. For their exact relationship to Septimius see below, page? Romanelli (1958), 258-261; Thompson (1969b), p.237; Birley (1988), p.3. 98 IRT 335; 706; Thompson (1969b), pp.237-238.99 Thompson, op. cit., p.239. 100 For examples of this influence, see Caesar BC 2.36; BA 36, 68, 88, 90, 97; Sallust BJ 26, 64. 101 Thompson, op. cit., pp.239-240.

27

Figure 7: The Arch of Severus at Lepcis

During the early principate, grants of citizenship were extremely rare. Thus although we find

eleven Julii in the city’s epigraphic record, without further corroborative evidence, it is

extremely unlikely that any of them were enfranchised under the early Julio-Claudian period102.

There are also a large number of names suggesting connections with early proconsuls. Some

thirty-eight names recall Augustan officials and some forty-two suggest Tiberian magistrates103.

Whilst it seems likely that few of these actually reflect such early enfranchisement, there are

some possible exceptions. Thus an ancestor of the L. Aelius Ae[…, recorded on an inscription

from Lepcis, could possibly have been granted citizenship under the early Tiberian proconsul, L.

Aelius Lamia104.

Under Claudius and Nero, there seems to have been a small extension in the numbers of Roman

citizens. It is from this period that the first solid dating evidence emerges. From this time

onwards, inscriptions with proper Roman nomenclature, including filiation and details of voting 102 IRT 270, 276, 277 Q. Julius Justus; 276 Julia Fausta; 573 Julius Ho[…]; 598 (x2) Ti. Julius Frontinus & his son Ti. Julius Fronto; 650 Julius Kamerinus; 693 M. Julius Cethegus; 713 Julia Capitolina; 714 Julia Clymenis; 715 C. Julius Silvanus; 858 Julius […]nus T[…]. Torelli (1973), stemma, adds one Julia Serviliana. Of these, Ti. Julius Frontinus and his son Ti. Julius Fronto were most probably granted citizenship under Trajan. Their tribe is the Papiria, in which all Lepcitanes were enrolled after the city became a colony, whilst their names recall Ti. Julius Ferox (cos. 99), who acted as advocate for Lepcis during the trial of Marius Priscus. Di Vita-Evrard (1982), p.457; Birley (1988), p.6.103 See the index to IRT and Birley (1988), pp.7-8. 104 IRT 482. Other Aelii are also a possibility. In particular, see the C. Aelius Rufinus mentioned in IRT 587 & 593; C. Aelius Crescens & Aelia Myris (658); Aelia Donata (883); 658. Birley, op. cit., 7-8.

28

tribes begin to appear. From an analysis of this data it can be seen that all new citizens enrolled

at Lepcis before the grant of colonial status in 109-110CE, were placed in the Quirina tribe,

whilst those enfranchised afterwards appear in the Papiria tribe105.

The surviving epigraphic record includes thirteen examples of Claudii at Lepcis106. It is virtually

certain that the families of two of them were enfranchised during this time. Ti. Claudius Sestius,

a sufes and priest of Vespasian, dedicated a podium to Domitian in the Theatre at Lepcis. The

inscription dates to 91-92CE and his tribe is given as the Quirina; his nomenclature suggests that

an ancestor, probably his father, was given citizenship under Claudius or Nero107. The neo-Punic

text is a direct translation of the Latin108. Another set of inscriptions from the city market records

one Ti Claudius Amicus, a first century aedile109. Other evidence is less precise. There are

nineteen names recalling either Claudian or Neronian officials110. A number of names recall the

cognomina of the short-lived emperors Galba, Otho and Vitellius. However, it is worth noting

that these men, or their relatives, all served as proconsuls of Africa under Claudius or Nero111. Q.

Servius Candidus, who dedicated a large statue group to Claudius in the Forum Vetus, also

seems to have been enfranchised at this time112. One especially interesting inscription records the

dedication of a statue of Cupid to Hadrian by C. Claudius Septimius [A]fer113. It is possible that

this man was a relative of Septimius114. In any case, his nomenclature strongly suggests that he,

or another member of his family, was given the franchise during this period.

Despite this gradual expansion of Roman citizenship, it is significant that even at this time the

epigraphic corpus demonstrates the importance of the indigenous non-citizen elite. As we saw

above, in 45-46CE Lepcis’ Theatre was completely refurbished and a large statue-group was

dedicated to Claudius inside the Forum Vetus. Various members of G’y ben Hanno’s family

105 Thompson, op. cit., p.244. 106 There are thirteen extant Claudii in IRT, nos. 316; 318 & 347; 467; 517; 533; 534; 646; 680; 681; 682; 683.107 IRT 318 & 347108 IPT 27. 109 IRT 590.110 Birley, op. cit., pp.7-8. 111 Birley, op. cit., p.7.112 IRT 275, 357-359; Libya, 89-90.113 IRT 316.114 See below, page 39

29

paid for this work115. They are clearly still of peregrine status and were obviously wealthy and

socially influential.

The first major expansion of citizenship at Lepcis came with Vespasian’s grant of municipal

status in 78CE. As a result, the city’s four annual magistrates (aediles and sufetes) received

automatic citizenship. The appearance of these offices on inscriptions of the Flavian period may

therefore be taken as an accurate indicator of citizen status. The Punic word sufes (‘judge’)

appears thirteen times in the local epigraphic record. Of these, six seem to date to this period116.

By contrast, there are only four aediles recorded at Lepcis, three of which fit these criteria117.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Flavii form the largest single group of imperial cognomina at Lepcis,

with forty examples. Of these, however, only five can be more securely dated118. Caution is

required however, because Vespasian himself served as proconsul under Nero, whilst his

successor was L. Tampius Flavianus119. It is also worth remembering that the name Flavius was

very popular during the later empire. Birley records the names of twenty-two individuals that

seem to recall Flavian officials at Lepcis, though ten of these are extremely dubious120.

When the city became a colony under Trajan all freeborn Lepcitanes automatically became

citizens. Surprisingly however, only six Ulpii survive in the epigraphic record (three of which

share the emperor’s praenomen)121. Presumably those new citizens who did not adopt the

imperial cognomen took the name of the then proconsul, Q. Pomponius Rufus122. The presence

of Aelii and Aurelii at Lepcis therefore probably reflects the activity of proconsuls from an

earlier period, rather than direct imperial grants, such as the very early L. Aelius Lamia, or an

otherwise unknown Aurelius123.

115 Libya, 76.116 Sufes: IRT 294 (Sobti); 319; 321; 322; 323; 341; 347; 348; 349a; 412; 599; 600; 602. The six Flavian examples are IRT 294; 347; 348; 349a; 412; 600.117 Aediles: IRT 498; 590; 597; 599. IRT 498; 590 & 599 appear to date to the later first century. 118 See the index to IRT for full details. The five clear examples are: IRT 562-563 Fl(avius) Archonitis Nilus; 700-701 Flavius Capito; 292 T. Flavius [..]arinus; 564 & 595 T. Flavius Frontinus Heraclius; 888 T. Flavius Capito Io[…; 567-568 T. Flavius Vibianus. 119 Thomasson, op. cit., P no.43. 120 Birley, op. cit., p.8. Birley cites ten members of the gens Septimii on the basis that their name recalls Septimius Flaccus, a Flavian legate based at Lepcis. It is extremely unlikely that this man’s cognomen was Septimius. See below, pages 31-32.121 Ulpii: IRT 281; 388 & 440; 631; 753; 850; 859. 388 & 440; 753; 859 all share the emperor’s praenomen.122 There are no extant Pomponii in the local epigraphic record. Thomasson LP, col. 379, no. 63.123 Birley, op. cit., p.7.

30

The linguistic history of Lepcis reveals a number of complex phenomena at work. Firstly,

although Punic survives as the city’s native tongue, Latin seems to have swiftly established a

position of dominance in the public world of the Forum124. Thus the last extended inscriptions

written in neo-Punic script date to the reign of Domitian (or in other words just after the city had

become a municipium)125. Secondly, despite Latin’s apparent dominance, its penetration at, and

beyond, Lepcis is rather difficult to measure. Although Latin was certainly a prerequisite for

those seeking social advancement, it is unclear to what extent those at the other end of the

spectrum used Latin. Although we know little about ordinary people, the Latinity of Tripolitania

appears to be somewhat distinctive126. Ostraca from Bu Njem reveal a number of peculiar

expressions, as well as abnormal syntax and bizarre grammar127. Two long, supposedly

hexameter poems from Bu Njem also reveal similar features. One, by a centurion named M.

Porcius Iasucthan, contains so many errors that it has been described by Adams as ‘…one of the

most incompetent hexameter poems ever written…’128. The other, by Q. Avidius Quintianus,

though generally much better, also makes frequent mistakes129. Such grammatical problems,

coupled with reasonably accurate spelling and inflection, suggest that Latin was to some extent

an acquired language for both men, as does Iasucthan’s failure to properly distinguish vowel

lengths130. This suggests that whilst Latin quickly became the primary language of refined

culture and public business, native tongues, whether Libyan or Punic, remained the first language

for most of the region’s inhabitants, especially in Lepcis’ pre-desert hinterland. This is further

borne out by the survival of Punic loan words in modern Libya’s colloquial Arabic131.

Given this complexity, it is legitimate to ask to what extent Septimius himself understood Punic.

As an educated member of the nobility, he must certainly have been fluent in Latin, and possibly

124 See Augustine Ep. 66.2; 84.2 &108.14; 209.3; Procopius de Bello Vandalico 4.10.20.125 IRT 318, 347 = IPT 2; IRT 349a = IPT 9.126 African Latin, as a whole, was known for its peculiar vocalisations, including mispronouncing the letter L, lengthening initial short vowels and a particular inability to adapt Punic sibilants. Apuleius Apol. 24.1; Flor. 9.7; St. Aug. Confess.1.18; Doctr. Christ.4.10.24; Isidore Orig.1.31.8; Pompeius Maurus Gramm. Lat.5.285.6; Consentius Gramm. Lat.392; Jerome Ep.103.5; De Musica 2.1.1. Birley Septimius, 35, suggests that Septimius may have pronounced his own name as ‘Sheptimiush Sheverush’.127 Adams (1994), pp.87-112.128 The poem dates to early 222. Iasucthan’s inability to distinguish vowel length seems to have been the underlying cause of the problem. Thus lines 11, 15, 17, 21, and 23 all have too many syllables for a hexameter poem, whilst Adams remarks that lines 20 and 22 are so badly wrong that ‘…analysis is pointless’. Adams (1999), pp.109-114.129 Avidius’ poem dates to 202-203: Adams, op. cit., pp.124-125. 130 Adams, op. cit., p.114-115, p.123.131 Elmayer (1984), pp.93-105.

31

in Greek too132. Some degree of fluency is strongly suggested by the continuing strength of

Punic. One source, albeit rather late, states, quite unequivocally, that he was a fluent Punic

speaker133. The Historia Augusta’s remarks that Septimius’ sister could barely speak Latin are,

however, of arguably greater significance134. Although caution is required, the basic thrust of the

story, that a female member of the Lepcitane elite had noticeably poorer Latin than her brother,

seems fairly accurate. It may also mean that her Latin was distinctive, rather than just poor,

which would seem to fit the pattern outlined above. This may well be the essence of another

stray remark in the vita, that Septimius retained an African accent throughout his life135.

Although the evidence for the origins of the gens Septimia is sometimes difficult to interpret, it is

certainly not a hopeless task (see the stemma on page viii). Our evidence, largely in the form of

ancient literature and inscriptions, though sometimes equivocal and occasionally patchy, is

sufficiently full to allow a plausible reconstruction. Indeed, as we shall see, it is possible to

untangle the complicated network of relationships and ultimately, to argue that on the balance of

probabilities Septimius’ family did originate at Lepcis.

Our investigation begins with one Macer, said by the Historia Augusta to be Septimius’ paternal

grandfather (avus paternus)136. An inscription from Lepcis has shown this to be inaccurate137.

Macer, a fairly common Latin name meaning ‘lean’, is found throughout Tripolitania138.

Interestingly enough, inscriptions from Lepcis record the donations of one Anno Macer and his

family during the mid-first century CE139. The last of them records the dedication of a statue to

his son, Gaius Phelyssam, in 54CE140.

132 See Marrou, op. cit., 265-291.133 Epit. De Caes. 20.8.134 HA Sev. 15.7.135 HA Sev.18.9. 136 HA Sev. 1.2. 137 IRT 412 gives his name as Lucius Septimius Severus.138 Kajanto LC, 244, gives thirteen examples of the name in Africa. In addition to HA Sev. 1.2, it also appears as the name of a sufes on Oea’s coinage and on IRT 338 (=IPT 26) & 615. It is possible that it could also derive from a Punic or Libyan root. See Muller et al, op. cit., 70-75; Mattingly (1995); Jongeling (1994), 7-8, 77, 94-95; Elmayer (1984), p.93f for examples.139 IRT 338=IPT 26.140 IRT 615.

32

In light of this, Birley suggests that Macer was Septimius’ great-grandfather, citing a possible

corruption of the Historia Augusta in support141. He then goes on to suggest that Macer, active

during the Flavian period, may well have received his citizen status under one Septimius Flaccus,

a legate of III Augusta out-stationed at Lepcis, thus giving him the name of Septimius Macer142.

Whilst this interpretation is certainly attractive, it is based on somewhat tenuous evidence. In the

first place, Macer’s identification as Septimius’ great-grandfather is far from certain. Secondly,

the existence of a fault in the text of the vita is not universally accepted143. Thirdly, Septimius

Flaccus is an extremely shadowy figure. Only Ptolemy definitely records his presence at Lepcis,

though other references, including two inscriptions, refer to a Flavian legate by the name of

Suellius Flaccus, who may or may not be the same man144. Interestingly however, a L. Septimius

Flaccus (cos. suff. 183) served as a proconsul of Pannonia Inferior early in Commodus’ reign145.

Despite these uncertainties, it is quite plausible that the Historia Augusta has recorded the name

correctly, merely erring with regards to the exact relationship. In other words, it is possible that

Macer was another, more distant relative, although in the absence of fresh evidence we cannot

advance much beyond this.

With Septimius’ grandfather, we move onto more solid ground. Indeed, as will become clear,

the current debate centres on him. Before advancing any further therefore, it is worth setting out

the evidence as it stands. An inscription, set up in 203, gives this man’s name as Lucius

Septimius Severus and supplies us with details of his public career146. He held the post of sufes,

Lepcis’ chief native magistracy, was praefectus when the city became a colony and immediately

afterwards he became its first duumvir. He served as a priest of the imperial cult at some point

and was also a juryman at Rome itself (iudex inter selectos). It is also possible that he is the

‘…]s M(arci) f(ilius) Quir(ina tribu) Seve[rus f]lame[n] divi Clau[di]’ referred to in an

141 Birley Septimius, App. 2 no. 23. The earlier Lives of the HA often record such relationships. See HA Marc. 1.4; HA Comm. 1.1-2; HA Verus 1.7-8 (records his great-grandfather’s consular rank); HA Hadr. 1.2-3 (Hadrian’s great-grandfather’s grandfather); HA Pius 1.2 (grandfather only). Birley (1970), pp.59-78; Magie (1960), 371-429.142 Birley Septimius, 18, 217ff.143 Magie (1960), pp.370-371, does not mention it. 144 Ptolemy 1.8.4. Cf. CIL 8.1839 = 16499 and ILAlg. 1.3002 Cn. Suellio Fl[acco] leg. Aug. pro p[r.] and IRT 854 = AE 1940.70 ‘Suelli Flacci Aug. pro. pr.’; Zonaras 11.19; Eusebius chron. MMCII. Birley, Coup p.255 n.36, no doubt realising the weakness of his identification, plaintively remarks that Thomasson ‘does not identify Suellius Flaccus with Septimius Flaccus’. It must be said however, that Thomasson’s judicious inclusion of both names is only to be expected in such a fasti (LP, 395; FA, N12-N13).145 Thomasson LP, col. 114 no.21; Leunissen Konsuln, 131.146 IRT 412-413.

33

inscription in the early part of Trajan’s reign147. In any case, he was clearly an important man: he

was undoubtedly of equestrian status, had served in his city’s chief magistracies and had

evidently spent time at Rome148. As such, he appears to have been commemorated by the late

first century Roman poet Statius149.

In 94-95CE, Statius published Book Four of his Silvae and dedicated it to his influential patron

Vitorius Marcellus. The fifth poem of this book, a rather unusual alcaic ode, is addressed to

Septimius Severus, a young equestrian and Latin poet from Lepcis, now living in Italy 150. The

poem, the text of which is set out in Appendix Two, clearly shows that Statius’ friend was

brought to the capital as a child. Lines 34 to 36 describe the young Septimius entering ‘…the

havens of Ausonia’, thereby subtly comparing him to Aeneas, who was likewise an ‘…adopted

child, on Tuscan waters’. Line 33 depicts him crawling ‘…as an infant on all the hills of

Rome’151. The poem also suggests that Septimius was educated at the capital, although if not

actually physically located there then at least with the hallmarks of classical Roman education.

In lines 35 to 36 Statius invokes the legendary waters of the fonte Iuturnae and likens them to a

mother’s milk: ‘Who would not say that he had drunk, his weaning done, of Juturna’s

fountain?’152. In Line 45, Statius sums up Septimius’ Romanitas: ‘Neither your speech nor your

dress is Punic, yours is no stranger’s mind: Italian, you are, Italian!’ (‘Non sermo Poenus, non

habitus tibi, externa non mens: Italus, Italus’)153. The use of three repeated negatives (‘non…

non…non’) forcefully emphasises Statius’ point that Septimius really is ‘one of us’154. This

probably explains why, in the preface to this poem, Statius goes so far as to name Veii, instead of

Lepcis, as Septimius’ origo155.

147 IRT352, dedicated some time between January 101 and December 102. 148 HA Sev. 1.2 states that Septimius’ family had equestrian status before citizenship was made universal. Lucius’ post as iudex proves it.149 This identification is disputed. Birley accepts it, see Coup, p.253-254; (1970), p.61-62; Septimius, App.2 no.26. See also Raven (1993), 147; Barton (1972), 71-74; Hardie (1983), 179. Barnes (1967), p.87 disagrees. See also Coleman (1988), 159.150 Silvae 4 praef. 10. This style of poem was popular during the later first century and borrowed heavily from Horace. See Pliny Ep. 9.22; Hardie, op. cit., 58-72; Coleman, op. cit., 156-157.151 Coleman (1988), 166.152 Silvae 4.5.35-6. Cf. Gell. 12.1.20. Martial 2.96, describes a German drinking from the Aqua Marcia as though it were the Rhine. See Coleman, op. cit., 167. 153 Sermo which primarily means speech and language, also has the sense of good diction and hence manners, see Coleman, op. cit., 169. Cicero uses sermo in this sense in his description of Tullia: Cic. Q.Fr. 1.33; also Moxley, op. cit., 241 n.D. Septimius, as a poet himself, must have paid particular attention to correct pronunciation, just as Greek sophists of the period went to great lengths to imitate Attic Greek: Coleman, op.cit., 158; Bowersock (1969), 1-29.154 Coleman, op. cit., 168; Birley Septimius, 20.155 Silvae 4 praef. 10.

34

Despite this however, there must have been something perceptibly ‘foreign’ about Septimius.

The poem makes little real sense otherwise. Statius himself hints at this. Septimius is referred to

as an ‘Indian Harvest’ and as the ‘rare cinnamon’ of the Sabaeans156. His flattery is designed to

show that Septimius is fully ‘Roman’ in his manners and lifestyle and so consequently, bears no

trace of the stereotypical ‘faithless African’. Hannibal came to typify this stereotype and was

often evoked in late first century literature as an image of savagery; Statius himself makes

frequent use of this motif in his poems157. Septimius, as a budding Latin poet in his own right,

also had another reason for wishing to emphasise his Romanitas. Domitian, an emperor with

literary pretensions of his own, actively prevented Africans from winning poetry competitions158.

What then, links this Septimius with the emperor’s grandfather?

A close examination of the evidence demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the Septimius of

Statius’ poem was the same man as the emperor’s grandfather. To start with, both men were

born at Lepcis and were active during the late first and early second centuries159. Secondly, both

were wealthy. Statius’ friend must have had at least moderate wealth to move in Statius’ literary

circle, whilst the emperor’s grandfather, as one of Lepcis’ leading citizens, must have been

immensely wealthy. Thirdly, both men held land at Veii. Statius gives his friend’s origo as

Veii160. The Historia Augusta states that in 191CE, just before he became the governor of

Pannonia, the future emperor purchased ‘elaborate gardens’ at Rome, where before his only

property in Italy had been ‘an unpretentious dwelling in the city and unum fundum in …iam’ (HA

Sev. 4.5)161. Although this corrupt portion of the text has often been restored as ‘a single farm in

Venetia’ (‘unum fundum in Venetia’), Hammond convincingly argues that the text should be

emended to read ‘unum fundum Veientanum (vel Veientem)’ (‘a single farm at Veii’)162. In

other words, the future emperor received this farm by inheritance from his grandfather. This is

156 Silvae 4.5.30; Coleman, op. cit., 166. 157 Pliny Ep. 3.7, remarks that Silius Italicus’ Punica contained some 12, 200 verses! See Hardie, op. cit., 178-180.158 Hardie, op. cit., 180, 236 n.61.159 Statius’ friend was probably in his early twenties when Silvae Book Four was published. The emperor’s grandfather, a iudex at Rome in the late first and early second centuries, was probably born in the mid to late 60s. See Birley Coup, p.253.160 Silvae 4 praef. 10. 161 HA Sev. 4.5 (erroneously recorded as Germania); Barnes, op. cit., p.87; Birley Coup, pp.253-254.162 See Hammond, op. cit., pp.140-143. Supported by Birley Coup, p.254; ignored by Barnes, op. cit., p..88. The above translation is Magie’s, op. cit., 378-378.

35

supported by the discovery of a nearby lead pipe, with the name ‘P. Septimius Geta’ inscribed

upon it163.

Also, both men were of equestrian status. Statius’ friend was clearly an eques, whilst the

emperor’s grandfather served in the equestrian legal post of iudex selectus at Rome164.

Furthermore, both were active in the courts. Statius praises his friend’s legal eloquence:

‘Pleasing too is your voice in the strident courts, but your eloquence is never venal’ (Silvae

4.5.49-52). Of greater significance are the names of Lucius’ children, which both evoke Statius’

literary circle. Thus P. Septimius Geta, the emperor’s father, recalls Vitorius Marcellus Geta, the

dedicatee of Silvae Book Four165. It is interesting to note that this is the first attested example of

the name at Lepcis, although it was later used as a derivative of the popular African name

Gaetulus/Gaetulicus166. Similarly Septimia Polla, the emperor’s aunt, recalls Argentaria Polla,

Lucan’s famous widow and a member of Roman high society167.

As such, we can build up a fairly accurate picture of the emperor’s grandfather. Lucius

Septimius Severus was born to a wealthy Lepcitane family during the later first century CE

(most probably in the late 60s to early 70s), of probable equestrian status, possibly to the

mysterious Septimius Macer. He was taken to Italy (Veii to be exact) as a child, where he was

presumably educated. As a young man, like others of his class, he turned his hand to poetry

(none of which survives) before embarking upon the more serious business of a career, probably

becoming a iudex shortly before Domitian’s assassination in 96-97CE. Returning to Lepcis after

Domitian’s death, Lucius became a leading member of the local elite, holding the posts of sufes

and praefectus before finally becoming its first duumvir in 109-110CE. Despite his African

origin, Lucius remained completely romanised, giving his children names recalling powerful

163 CIL 11.3816 (Via Cassia). This is probably Lucius’ son Publius.164 Statius’ friend is described as a iuvenis (Silvae 4 praef. 10). Although the term strictly means ‘youth’ it was used to refer to young noblemen, of either equestrian or senatorial background, aged between fourteen and seventeen. It was also used in a wider sense to include equites under 35: Balsdon & Levick (1996), pp.791-792; Dixon (1992), 133-138. For Lucius see IRT 412.12-13 (‘inter selctos Romae iudicavit’); Barnes, op. cit., p.88; Birley Coup, pp.253-254.165 Statius’ friend is stated to have been a fellow school pupil with Vitorius: Silvae 4 praef. 10; Coleman, op. cit., 158.166 Geta is a rare name. Of the eighteen surviving examples, ten are found in Africa (seven of which come from Tripolitania), Kajanto LC, 204; Birley (1988b), pp.15-16. Gaetulus/Gaetulicus (referring to the Gaetulii tribe) was often spelt as Getulus/Getulicus and could also be shortened to Geta. IRT 649 records one M. Pompeius Gaetulicus and his son M. Pompeius Geta Chirit. See also Kajanto (1965), 206.167 Some time after Lucan’s death in 65CE, Polla married one Pollius Felix. Statius frequently mentions Polla. See Silvae 2.2.10; 3.1.87, 159, 179; 4.8.14; 2. Praef and 7. See Nisbet (1978), pp.1-11; Birley Septimus, App.2 no.10; 233 n.1.

36

members of his former literary circle. It is clear, then, that he was an important figure in his

grandson’s early life.

Although Septimius’ father, P. Septimius Geta, was of some interest to ancient writers, he seems

to have been a less prominent figure than his father168. Thus, very little is known about him

beyond his name and the fact that he was the emperor’s father169. As no details survive, it is

therefore impossible to go beyond mere guesswork in assessing his career. Although he was

certainly not a senator (his relatives, Septimius and Aper, were the first Septimii to hold that

distinction), it is possible that he was the aedile ‘[…]s Geta’ recorded on an inscription found

inside the Theatre at Lepcis170. Despite this, he was clearly a man of considerable wealth. The

inscription he set up in honour of his sister, Septimia Polla, was, according to Duncan-Jones, ‘the

most expensive…in Africa’171. His marriage to Fulvia Pia, of the Fulvii Lepcitani, also

illustrates his social and financial importance at Lepcis172.

As we saw above, the emperor’s sister, Septimia Octavilla, is an important figure in our search

for the origins of the gens Septimia. Some time after 198, she was honoured posthumously by

three of Lepcis’ curial wards as ‘a woman of most noble memory’ (‘c(larissimae) m(emoriae)

f(emina)’)173. In other words, it seems that she was married to a senator. More significantly for

our particular study, however, is an oft-quoted incident in the Historia Augusta. In the midst of a

passage dealing with the events of 198, the author remarks that during Septimius’ time as

emperor:

‘His sister from Leptis once came to see him, and, since she could barely speak Latin, made the emperor blush for her hotly. And so, after giving the broad stripe to her son and many presents to the woman herself, he sent her home again, and also her son, who died a short time afterwards’ (HA Sev.15.7)174.

168 HA Sev.1.2; HA Geta2.1 states that Marius Maximus wrote about Geta at great length. Birley Septimius, App.2.no.20.169 CIL 8.19493 (Cirta) and IRT414 (Lepcis) are the only two extant inscriptions set up in his honour.170 IRT597.171 IRT 607; Duncan-Jones (1962), no.68.172 HA Sev.1.2; IRT 415-416.173 IRT 417. Octavilla must have come from an otherwise unattested relative.174 Septimia’s husband (name unknown) cannot have been a senator before this incident; otherwise the emperor’s grant of the broad stripe to their son would have been unnecessary. Birley Septimius, App. 2, no.8.

37

It is possible that Septimia’s son, who remains unnamed by the Historia Augusta, is the

equestrian L. Flavius Septimius Aper Octavianus recorded on an inscription at Rome175.

As we saw above, Lepcis’ first two native consuls were both relatives of the emperor. The

Historia Augusta gives their names as Aper and Severus and describes them as great-uncles

(patrui magni) of the emperor176. Aper, or P. Septimius Aper, was suffect consul in 153, whilst

Severus, or C. Septimius Severus, held the office seven years later in 160 and in 174 became the

proconsul of Africa, with the future emperor serving as his legate177. As such, Severus is

recorded on a number of inscriptions throughout Africa. One from Thuburiscu Numidarum

records him as the city’s patron and gives us details of his career178. Another inscription, from

the arch of Marcus Aurelius at Lepcis, was dedicated in 174, ‘when the proconsul was C.

Septimius Severus, and his legate was L. Septimius Severus’179.

Barnes argues that Severus is also the subject of an inscription from Praeneste, which records a

[C.] Sept. C.f. Severus of the Papinia tribe180. At first glance, this idea seems attractive; this

Severus is also a ‘Caius filius’, whilst Praeneste is very close to the Italian estates of the Septimii

at Veii. Of particular importance is this man’s tribe, the Papinia. This voting tribe was almost

exclusively restricted to Italy. Consequently, Barnes concludes that the Septimii were, therefore,

originally Italian settlers181.

Barnes’ hypothesis stands and falls upon the link between this Severus and the consul for 160.

Thus, if the link is weakened, then so is his conclusion. As it happens, an inscription from

Mauretania Tingitana directly challenges this connection. This inscription, known as the Tabula

Banasitana, records the grant of citizenship in 177 to Julianus, a Mauritanian tribal leader182.

Appended to the main text of the document is an archival copy of the senatorial debate, which

175 CIL 6.1415. Flavia Neratia Septimia Octavilla, Octavianus’ daughter, set up the inscription. Birley Septimius, App. 2, no.17; IRT, p.19; PIR 2 N50.176 HA Sev.1.2.177 Birley Septimius, App.2 no.15, no.25. See pages 57-58.178 IL Alg.1.1283. The text names the proconsul as ‘-mius Severus’ and so surely refers to the emperor’s relative. Di Vita-Evrard (1963), p.398ff.179 AE 1967.536. Thomasson (1996), P 89, reproduces the text. 180 CIL 14.3004; Barnes Family, p.89.181 Barnes, op. cit., pp.89-90. 182 AE 1971.534. Examined by Sherwin-White (1973), pp.86-98.

38

includes the names of those present183. C. Septimius Severus, as a senior ex-consul, attended;

interestingly, his name is given as ‘Caii Filius Qui(rina tribu)’ (‘the son of Caius, of the Quirina

tribe’)184. This significant piece of evidence reveals a number of things. Firstly, it shows that he

cannot have been the man referred to in the Praeneste inscription; although the praenomen is the

same, the tribe is not. As was seen above, those Lepcitanes who were enfranchised at Lepcis

before Trajan’s grant of colonial status in 109-110 were automatically enrolled in the Quirina

tribe185. Therefore the highest-ranking member of the gens Septimia belonged to a voting tribe

widespread amongst the pre-colonial elite. In other words, the emperor’s family was almost

certainly enfranchised at Lepcis before Trajan’s time, possibly during the Flavian period.

It also means that Severus cannot be the emperor’s great-uncle, for which he would need to be a

son of Lucius the sufes. An inscription from Lepcis supplies a very plausible candidate for this

Severus’ father. During the reign of Antoninus Pius, one C. Cl(audius) Septimius [A]fer set up a

statue to honour the emperor in the Chalcidicum186. Although he is otherwise unknown, his

nomenclature suggests a possible link (he is a Caius and Severus is a Caius filius). His name

also suggests a relationship with P. Septimius Aper, Lepcis’ first native consul, Aper being

merely a variant spelling of Afer187. If true, this would put him in the same generation as the

emperor’s grandfather Lucius, to which no serious objection arises188. The additional name of

Claudius is easily explained as deriving from a marriage link with a family of Claudii, of which

there are two notable native examples at Lepcis189.

There is also a distinct possibility that Septimius was a distant relative of the powerful second

century orator, M. Cornelius Fronto. In a letter to one Petronius Mamertinus, Fronto

recommends a young man who is said to be ‘among the devotees of our familia’ (Ad Am. 1.10.2).

Although familia can mean ‘household’, Champlin argues that Fronto is here referring to an

183 Sherwin-White, op. cit., pp.86-89. 184 AE 1971.534.44.185 See page 28.186 IRT 316.187 The meaning of Afer is unclear. It could mean either ‘African’ or ‘Boar’. Birley Coup, 258ff.; Birley Septimius, App.2.no. 15.188 Caius, as a senior figure in Antonine Lepcis, is likely to have been a mature man. A birth date in the later first century CE is therefore eminently possible.189 IRT 318 & 347: Ti. Claudius Sestius (senior and junior). IRT 590: Ti. Claudius Amicus. Both names are suggestive of native origin.

39

actual blood relationship190. If this connection is accurate, it shows a clear link to the powerful

senator M Petronius Mamertinus (cos. 150)191. Of particular interest, however, is the

nomenclature of this man’s son, M. Petronius Sura Septimianus, which seems to recall a

marriage link with an otherwise unattested Septimia192. Further corroborative evidence can be

found in Septimius' appointment of Fronto’s two grandsons, M. Aufidius Fronto and C. Aufidius

Victorinus, to ordinary consulships193. That they served in consecutive years (199 and 200

respectively) seems particularly suggestive of a family connection194. It is possible, therefore,

that the ‘…]o Front[o]ni’, recorded as the city’s first senator under Trajan, is also distantly

related195.

Turning briefly to the less prominent members of the gens Septimia, we can see further links

with Lepcis and Africa in general. Thus Paccia Marciana, Septimius’ first wife, was a member

of one of Lepcis’ leading families196. The Historia Augusta states that Septimius had two

daughters by this marriage, who were married to Probus and Aetius in 193197. This is highly

unlikely. There is no record, in any other source, of the existence of these young women, which

seems strange, given their likely status.

Fulvia Pia, the emperor’s mother, is only attested in two extant inscriptions, both set up by

Septimius himself198. Her family, the Fulvii Lepcitani, were originally Italian immigrants and are

first attested at Lepcis under Augustus199. As epigraphic evidence reveals, the family soon

married into the local elite, most notably with the native Plautii (from whom sprang C. Fulvius

190 Cf. Ad Am. 1.12.1 where Fronto, writing to his son-in-law, refers to ‘familiam nostram’ (‘our family’) Champlin (1980), 10, 145 n.32. See also Birley Coup, p.269191 PIR 2 P287. 192 Champlin, op. cit., 9-10; PIR 2 P312 and stemma; Birley Coup, p.269; Birley Septimius, 27f., App. 2 nos. 57, 58, 59; Syme (1980a), pp.1293-1298.193 Champlin, op. cit., 28. For Aufidius Fronto see PIR 2 A1385; Alfoldy Senat, p.135; Barbieri Albo, no.69. For Aufidius Victorinus, see PIR 2 A1394; Alfoldy Senat, p.135; Barbieri Albo, no.72. 194 Alfoldy Senat, p.158. 195 IRT 624; Reynolds (1955), p.129.196 Paccia’s names suggest that various ancestors of hers were given citizenship during the proconsulships of Marcius Barea and Paccius Africanus. She is a rather mysterious figure, dying probably in 185. Although HA Sev.3.1-2 remarks that Septimius ‘made no mention of her in the history of his life as a private man’, several statues were set up by him in her honour, IRT 410-411(Lepcis); CIL 8.19494 (Cirta). Birley Septimius, 75, App.2 no.56.197 HA Sev. 8.1-3. 198 HA Sev 1.2; IRT 415-416.199 IRT320 & 328; Birley Septimius, 220. See page 24.

40

Plautianus, Septimius’ close friend and praetorian prefect)200. Although not absolutely certain, it

is likely that the emperor’s brother, also a P. Septimius Geta, was his father’s eldest son. Not

only did he inherit his father’s full name, he also seems to have begun his career before his

brother’s201. Of the remaining Septimii, L. Septimius Aper (cos. ord. in 207) was particularly

connected with business, it seems to be his name stamped upon olive oil amphorae found at

Rome202. It seems probable however, that this man’s name was actually C. Septimius Severus

Aper. An as yet unpublished military diploma calls the consul ordinarius for 207 by this

name203. If accurate, this would make him a son or grandson of C. Septimius Severus (cos. 160).

It seems particularly appropriate to end our discussion with L. Septimius Aper for a number of

reasons. Firstly, his apparent involvement with Lepcis’ lucrative olive oil trade reminds us the

city’s expansion was based squarely upon its mercantile strength. As we have seen, it was the

city’s rich trading networks that brought it to international prominence, and hence eventually into

the orbit of Rome. Secondly, Lucius’ family, the gens Septimia, stood at the forefront of the

city’s drive for social mobility during the late first and second centuries. As was argued above,

they represent the most successful of many such native families at Lepcis, and indeed throughout

Africa as a whole. The emperor’s family were most probably enfranchised during the Flavian

period, whilst his grandfather was the city’s first duumvir and his two second cousins were the

first Lepcitanes to reach the consulship. As such, we can see that the emperor’s roots lay firmly

at Lepcis, although his connections spread far beyond the city of his birth. In Chapter Two, we

shall build further upon the conclusions reached in this chapter by focusing on Septimius’ career

as an aspiring senator.

200 Thompson (1969b), p.246, suggests that the Plautii were enfranchised at the behest of Ti. Plautius Silvanus Aelianus, son of L. Aelius Lamia (proconsul under Tiberius). After Plautianus’ (PIR 2 F 554) fall from grace and execution in 205, he suffered damnatio memoriae and all public record of him was destroyed. His children, Publia Fulvia Plautilla (PIR 2 F 564) and C. Fulvius Plautius Hortensianus (PIR 2 F 555) were both exiled and later put to death by Caracalla. Birley Septimius, App. 2, nos. 29, 32, 33. Other Fulvii include the emperor’s maternal grandfather, Fulvius Pius (HA Sev.1.2), Fulvius Pius, cos. ord. in 238 (PIR 2 F 553, Barbieri Albo, no.1054) and one C. Fulvius Pius (AE 1930.67).201 The father’s praenomen was commonly reserved for the eldest son. Salway (1994), p.125; Birley Septimius, App. 2, no. 21; cf. IRT, p.19; Barnes, op. cit., p.91, p.107. Geta’s career probably began in 162, it ended with a second consulship in 203. See IRT 541. See Chapter Two, page 52.202 Mattingly Tripoli., 153-155, Table 7.1.203 P Michigan 5474 quoted in Birley Septimius, 274.

41

Chapter Two: Septimius and the Cursus Honorum.

Chapter Two aims to extend the discussion by looking at Septimius’ relationships with the wider

Roman nobility. Focus will therefore be given to his progress through the senatorial career

structure. In particular, careful attention will be paid to the future emperor’s patron-client

networks, and what part, if any, Africa played in their formation and further development.

In order to place the debate within its proper contextual framework, it will be necessary to

examine the principal features of Romano-African society. From here, the focus will shift to an

in-depth look at Septimius’ senatorial career, from its beginnings in the 160s to the fall of

Cleander in 190. It is important to bear in mind at this point that this present work does not aim

to be a biographical account; any such study has been rendered largely superfluous by Birley’s

generally well-researched effort. In spite of this, detailed reference to relevant events has

occasionally been deemed appropriate. It is hoped that by this method the reader can come to a

fuller understanding of Septimius’ true place within the wider Roman world.

As is evident at Lepcis, the cities of North Africa were deeply affected by Roman cultural power.

This can be seen in a number of ways. Archaeological studies have amply demonstrated the

adoption of classical architectural fashions completely transformed the physical appearance of

the region’s urban centres204.

In addition the epigraphic record reveals that, by the mid-second century at the latest, Punic had

been all but replaced by Latin in public contexts205. African enthusiasm for Latin extended

beyond the purely functional. A large number of inscriptions honour the students of Latin

literature as ‘amator studiorum’ (‘lover of learning’) and ‘doctissimus et facundissimus’ (‘most

learned and eloquent)206. Also knowledge of Greek was considered to be the height of

sophistication. Apuleius compliments his audience by implying that they could understand

204 The urban archaeology of North Africa has been the subject of intensive study. For an introduction, with references to further reading, see Libya, 7-10; MacKendrick (1980), passim; Mattingly & Hitchner (1995), pp.165-213.205 See Chapter One, pages 28-29.206 ILAlg.1.33; ILAf.325; CIL 8.2469; AE 1957, p.56.

42

Greek and he later insults his opponent by pointing to his ignorance of both Greek and Latin207.

In this climate, it is perhaps not surprising that amateur poets were abundant. Septimius’ own

grandfather wrote poetry208. Champlin cites some three hundred ‘metrical efforts’ in the region’s

epigraphic corpus209. Other examples could also be added. Two long hexameter-style poems

have been discovered on two inscriptions from Bu Njem dating to the third century210.

It was not long before Africa produced its own home grown intelligentsia. By the mid-second

century, Carthage had become the intellectual capital of Africa, eventually ranking second in the

Western Empire behind Rome itself211. In spite of this, the capital remained the true focus for

educated Africans. During the first century, both Annaeus Cornutus, Lucan and Persius’ teacher

and Sextius Sulla, an associate of Plutarch, were active at Rome212. By the mid-second century,

the Africans Cornelius Fronto and Tuticius Proculus were the Latin tutors of the young Caesar

Marcus Aurelius213.

Given the prestige of rhetoric, it is small wonder that many aspiring Africans found a fruitful

outlet for their talents as jurymen and lawyers in Rome’s burgeoning legal system. The satirist

Juvenal confirms this: ‘If you really suppose your tongue can earn you a workable living, you’d

better emigrate to Gaul or Africa – lawyers are flourishing there’ (Satires 7.146-148). As was

made clear in Chapter One, Septimius’ own grandfather spent many years at Rome ‘in the

strident courts’ (Statius Silvae 4.5.49). At about the same time, the famous biographer

Suetonius, who may well come from Hippo Regius, was also making a name for himself at the

bar214. His erudition brought him into contact with the Younger Pliny, whose patronage launched

Suetonius on a noteworthy equestrian career, culminating in three successive posts in the

imperial bureaucracy215.

207 Apol. 4.1; 82; 98.8.208 Statius Silvae 4.5.56-60. See Appendix One.209 Champlin (1980), 148 n.86. 210 Adams (1999), pp. 109-134.211 Champlin, op. cit., 18; Harrison (2000), 6-7.212 Champlin, op. cit., 18 & 149 n.89; Jones (1971), 60. 213 HA Marc. 2.3-5; Champlin, op. cit., 149 n.90.214 Suetonius’ origins are disputed. An inscription from Hippo Regius, which proudly records his career, has been thought to indicate an African origin. See Wallace-Hadrill (1983), 3-4, 5 n.8; cf. Syme (1958), 780f; (1981), 1337-1339; Jarrett Album, no.157.215 Wallace-Hadrill, op. cit., 37-41.

43

M. Cornelius Fronto, the celebrated Latin orator and tutor of Marcus Aurelius, is another

contemporary example. Born at Cirta, probably during the last years of the first century CE,

Fronto seems to have migrated to Rome during his adolescence216. After completing his studies

at the capital, much like Septimius himself as will become clear, Fronto held a vigintiviral post in

the imperial bureaucracy, before eventually establishing himself as the leading orator and

advocate of his time217. Fronto’s rhetorical skill led to him becoming the tutor of the young

Caesar, Marcus Aurelius. Fortunately, many of Fronto’s letters are still extant. Fronto’s world

revolved around the law courts and literary salons of Rome and his friends and associates are all

members of the Roman senatorial elite218. His attitude towards Africa is curiously ambiguous.

Fronto maintains close and friendly relations with his native Cirta. He is especially concerned to

promote the interests of his home city and to enhance the careers of young Cirtans219. Despite

this, his connections with the rest of provincial Africa are so few as to be almost non-existent;

there are few non-Cirtan Africans referred to in his surviving correspondence220. Moreover, his

references to Africa, though few, are revealing; in one letter he deprecatingly calls himself ‘a

Libyan of the Libyan nomads’ (M. Caes 1.10.5), in another he prays to his ancestral god Jupiter

Ammon221. Elsewhere, he defensively compares himself to Anacharsis, the learned Scythian,

believing his own background was similarly wild, despite his erudition222.

The extant works of the Apuleius, from Madauros in Numidia, allow us further insight into the

culture of second century Africa223. A brief examination reveals the developing pattern of

upward mobility in Africa. Like Fronto, Apuleius was born into a wealthy provincial family,

probably during the 120sCE, leaving in the late 130sCE to pursue his studies at Carthage, Rome

and unusually, Athens224. Subsequently, he made a successful career as a public speaker, being

granted a statue at Carthage and serving as Africa’s priest of the imperial cult225. Although

Apuleius was not known to have been a lawyer, his works betray a clear understanding of

216 Champlin, op. cit., 5, 20 & App. B.217 Champlin, op. cit., 20-21. 218 Champlin, op. cit., 20-29. 219 Ad Am. 1.3.1ff; Champlin, op. cit., 15-16. 220 Only two names are known, Julius Senex and Julius Aquilinus, see Champlin, op. cit., 148 n.74. 221 Ver. Imp. 2.1.6; Champlin, op. cit., 8. 222 Fronto Ep. Var. 8.1.223 For a summary of Apuleius’ birth, career and surviving works, see Harrison, op. cit., 1-38, 61-62.224 Harrison, op. cit., 1, 6.225 Harrison, op. cit., 8.

44

Roman law; one of his earliest published works, the Apologia, is a stylised account of his

defence against a charge of sorcery226. His attitude towards his home province is, like Fronto,

ambiguous. In pleading his case before the proconsul, he irritably refers to himself as ‘part-

Numidian and part-Gaetulian’ (Apol. 24.2). Replying to attacks on his obscure background, he,

like Fronto, cites Anacharsis: ‘Wise Anacharsis was born among the idiot Scythians, the shrewd

Athenians produced the block-head Meletides’ (Apol. 24.6).

Despite the defensiveness evident in the writings of both Fronto and Apuleius, Africans were

clearly proud of their achievements. P. Postumus Romulus records his entry to the senate with

obvious pleasure; he was the ‘first of the Thubursicitani to be awarded the latus clavus’227. This

was the context behind Statius’ strenuous defence of Septimius’ grandfather: ‘Neither your

speech nor your dress is Punic, yours is no stranger’s mind: Italian, you are, Italian!’ (Statius

Silvae 4.5.45-46).

Although it is virtually certain that Septimius was born on 11 th April 145, little else is known of

his early years228. Nevertheless, it is possible to expand upon the meagre information found

scattered throughout the sources. It is thus more than likely that Septimius spent his formative

years in the care of tutors. Given the deep cultural and political allegiance of his family and

home-city to Rome this is perhaps to be expected. If his education followed the traditional

Roman curriculum, then between the ages of seven and twelve Septimius would have attended

the classes of the magister ludi229. Here he would have learned basic reading, writing and

arithmetic, alongside the memorisation of short moral maxims230. On completing these

elementary studies, children generally progressed to a more intensive study of grammar, under

the direction of the grammaticus231. Although Dio has raised some doubt about the extent of

Septimius’ education, he must have studied grammar at least232. Indeed, as the grandson of an

Italianophile poet, Septimius’ schooling was likely to have been fairly extensive. Thus it seems

probable that he proceeded to the next stage in Roman education. The talented, or more usually

226 Harrison, op. cit., 6-8, 80-81 n.109.227 AE 1906.6 (Thuburiscum Numidarum). See also ILS 1001. 228 See page 1, note 1.229 Muir (1996), pp.509-510; Marrou (1956), 265.230 Marrou, op. cit., 269-271. 231 Marrou, op. cit., 274-283.232 Dio 76 (77). 16.1-2.

45

the wealthy, could then attach themselves to an individual rhetor. From the ages of fifteen to

eighteen such pupils were given in-depth instruction in public oratory, usually by means of an

exhaustive study of literary exempla233.

In Septimius’ case, the Historia Augusta states that he gave an inaugural public address at Lepcis

during his eighteenth year, most probably in the newly refurbished Theatre234. This coming-of-

age lecture, delivered in front of an audience of the city’s deeply status-conscious nobility, was

presumably intended to mark the end of Septimius’ preliminary studies. Correct Latin grammar

and pronunciation would therefore have been essential. It is worth noting the care with which

Apuleius, making a speech in nearby Oea, takes to compliment his own audience; they are

flatteringly assumed to know Greek, understand philosophy and to have had more than a passing

acquaintance with magical lore235.

According to the Historia Augusta, the young Septimius left for Rome shortly after this

ceremony, in order to pursue his studies, arriving in the capital sometime during 163-164236.

Academic and literary pursuits were then at the height of their prestige. Sophists gained massive

popularity in the city through their verbal and linguistic skills, whilst philosophers of almost

every persuasion continued to beat a path to Rome. The emperor himself, Marcus Aurelius,

followed the stoic school and was also the author of the Meditations, a deeply personal reflection

on the nature of duty. His former tutors, though old, were still immensely popular. The

Athenian Herodes Atticus was still giving lectures on Greek sophistry, whilst his Latin

counterpart, Fronto, had become one of the period’s most learned men.

Arriving in the capital, Septimius must have been struck by the prestige and authority of such

men. Indeed, as we saw in the previous chapter, it is possible that he may have been a distant

relative of Fronto’s. The nomenclature of M. Petronius Sura Septimianus, a son of the orator’s

powerful kinsman (cos. 150), seems to recall a marriage link with the Septimii237. It is also worth

233 Marrou, op. cit., 283-291. 234 HA Sev. 1.5; Libya, 95-96.235 Apol. 4; 82; 98.8.236 HA Sev. 1.5. If Septimius was born in 145CE, his eighteenth year would fall in 163 to 164; cf. Birley Septimius, 40, who puts this in the previous year, i.e. 162-163CE.237 The relationship between Fronto and M. Petronius Mamertinus is shown in Ad Am. 1.10.2. Birley Coup, p.269, followed by Champlin, op. cit., 9-10, argues that Septimianus’ nomenclature suggests a marriage link between his father and an otherwise

46

bearing in mind that M. Aufidius Fronto and C. Aufidius Victorinus, Fronto’s two grandsons,

later served under Septimius as ordinary consuls238. That they served in consecutive years (199

and 200 respectively) is particularly suggestive of a family connection of some sort239.

In any case, given Septimius’ energetic and ambitious nature, it is likely that he set about his

studies with vigour. Although not stated unequivocally, it is virtually certain that he studied law.

Honore describes Septimius’ reign as emperor as a key period in the development of Roman law

and as a ‘golden age for lawyers’ in particular240. As such, a number of ancient and modern

historians have argued that as a young man Septimius held the junior post of treasury advocate

(advocatus fiscus), although this is almost certainly wrong. Prior to becoming emperor,

Septimius was twice called upon to defend himself in open court. As a young man he was

charged with adultery, but, in the words of the Historia Augusta, he ‘pleaded his own case and

was acquitted by the proconsul Julianus’ (HA Sev. 2.2). In later life, during the chaotic last years

of Commodus, Septimius was charged with consulting astrologers. He was again acquitted, and

his accuser was apparently crucified. Although, as we shall see, this second trial and acquittal

were politically motivated, a thorough knowledge of law would have been vital241.

We can also gauge the extent of Septimius’ legal training by other means. In 177, Marcus

Aurelius appointed Septimius praetor. During the principate, praetors were primarily responsible

for presiding over the courts at Rome. Marcus, who is said to have been scrupulous in the

administration of justice, dramatically increased the number of days in which the courts could

hear cases242. As such, it is extremely unlikely that he would have employed someone in such an

important capacity who was not familiar with Roman law. This is given still greater emphasis by

Septimius’ subsequent posting to Hispania Tarraconensis as legatus iuridicus. The role of the

legatus iuridicus was to assist the provincial governor in all legal matters. As such, Septimius

would have needed both experience and understanding of the practical application of the law243.

unknown Septimia. See PIR 2 P287 (M. Petronius Mamertinus, cos. 150); PIR 2 P312 (Septimianus, cos. ord. 190); PIR 2 P311 (M. Petronius Mamertinus, cos. ord. 182); Birley Septimius, 27f, App. 2 no. 57, 58, 59.238 Champlin, op. cit., 28. For Aufidius Fronto see PIR 2 A1385; Alfoldy Senat, p.135; Barbieri Albo, no.69. For Aufidius Victorinus, see PIR 2 A1394; Alfoldy Senat, p.135; Barbieri Albo, no.72. 239 Alfoldy Senat, p.158. 240 Honore (1962), p.163.241 HA Sev. 4.3-4.242 HA Marc. 12.3-4, cf. 24.2; Talbert (1984), 185ff; Birley (1993), 133ff, 179ff; Birley Septimius, 54-55.243 HA Sev 3.4. See Barnes (1967), pp.93-94; Birley Septimius, 55.

47

Septimius must therefore have studied law to quite an advanced degree, possibly working as an

advocate, pleading cases in the courts, like his grandfather before him. Although it remains

somewhat unlikely, it is not impossible that he was a pupil of the noted jurist Q. Cervidius

Scaevola, along with his later colleague Papinian, as stated by the Historia Augusta244.

Almost immediately after his arrival in Rome, Septimius’ ambition was rewarded when the

emperor granted his petition to wear the latus clavus (or broad stripe). This grant was an

important first step in establishing Septimius’ fledgling career because it opened up the promise

of a place in the senate. As such, it is of particular relevance to our own study because it allows

us an insight into the operation of patronage. The Historia Augusta remarks that Septimius was

awarded the broad stripe through the efforts of his consular relative, C. Septimius Severus245.

There was nothing unusual in this. As a close relative and an ex-consul, C. Septimius Severus

would have been expected to use his influence to promote his young kinsman’s career. Indeed,

the only remarkable thing about this entire incident is just how ordinary it is. There is no

mention of Africa or of any African faction at all.

It is also highly likely that Caius’ influence secured Septimius a post in the vigintivirate. From

its inception in the early Republic, this ‘board of twenty’ (originally a board of twenty-six) had

been used to groom young noblemen for the rigours of a senatorial career by providing them

with junior posts in the bureaucracy. Usually held at about the age of twenty, vigintiviral posts

covered four distinct areas of responsibility. The three most eminent young men would serve as

officials in the mint at Rome (tresviri monetales). Another ten (usually those with consular

fathers) served in the courts (the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis). Those from less prestigious

backgrounds were usually given posts among either the quattoviri viarum curandarum (who

helped oversee the upkeep of the Italian road network) or the tresviri capitals (who seem to have

had a policing function)246. Although unattested in Septimius’ case, by his time the tenure of one

of these posts had become an essential prerequisite for entry to the senate247. Indeed, his brother

244 HA Cara. 8.3. 245 HA Sev. 1.5.246 Talbert, op. cit., 13. 247 Dio 54.26.5; Birley (1981), 4ff; Talbert, op. cit., 14.

48

Geta served as a decemvir stlitibus iudicandis248. It is virtually certain, therefore, that he held one

of these posts, most probably sometime between 164 and 166CE249.

The next step for many young noblemen would have been a commission as a junior officer

(military tribune) in one of the legions. Although a late source avers that Septimius served in

this capacity, the Historia Augusta has him ‘omitting the office of tribune of the soldiers’ (HA

Sev. 2.3)250. Whilst this was unusual, it was by no means unheard of. Those from either

patrician or old senatorial families were not so concerned with it, whilst for those from less

august backgrounds the military tribunate was not an essential prerequisite for entry into the

senate251. Moreover, during the 160s Rome fought a number of serious wars on its eastern and

northern frontiers. This may well also have had an impact on the recruitment of young officers;

whilst there may have been more vacancies than usual, given the occurrence of casualties, it is

likely that those tribunes with demonstrable military talent would have been retained for longer

periods252. Interestingly enough, Septimius’ brother Geta held a tribunate with the legio II

Augusta in Britain253. It is also distinctly possible that during this time Geta made the

acquaintance of the future emperor P. Helvius Pertinax. A number of inscriptions attest the

presence of detachments from II Augusta at Corbridge on Tyne, whilst during the 160s, Pertinax

held two military posts in Britain254. The first was as an equestrian tribune of legio VI Victrix,

based at York, though a number of inscriptions show that vexillations from VI Victrix were

active on Hadrian’s Wall255. The second, and more significant, seems to have been the command

of coh. I Tungrorum, most probably based at Housesteads256.

Two late sources state that Septimius served as an advocate for the imperial treasury (an

advocatus fiscus), however this is extremely unlikely257. Both references are problematic. In its

248 IRT 541. 249 By this reckoning, he would have been about twenty when he served in the vigintivirate. See Birley Septimius, 40.250 Eutr. Brev. 8.12.2. For further discussion, see Barnes Family, p.91; Birley Septimius, 39. Platnauer (1918), 40 and Hammond (1940), p.154, avoid the question for lack of evidence.251 Talbert, ibid.252 The usual length of service in this post seems to have been about one year. Talbert, ibid; Birley Septimius, 39; Birley (1993), App. 3.253 IRT 541.254 RIB 1127; 1136; 1155-1158. 255 RIB 1120; 1122; 1125; 1130-1132; 1137; 1159-1163; 1175; 1190 all show troops from VI Victrix at Corbridge on Tyne.256 AE 1963.52. For commentary, see Kolbe (1962), pp.407-420; Birley Septimius, 238, n.5.257 Victor De Caes. 20.30; HA Geta 2.4.

49

life of Geta, the Historia Augusta remarks that Septimius named his second son Antoninus

because the emperor Antoninus Pius had made him an advocate258. Firstly, as there is no

mention of this in the epigraphic and numismatic record, this is highly suspicious259. Secondly,

as Septimius can only have been fifteen years of age when Pius died in 161, he would have been

far too young for such a position260. In his Breviarium, Eutropius makes a similar remark.

However, he is far too vague with details to be given much credence on this occasion261.

By 166, at the very latest, Septimius’ employment as a vigintivir had come to an end. In the

same year, the emperor Lucius Verus returned to Rome after a spectacular victory in the east

over Parthia262. The ambitious twenty-year-old, who had already acquired something of a

reputation as a rake and whose sights must have been set firmly upon attaining the quaestorship

at twenty-four, may even have witnessed Verus’ triumphant entry into the city263. Unfortunately,

the victorious soldiers brought back a deadly plague with them, which spread quickly throughout

the capital264. Septimius, who may first have retired to his family estates near Veii, seems to

have returned to Africa at this point, where he continued his wild behaviour. The ever-

interesting vita Severi remarks enigmatically that Septimius was charged with adultery,

whereupon he ‘…pleaded his own case and was acquitted by the proconsul Julianus, the man

who was his immediate predecessor in the proconsulship, his colleague in the consulship, and

likewise his predecessor on the throne’ (HA Sev. 2.2-3). The proconsul of Africa during 167-

168 was none other than Salvius Julianus, the famous jurist. Didius Julianus, Septimius’

predecessor as emperor, was in all probability present at the trial, as his relative’s legate265.

Thus, although the Historia Augusta has erred in its identification, it has recorded a significant

point; Septimius and Didius Julianus knew each other prior to 193266. It also seems that, during

258 HA Geta 2.4.259 Syme (1971c), 81-82. 260 If Septimius was born in 145 he would have been fifteen when Pius died on the seventh of March 161. See Magie (1960), 129; Birley (1993), 113, 116, 120. For Septimius’ date of birth see page 1, note 1.261 Bird (1993), vii-lvii; Barnes, op. cit., p.93; Jones (1973), 1010.262 Birley, op. cit., 145-146. 263 HA Sev. 2.1-2 remarks that Septimius’ youth was ‘filled with follies and not free from crime’. The minimum age for a quaestor was set at 30 during the late republic. Augustus lowered this, first to 25 and then to 24, on the principle that one’s 25 th

year began after the end of the 24th birthday (Dig. 50.4.8). Augustus also gave One year’s remission for each child. Birley (1981), 12; Talbert, op. cit., 18.264 Birley, op. cit., 149ff. 265 Thomasson FA, P85266 The author of the HA seems to have been particularly confused by the Julianii. For a useful corrective, see Barnes (1970), pp.45-51.

50

this time, the emperor Lucius Verus died from a stroke, whilst preparing for a major offensive

against the hostile tribes of the north267.

In any case, Septimius was back in Rome in time to stand for the quaestorial elections for 170 268.

Evidently, the acquittal had not adversely affected his career prospects. It is highly likely that his

two consular relatives were active behind the scenes on his behalf. In any case, in late 169

Septimius was duly elected quaestor. With this he officially entered the Roman senate, which at

that time had a membership of about six hundred269. He could therefore speak and vote at

senatorial meetings, though as a new senator his more senior colleagues took precedence270.

During the principate, twenty quaestors were elected annually. Two would be seconded to the

emperor himself as quaestores Caesaris, two would serve in the imperial treasury as quaestores

urbani, four would assist the consuls and the rest were either based in Italy or were attached to

the staff of provincial governors as financial assistants271. Although very little is known of

Septimius’ year as quaestor, it seems likely, given his ambition, that he applied himself to his

duties with enthusiasm. The Historia Augusta states that he ‘became quaestor and performed his

duties with diligence’ (HA Sev. 2.3). Interestingly, Dio states that at this time Septimius’

ambitions were encouraged by a prophetic dream, in which he saw himself ‘suckled by a she-

wolf just as Romulus had been’ (Dio 74 (75). 3.1).

A military crisis the following year gave Septimius a further opportunity to prove himself. In

170, a punitive expedition was launched against the Marcomanni, Quadi and Costoboci, in

retaliation for their attacks on the northern frontier. Directed from Carnuntum by the emperor

Marcus Aurelius himself, Roman troops crossed the Danube in an attempt to dislodge these

dangerous tribes from their strongholds in Bohemia, Moravia and Romania. In the early spring,

however, imperial forces met with a number of grave reverses, which left serious gaps in the

Danube defences. Sweeping down from the north, the Marcomanni and Quadi drove across the

Carnic Alps and laid siege to Aquileia in northern Italy, before destroying nearby Opitergium.

The Costoboci, meanwhile, surged across the Moesian border and swept through into Greece, 267 HA Verus 9.11; Birley Septimius, 47-48. 268 Both Platnauer (op. cit., 40) and Hammond (op. cit., p.154) place the quaestorship in 171-172. This argument fails to take Ulpian’s statement, regarding the legal definition of a year, into account (see note 20 above).269 Talbert, op. cit., 29-30270 Talbert, op. cit., 16-17271 Talbert, op. cit., 17

51

sacking the Shrine of the Mysteries at Eleusis272. Roman losses were heavy. One author puts the

number of dead at almost twenty thousand, whilst the governor of Dacia, Claudius Fronto, was

killed ‘…fighting for the republic to the last’273.

The emperor responded to the emergency by advancing the careers of men with military talent.

Claudius Pompeianus, the son of an equestrian from Antioch, had proven himself in a number of

important posts, including the command of Pannonia Inferior in 167274. His loyal service was

rewarded by a marriage link to the imperial family itself. A few months after the death of Lucius

Verus, and before the end of the official period of mourning, Pompeianus became Marcus’ son-

in-law by marrying Verus’ widow Lucilla. Both Lucilla and her mother, the empress Faustina,

were opposed to the marriage; Pompeianus’ background was relatively humble and he was

considerably older than his new wife275.

Pompeianus also became the emperor’s chief military adviser, with special responsibility for

driving the invaders out of Italy276. Pompeianus’ choice of lieutenant was also particularly

noteworthy. P. Helvius Pertinax, dismissed from the post of procurator in Dacia two years

previously through the ‘machinations of certain persons’, was restored to favour and given

command of an auxiliary cohort (HA Pert. 2.4). It is also possible that P. Septimius Geta,

Septimius’ elder brother, served as curator at the port of Ancona in northern Italy at about this

time277. If this is the case, it is a distinct possibility that Pertinax was behind the appointment.

Meanwhile, Vehilius Gratus Julianus was sent to destroy the Cosotboci in Greece and Valerius

Maximianus was sent along the Danube with a special force of marines, in order to re-open the

shattered supply lines to the north278.

The appointment of quaestors for 171 was also affected by the military emergency. Due to the

difficulties caused by the hostilities, there seems to have been a shortage of candidates. To

272 Amm. Marc. 29.6.1; Birley (1993), 159-183, App. 3.273 Lucian Alex 48. For Claudius Fronto see PIR 2 C874.274 PIR 2 C973 275 Pompeianus was probably in his fifties at the time. Lucilla was in her twenties. See Dio 72 (73). 4.5: HA Marc. 20.6-7; HA Verus 9.11; HA Cara. 3.8; Her. 1.8.3; Birley (1993), 161.276 Birley, op. cit., 168. 277 IRT 541. 278 Birley, op. cit., 165.

52

combat this shortfall, some of the previous year’s quaestors had their commissions extended for

a second term. Septimius was thus made proquaestor for the province of Baetica in southern

Spain279. Interestingly enough, it seems that the governor of Baetica in 171-172 was one P.

Cornelius Anullinus, who was to become one of Septimius’ key supporters in 193280. Given that

the governor had some influence over the appointment of subordinate officials, it is possible that

Anullinus selected Septimius personally281.

In any case, in early 171, shortly before he was due to leave Rome, news reached Septimius of

his father’s death at Lepcis, whereupon he was given permission to return home and settle his

father’s estate282. Whilst he was at Lepcis, however, Moorish tribes from Mauretania invaded

southern Spain283. In order to cope with the invasion, Baetica, which had no legionary garrison

of its own, was placed under direct imperial control. Legio VII Gemina was sent from its base at

Leon in northern Spain, under C. Aufidius Victorinus, and a special expeditionary force, made

up of troops who had fought successfully against the Costoboci in Greece, was despatched under

the procurator Vehilius Gratus Julianus284. Meanwhile Septimius received orders transferring

him to the island province of Sardinia, which had been specially assigned to the senate’s control

during the crisis285. Whilst this was probably done at the instigation of the imperial government,

it is likely that Septimius’ consular relatives had a hand in the matter.

The posting to Sardinia was over by late 172, whereupon Septimius returned to the capital. In

the following year (173-174) his relative, C. Septimius Severus (cos. 160), was made proconsul

of Africa286. During the second century the proconsul’s administrative staff included two legates,

Caius, not unnaturally, gave one of these posts to Septimius287. As we saw above, the

enhancement of familial prestige in this manner was not unusual. Septimius’ duties would have

279 HA Sev. 3.4. Birley (1981), 282 n.1, discusses these double-quaestorships. See also Birley Septimius, 50; Barnes, op. cit., p.92 n.43. 280 See PIR 2 C1322; Alfoldy Senat, p.140, for a summary of his career.281 Birley Septimius, 49; Alfoldy Senat, p.124.282 HA Sev. 2.3-4. News must have arrived very early in 171, as officials had to be in their respective provinces by 13 th April: Dio (60.17.3).283 Dated to 171 by Alföldy (1985), p.101.284 Birley (1993), 168 n.20; Alfoldy (1969) 38ff; Pflaum CP no.180. 285 HA Sev.2.5-6. Punic culture remained strong in second century Sardinia. See Van Dommelen (1998), pp.25-48; Astin (1959), pp.150-153. 286 Caius’ proconsulship can be dated, fairly accurately, to 173-174CE. See Thomasson FA, P89; LP, col. 383, no. 102.287 HA Sev. 2.5-6.

53

included deputising for the governor, as well as a judge in local assizes288. Official ceremonies

were also an important aspect of provincial government. Thus an inscription records Caius and

Septimius dedicating a triumphal arch at Lepcis, whilst another from Numidia shows Caius as

the patron of Thuburiscu Numidarum289.

Two intriguing incidents recorded by the Historia Augusta should be assigned to this period.

Firstly, whilst on official business at Lepcis, Septimius was met and embraced by an old

acquaintance. Reacting badly to his friend’s manhandling, Septimius instructed his lictors to

give the man a beating, declaring through his heralds that henceforth common citizens should not

embrace an imperial legate without due cause290. Secondly, Septimius consulted an astrologer

(mathematicus), ‘in a certain city of Africa’ (HA Sev. 2.7-8). Upon casting Septimius’ chart, the

astrologer is said to have asked him to produce his real birth date and not ‘that of another man’

(HA Sev. 2.8). After Septimius swore that he had told the truth, the astrologer is alleged to have

accurately prophesied his later career. Both incidents provide us with valuable insights into

Septimius’ character; he had a keen sense of his own importance, was clearly ambitious and was

prepared to work hard to achieve his aims.

Septimius’ energy was rewarded at the end of the following year (174CE) when he was made a

plebeian tribune ‘by order of the Emperor Marcus’ (HA Sev. 3.1). Although the office of tribune

carried little real authority during the principate, along with the aedileship, it remained an

important step in the careers of those from less prestigious backgrounds291. The tribune still held

his power of veto, though little used, and could still, at times, initiate senatorial debate. Despite

this, the tribune’s duties remained largely ceremonial292. Nevertheless, an imperial

recommendation was a prestigious honour. Although it did not guarantee promotion to high

office, it was usually a good indicator of future success. It also meant that the candidatus

Caesaris did not have to stand for election293. Such commendations could be granted in a

number of ways: through the emperor’s personal whim, through an official report or through the

288 Birley Septimius, 51.289 Di Vita-Evrard (1963), 389ff; Thomasson FA, P89; Thuburiscu inscription: IL Alg. 1.1283.290 HA Sev. 2.6.291 Senators of patrician rank could not hold the office of plebeian tribune. See Talbert, op. cit., 18-19.292 Talbert, op. cit., 185ff, 235.293 Tribunes served from each December for a period of one year, see Talbert, op. cit., 14, 18, 54, 342.

54

action of an influential patron. In Septimius’ case, it was probably due to a combination of his

relative Caius’ standing and his report to the emperor of his progress. The Historia Augusta

remarks that Septimius performed his duties with ‘great strictness and energy’ (HA Sev. 3.1),

which an active relative would not fail to bring to the emperor’s attention.

Septimius’ time as tribune, from December 174 to December 175, was a particularly sensitive

period in Roman politics294. Amidst rumours of Marcus Aurelius’ death, Avidius Cassius, the

governor of Syria, rebelled against the government and declared himself emperor, with the

support of most of the east. Although Marcus had always been frail, it seems that he had been

particularly ill at the time. The literary sources name the empress Faustina as the principal

instigator of the revolt295. Though we may fairly ignore their accusations of adultery, it is

possible, as Birley has plausibly suggested, that the entire affair sprang from Faustina’s and

Lucilla’s attempt to safeguard their own position should Marcus die, by destroying the influence

of Pompeianus296. In any case, the revolt was soon quashed. A staff officer murdered Cassius

and the situation gradually returned to normal. Meanwhile, Septimius may well have been called

upon to use his tribunician power to help maintain calm in the capital.

This was also an important year for Septimius personally. According to the Historia Augusta,

during 175 Septimius, then in his thirtieth year, married a woman from Lepcis297. Although little

is known about his new bride, it is clear from her nomenclature (Paccia Marciana) that she came

from a wealthy family, whose ancestors seem to have received Roman citizenship during the mid

first century298. Moreover, it is clear that, despite their elevated status, the Septimii were still

making marriage alliances with notable Lepcitane families. There is also some evidence that the

Septimii were cementing their relationships with the wider nobility by other means. Septimius’

elder brother was appointed to the command of the Legio I Italica, stationed in Moesia Inferior,

possibly during the governorship of Pertinax299. Although the evidence is somewhat conjectural,

294 Birley Septimius, 52-53; cf. Barnes, op. cit., p.92.295 Dio 71 (72). 17.1; HA Marc. 24.5; HA Avid. Cass. passim; Birley (1993), 184-189.296 Birley, op. cit., 185. 297 HA Sev. 3.2. 298 Her full name is given in ILS 440. Her names suggest that her ancestors were enfranchised under Q. Marcius Barea Soranus (proconsul of Africa 41-43CE) and C. Paccius Africanus (proconsul in 72CE). See Birley (1988), p.8; Thomasson LP, col. 375 no.29, col. 377-378 no. 50.299 Although there are few firm dates in Geta’s earlier career, if, as Birley argues, he was born c.143CE then it is quite conceivable that he held the command of I Italica during the first German-Sarmatian war. Pertinax was governor of Lower

55

if accurate, it demonstrates a growing link between Septimius’ family and Pertinax, whose own

patron was the eminent soldier Claudius Pompeianus300. In other words, if correct, we are seeing

the emergence of an important political faction.

Despite his hard work, Septimius remained ‘one of the ordinary crowd of competitors’ (HA Sev.

3.3-4) and did not receive an imperial recommendation for the praetorship of 177, though he was

successfully elected301. Although he must have been disappointed, his failure to obtain the

emperor’s favour did not mean that he had fallen from grace. During the principate, imperial

commendations for the praetorship were usually reserved for the patrician nobility, or for those

who had earned the ruler’s patronage in some other way302. Thus during his own reign,

Septimius himself seems to have used this honour sparingly, reserving it solely for members of

the high aristocracy and his own close supporters303.

As praetor, Septimius would primarily have been responsible for presiding over the courts at

Rome, though he would have had other duties. Given his legal training, this would no doubt

have appealed to Septimius. In any case, he is likely to have been kept very busy. The sources

indicate that Marcus Aurelius dramatically increased the number of days during which the courts

could hear cases304. It would also have been his first taste of imperium.

Towards the end of 177, in circumstances that are far from clear, Septimius was sent on a special

assignment. He was ordered to Hispania Tarraconensis, as an extraordinary judicial legate of the

governor (legatus iuridicus) and given responsibility for the north west region of Asturia and

Callaecia305. In other words, Septimius was to be the governor’s supreme legal expert. This

obviously required a high degree of legal expertise, in both theoretical and applied law and was a

Moesia c.175. On Geta see Birley Coup, p.263; Barbieri Albo no. 469; cf. Alfoldy Senat, p.151, who dates the command to 185. On the date of Pertinax’ Moseian command see Dabrowa (1998), 119-120; Birley (1981), 142-146; Kolbe (1962), pp.407-420.300 IRT 541.301 From the Flavian period onwards, eighteen praetors were appointed annually. The majority o f these magistrates would serve at Rome in the courts, as well as having the responsibility of paying for public games from their own resources, though two served in the imperial treasury (praetores aerarii). HA Sev. 3.3-4 states that Septimius was elected praetor in his thirty-second year, i.e. from April 176 to April 177. As praetors seem to have entered office on 1st January, Septimius must therefore have held office during 177CE. Talbert, op. cit., 18-20, 204-207. 302 Magie (1960), 376 n.1. 303 Alfoldy Senat, App. V. 304 HA Marc. 12.3-4, cf. 24.2; Talbert, op. cit., 185ff.305 HA Sev. 3.4; Birley Septimius, 55.

56

promising boost to Septimius’ career. From the few other references to the post, it appears that

the term of office did not usually exceed three years306. As such, Septimius was unable to

organise public games at Rome in person. Instead, as the Historia Augusta records, he gave

them in absentia307.

By early 180, at the very latest, Septimius was back in Rome. As an ex-praetor, with some

significant legal experience behind him, Septimius’ employment prospects had improved

dramatically. He could now serve in a number of official capacities, as the governor of one of

the less important provinces, or as a legionary commander308. In the event, he was given the

command of Legio IV Scythica in Syria309. This was Septimius’ first military post and it is surely

significant that the then governor was none other than P. Helvius Pertinax310. If the suggestion

that Geta had served under Pertinax in Moesia is accurate, as tentatively advanced above, then it

is eminently possible that this rising star of the Antonine military had a direct hand in the

appointment. It is probable that Septimius first made the acquaintance of his future wife Julia

Domna during this time. It is also possible that he served alongside L. Fabius Cilo, who

commanded the Legio XVI Flavia Firma during the early 180s and was later to be a close

associate of Septimius311.

On the 17th March 180 the emperor Marcus Aurelius died at Bononia in Pannonia Inferior312. His

son Commodus, who had already been co-emperor for four years, became the new sole ruler.

Despite the foresight with which the succession had been arranged, the Roman establishment

soon found that life was going to be very different under the new imperator. Commodus, like

Caligula and Nero before him, was a flamboyant young man, being only eighteen at the time of

his accession. Secondly, like his erstwhile predecessors, Commodus felt stifled by his father’s

306 Barnes, op. cit., pp.93-94; Birley Septimius, 55. 307 HA Sev. 3.5-6. 308 Talbert, op. cit., 19, 146-147. 309 The MSS of HA Sev. 3.7 give Massiliam (modern Marseille) as the IV Scythica’s location. This plain error has attracted a number of different corrections. Birley’s emendation to Marsyas, a small tributary of the Euphrates near Samosata and Zeugma, seems the most plausible: 1970, pp.72-73.310 PIR 2 H73; Dabrowa, ibid.311 Birley Septimius, 69-72. For the history of Julia’s family, see Sullivan (1977), pp. 198-219. For Cilo see PIR 2 F27; Alfoldy Senat, App. II, pp.141-142.312 Dio 71 (72). 33.4-34; Birley (1993), 210.

57

immense auctoritas. Dio, in his introduction to the reign, accurately describes the new

emperor’s character:

‘… he was not naturally wicked, but, on the contrary, as guileless as any man that ever lived. His great simplicity, however, together with his cowardice, made him the slave of his companions, and it was through them that he at first, out of ignorance, missed the better life and then was led on into lustful and cruel habits, which soon became second nature’ (Dio 72 (73). 1.1-2).

Although much of Dio’s account is undoubtedly hostile, Commodus emerges from the sources as

a tense, unhappy individual, ill at ease with himself and uncomfortable with the weight of the

expectations that were placed upon him313. This made him easy prey to ambitious sycophants.

During the course of his twelve-year reign a succession of favourites fought for control over him.

The first of these creatures was one Saoterus, from Nicomedia in Bithynia314. According to one

source, he was the emperor’s lover315. Whatever the truth of this claim, Saoterus certainly had

more influence with Commodus than his late father’s advisors felt was appropriate. The

discontent caused by such behaviour, and the disruption it caused to the established career

patterns of the nobility, led to two major conspiracies in 182, a mere two years after Marcus’

death.

The first plot involved senior members of the imperial family, the most notable of whom was

Commodus’ sister Lucilla. According to Herodian, Lucilla was driven to conspire against her

brother by the titles and honours he bestowed on his wife Crispina316. In conjunction with her

two apparent lovers, Ummidius Quadratus and Claudius Pompeianus Quintianus and the Guard

prefect Tarrutienus Paternus, she is said to have planned to murder Commodus at the theatre 317.

Quadratus was the adopted son of Marcus Aurelius’ nephew, whilst Quintianus was the nephew

of Lucilla’s husband, Claudius Pompeianus318. In the event, however, the melodramatic

Pompeianus failed in his attempt. Just before stabbing Commodus, he is said to have paused

313 Cf. HA Comm. 3.9. 314 Dio 72 (73). 12.1-2. 315 HA Comm. 3.6-7. 316 Her. 1.8.3-6. 317 Paternus: Howe (1966), no.1.318 Quadratus (PIR 2 Q2) was the natural son of Cn. Claudius Severus (cos. II ord. 173) and the adopted son of M. Ummidius Quadratus (cos. ord. 167). See Syme (1968), p.689-690. For Quintianus see PIR 2 C975 and Birley Septimius, 60-61.

58

momentarily and declaimed: ‘See! This is what the senate has sent you’ (Dio 72 (73). 4.4) 319.

This gave the imperial bodyguard time to overpower him.

The two senators were both summarily executed whilst Lucilla was exiled to Capri, to be killed

the following year. Her estranged husband, who the sources claim was uninvolved, was allowed

to retire to his estates320. Two of the emperor’s other favourites, Cleander and Paternus, used the

ensuing chaos to have Saoterus murdered321. Soon afterwards, however, Paternus became

implicated in a second conspiracy and was summarily executed. On this occasion, those killed

or exiled included two consuls, two ex-consuls, the imperial secretary (or ab epistulis) and the

daughter of Marcus Aurelius’ cousin, amongst others322.

The entire affair seems to have affected Commodus deeply323. From this point onwards, though

he might make use of the senate, he seems to have lost his faith in it entirely. However, the

emperor’s growing paranoia merely served to intensify his isolation from the nobility, which

increased his vulnerability to, and reliance on ambitious favourites. As Whittaker remarks, it

was the ‘persistent overthrow of one after another of the amici which in the end left Commodus

at the mercy of a Perennis or a Cleander and deprived him of the power to rule’324.

As such, Commodus increasingly relied upon whim and rumour in weeding out supposed

opponents325. Thus during 183 the two ex-consuls, Sex. Quintilius Valerius Maximus and his

brother Sex. Quintilius Condianus, were put to death by the emperor, because their prestigious

civilian and military reputation aroused his suspicion326. Maximus’ son, Quintilius Condianus,

who was in Syria at the time, was also included in the death sentence. He refused to go quietly,

however, and was pursued throughout the province. Dio remarks that Condianus’ ultimate fate

319 HA Comm. 4.3 gives almost exactly the same wording. Her. 1.8.6 refers to a ‘speech’.320 Her. 1.8.4. 321 HA Comm. 4.5; cf. Dio who credits Cleander with responsibility, 72 (73). 12.1-2.322 Dio 73.5.1-2; HA Comm. 3.2; 4.1.7-10; HA Did. Jul. 1.9-2.2. The consuls were Salvius Julianus, son of the famous jurist, and Paternus himself. Velius Rufus and Egnatius Capito (PIR 2 E17) were the two ex-consuls. Vitrasia Faustina, daughter of Annia Funfania Faustina, Marcus’ cousin, and the ab epistulis Vitruvius Secundus were also executed. The former consuls Aemilius Juncus (PIR 2 A352) and Atilius Severus (PIR 2 A1309) were exiled. Didius Julianus (PIR 2 D77), the later emperor and relative of the executed consul Salvius Julianus, also seems to have been exiled at this time. See Dio 73 (74). 11.2; Leaning (1989), p.554.323 Her. 1.8.7-8. 324 Whittaker Revolt, p.356. 325 Dio 72 (73).7.3; Her. 1.8.2; HA Comm. 8.2-4.326 Dio 72 (73).5.3-4; 71 (72).33.1. See PIR 2 Q27 and PIR 2 Q21 for the brothers’ respective careers.

59

was unknown, although ‘a great number of heads purporting to be his were brought to Rome’

(Dio 72 (73). 6.4-5). Both Pertinax and Septimius, as the provincial governor and legate of

Legio IV Scythica respectively, must have taken part in this grisly manhunt327.

Syria seems to have figured in a number of disconcerting reports at about this time. Apart from

the hunt for Condianus, two of the senators exiled in 182 were natives of Hierapolis and Tripolis,

whilst five years previously Syria had been involved in the revolt of Avidius Cassius328.

Similarly, suspicions seem to have been raised about the loyalty of the Syrian governor and one

of his legates. Thus Commodus, at the instigation of Tigidius Perennis, his new favourite and

Paternus’ replacement as praetorian prefect, seems to have recalled Pertinax to Rome329. The

Historia Augusta records that, upon his arrival in Rome, he ‘received orders from Perennis to

retire to his father’s farm in Liguria’ (HA Pert. 3.2-3). Whilst it is possible that this was an

isolated incident, given Pertinax’ close relationship with Claudius Pompeianus, it is likely to

have been connected in some way with the fall of Lucilla the year before.

Septimius seems to have been dismissed from office himself shortly afterwards. The vita Severi

makes the cryptic remark that after this post Septimius ‘proceeded to Athens – partly in order to

continue his studies and perform sacred rites, and partly on account of the public buildings and

ancient monuments there’ (HA Sev. 3.7-8). This, by itself, suggests that Septimius was either an

actual client of Pertinax, or was otherwise believed to have been his close associate.

Interestingly enough, Pertinax’ successor in Syria was one Domitius Dexter. Dexter was one of

Septimius’ chief supporters in 193. He held the key post of praefectus urbi during the campaign

against Niger and was rewarded for his loyal service in 196, when he was made consul

ordinarius330. It is eminently possible, therefore, that the two men met at this time. Septimius

may even have acted temporarily as the governor before Dexter’s arrival331.

In Athens, Septimius would have found much to distract him from the disappointing lull in his

career. Although the days of its glory had long since passed, second century Athens was still an

327 See Dio 72 (73).5.3-6.5; HA Comm. 4.9-10. Cf. Birley Septimius, 61-62.328 The executed senators were Velius Rufus and Aemilius Juncus respectively, see Birley Septimius, 56, 60.329 Perennis: Howe, op. cit., no.2. 330 PIR 2 D144; Alfoldy Senat, p.141; Barbieri, Albo, no.203; Dabrowa, op. cit., 122.331 Birley Septimius, 68, 73.

60

inspiring and captivating place. The city’s intellectual heritage had preserved and developed its

reputation. Sixty years previously, Hadrian’s fascination with Athens had breathed new life into

the city; old customs were revived, local administration was restructured and endowments were

made to the gymnasiarch332. These benefactions were further expanded under Hadrian’s

successors to include subsidised chairs of philosophy and rhetoric. Thus by the time of

Septimius’ enforced retirement, Athens had become the intellectual capital of the empire,

challenging even Alexandria333. Septimius may well have attended the lectures of such leading

thinkers as Apollonius334. It is also possible that he first made the acquaintance of Aelius

Antipater, pupil of Herodes Atticus, at this time, and he may even have been initiated into the

Eleusinian Mysteries335. Although Septimius was probably a keen student, his two-year absence

from the political centre must have grated on him. Circumstances at Rome, however, were

beginning to move in his favour.

During Septimius’ sojourn at Athens, Commodus had continued to pursue his gladiatorial career,

leaving the affairs of state in Perennis’ ambitious hands. Perennis, who was not content to

remain a mere servant, set about isolating Commodus from the senate. Thus men like Pertinax,

close associates of Marcus Aurelius, were gradually driven from the political limelight. Lesser

opponents were put to death336. Key members of the senatorial nobility began to fight back. An

alliance with Commodus’ powerful chamberlain, Cleander, was formed and a number of

attempts were made to discredit the praetorian prefect.

In 184, a small war broke out in Dacia. Although the fighting was fierce, the situation seems to

have been quickly brought under control. Interestingly, Dio states that Septimius’ future rivals,

Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus, both fought with distinction in this conflict337.

Controversially, Perennis’ sons were given a command along the Danube towards the end of the

332 Hadrian seems to have revived the practice of sending sacred embassies to Delos. He also seems to have reorganised the council of the Areopagus. The endowments are attested by Dio 69 (70).16.1-2. See Geagan (1979), pp.389-399; Hurwit (1999), 274-275.333 Geagan, op. cit., pp.402-405; Hurwit, op. cit., 264 & 277. 334 Philos. VS 2.601 records that Apollonius conducted a successful embassy for the city, probably in 196-197. Wright (1968), 255; Birley Septimius, 74.335 Philos. VS 2.607; Birley Septimius, 73. For a discussion of emperors and the mysteries, see Millar (1992), 449-450.336 HA Comm. 5.7-8. 337 Dio 72 (73). 8.1.

61

campaign. A rumour quickly began to circulate, presumably spread by Perennis’ enemies at

court, that he was trying to claim the credit for himself338.

Perennis also made enemies amongst the British legions. During the early years of Commodus’

reign, Caledonian tribes, from what is now southern Scotland, breached the Roman defences and

‘cut down a general together with his troops’ (Dio 72 (73). 8.2)339. In response, Commodus sent

the well-known disciplinarian Ulpius Marcellus to restore order. Although he was successful in

repelling the invaders, his strict manner quickly caused severe unrest amongst his soldiers340.

The legionaries reacted by attempting to proclaim Priscus, one of their legates, emperor. Priscus

wisely refused341. Perennis, no doubt sensing an orchestrated plot, dismissed the province’s

legionary legates and replaced them with equestrian officials342.

Although the subsequent course of events is far from clear, Perennis seems to have been

removed soon afterwards. Several incidents, casting doubt on Perennis’ loyalty, are recorded by

the sources. Dio states that 1,500 British troops deliberately came to Rome to inform the

emperor of Perennis’ treachery. He adds that Commodus himself met these men just outside the

capital and, upon hearing their story, had Perennis summarily executed343. It is, however,

possible that these troops had been specially assigned to Gaul. Deserters and bandits had

increasingly troubled the Gallic countryside since the northern wars of Marcus Aurelius.

Herodian, by contrast, writes that a much smaller deputation, this time from the Danube legions,

caused Perennis’ fall. This group carried with them coins bearing Perennis’ own portrait, instead

of the emperor’s. After hearing their testimony, Commodus immediately had Perennis and his

sons killed344.

338 HA Comm. 6.1; Her. 1.9.1. Herodian states that Perennis’ sons were given command of the Illyrian army. It seems, however, that he was in fact referring to Pannonia. See Whittaker (1969), 52 n.1.339 The exact date is disputed. According to Frere (1987), 147, the invasion took place in 181. Birley (1981), 136, dates the attack to 182-183. 340 Although generally favourable, Dio remarks that, as a soldier, Marcellus was ‘haughty and arrogant’ (72 (73). 8.2-3). As a result of this campaign Commodus took the title ‘Britannicus’.341 72 (73). 9.2a.342 HA Comm. 6.2. 343 Dio 72 (73).9.2-4.344 Her. 1.9.7-10.

62

With the removal of Perennis, Cleander became the real power behind the throne. In order to

repay his debts to his supporters amongst the nobility, Cleander recalled those who had been

disgraced by Perennis to active duty. Thus in 185 Pertinax was restored to favour and given the

crucial task of re-establishing order in rebellious Britain345. Septimius, as a client of Pertinax,

was also reinstated and later in the same year, was given his first provincial governorship in

Gaul346. Gallia Lugdunensis was the largest and most important of Rome’s Gallic provinces. Its

capital, modern day Lyon, lay at the centre of an extensive road network, connecting Gaul with

Italy, Spain and the northern frontiers, and was arguably one of the most important trading

centres in the entire western empire347. It was also the site of an imperial mint348. As such, a five

hundred strong guard unit (vigiles) was stationed at the city, under the command of a prefect.

Septimius’ first provincial command was, therefore, of some significance. It seems certain that

Cleander was behind the appointment, putting his supporters and those of his allies into key

posts349. Septimius, like his associate Pertinax, would have been a client of such powerful

figures as Claudius Pompeianus and Lollianus Avitus. Indeed, as emperor, Septimius made

relatives of both men consulares ordinarii350. In any case, Septimius was now clearly linked,

through Pertinax, to Cleander.

Septimius’ time in Gaul was significant in a number of other ways. Firstly, there is a distinct

possibility that Septimius was involved in military action against a growing bandit menace in the

region. Herodian records the destruction caused by one Maternus, a deserter, who terrorised

southern Germany and Gaul in 186 before being apprehended and executed351. Secondly,

Septimius’ links with the wider aristocracy seem to have broadened. In particular, at this time he

seems to have first made the acquaintance of a number of key figures. According to the Historia

Augusta, Pescennius Niger, Septimius’ later rival for the throne, was sent to Gaul in order to

round up these deserters, and because of his apparent hard work and energy was ‘on very

345 Frere, op. cit., 150; Birley, op. cit., 142-146. 346 HA Sev. 3.8-9. Barnes, op. cit., p.93; Birley Septimius, 74-76; cf. Platnauer, op. cit., 44; Hammond, op. cit., p.160.347 King (1990), 55, 115-119; Drinkwater (1983), 197; Drinkwater (1975), pp.133-140.348 King, op. cit., 112.349 HA Comm. 6.10-11 states that Cleander ‘loaded with honours men who were recalled from exile’. 350 Pompeianus’ son, Ti. Claudius Aurelius Pompeianus (PIR 2 C971), was cos. II ord. in 209. L. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Avitus (PIR 2 H41) and Hedius Lollianus Terentianus Gentianus (PIR 2 H37), both relatives of Avitus, also held this post, in 209 and 211 respectively. See Alfoldy Senat, App. IV, p.159.351 Her. 1.10.1-7. This is presumably the bellum desertorum referred to in HA Comm.16.2.

63

friendly terms with Severus’ (HA Nig. 3.3-5). Although we must be extremely cautious with

such a notorious source, it is at least feasible that Niger did serve in Gaul during this time and

that they both did meet. It is also a possibility that Clodius Albinus, another later rival of

Septimius, was active in the region at this time352. Interestingly enough, L. Fabius Cilo, who may

well have served with Septimius under Pertinax in Syria, was the proconsul of neighbouring

Narbonensis during 185353.

Septimius’ personal life also underwent some major changes. At around the time of his arrival in

Gaul his wife Paccia died. According to the sources, he seems to have lost no time in arranging

a second marriage354. His choice of bride demonstrates a growing ambition. His new wife was

Julia Domna, the daughter of the wealthy and influential high priest of Syrian Emesa. In all

probability, they had already met whilst he was the legate of Legio IV Scythica. The vita Severi

remarks that Septimius sought this marriage because he had discovered that her horoscope

showed that she would marry a king355. Dio adds a further intriguing tale: ‘When he was about to

marry Julia, Faustina, the wife of Marcus, prepared their nuptial chamber in the temple of Venus

near the palace’ (Dio 74 (75). 3.1-2). These stories undoubtedly circulated after Septimius had

become emperor and adopted himself into the Antonine house. Furthermore they are interesting

in that they reveal the ambition of both bride and groom. In any case, Julia was soon pregnant

and on April 4th the following year (188) she gave birth to their first child, who they named

Bassianus (although he is better known by his later nickname of Caracalla)356.

By the summer of 188CE, Septimius had returned to Rome from Gallia Lugdunensis357. He

arrived in the capital to an uncertain future. During his absence, opposition to Cleander had

increased sharply. The Historia Augusta records that Commodus’ brother-in-law, L. Antistius

Burrus (cos. 181), was busily ‘denouncing and reporting all that was being done’ by the

ambitious chamberlain (HA Comm. 6.11-12). Cleander’s reaction was swift and sharp.

352 HA Alb. 6.3 (cf. 5.5) relates that Albinus was given a command in Gaul, along the Rhine. It is possible that an inscription from Cologne refers to this command. Alfoldy (1968), 27, restores the name as [D. Clo]dio [Albin]o; cf. Birley (1981), 148.353 Cilo’s governorship of Narbonensis is attested in a number of inscriptions, see CIL 6.1408 (= ILS1141); 6.1409 (= ILS 1142); AE 1926.79. For his career, see PIR 2 F27; Alfoldy Senat, App.II, pp.141-142; Barbieri Albo, no.213, Barnes (1967), pp.101-102.354 HA Sev. 3.9. 355 HA Sev. 3.9. 356 Platnauer, op. cit., 50ff; Barnes, op. cit., p.93 n. 48; Birley Septimius, 77-78, App. 2 no. 18. 357 Talbert, op. cit., 497-498, argues that proconsuls began and ended their terms of office during mid-summer.

64

Pertinax, who owed his restoration to Cleander, wrote to the emperor exposing a conspiracy

against him, in which he specifically accused Burrus, in conjunction with C. Arrius Antoninus

(cos. suff. 170), of ‘aspiring to the throne’ (HA Pert. 3.7-8). Both men came from Africa, from

Thugga and Tibilis respectively, and were closely connected with the imperial house358. Burrus

was summarily executed, along with many of his supporters359. In particular, Cleander was able

to strengthen his own position by having the Guard prefect Attilius Aebutianus killed and filling

the vacant post himself360. Antoninus seems to have been murdered somewhat later in the

year361. It is also significant that Commodus’ wife Crispina was suddenly exiled at this time, as

is the fact that her family, one of whom had been consul in 187, disappear from the consular fasti

until 217CE, under Caracalla362.

The executions of Burrus and Antoninus caused widespread discontent. There was public

disquiet at Rome itself363. Herodian comments that the urban populace ‘organised themselves in

theatres and shouted insults at him [Cleander] all together’ (Her. 1.12.5)364. In Africa, where

both men must have had extensive estates, there were outbreaks of serious rioting. Pertinax, who

had by now acquired a reputation for severity, was sent to Africa to restore order, no doubt at

Cleander’s insistence365. Although Pertinax was able to re-establish peaceful conditions in

Africa, and Cleander was able to do so at Rome, a far more organised and serious conspiracy

began to form amongst the old advisers of Marcus Aurelius.

Amidst this growing tension, it is likely that Septimius spent the rest of 188CE in the general

vicinity of Rome, possibly at his estate near Veii. Septimius’ next opportunity for advancement

would come in the following spring, when provincial commands were allocated366. Given

Pertinax’ patronage, Septimius could reasonably expect a fairly senior command in one of the

358 Burrus (cos. 181) was married to Commodus’ sister, Vibia Aurelia Sabina (see PIR 2 A757). Antoninus (cos. c.170) was an experienced legal expert and was related to both Cornelius Fronto and C. Aufidius Victorinus (see PIR 2 A1088). His brother was the influential general Q. Antistius Adventus.359 HA Comm. 6.11-12.360 Aebutianus: Howe, op. cit., no.7. AE 1961.280 refers to Cleander as a cubiculo (chamberlain) and a pugione (praetorian prefect, or literally ‘the Bearer of the Dagger’). See Howe, op. cit., no.8.361 HA Comm. 7.1 states that whilst proconsul of Asia, Antoninus had condemned Cleander’s ally Attalus to death.362 Whittaker Revolt, p.353; Leunissen Konsuln, 131. 363 Implied by Her. 1.12.4; Dio 73 (74). 13.3; HA Comm. 7.2-3. 364 Whittaker Revolt, p.350. 365 HA Pert. 4.1-2; Whittaker Revolt, p.352. 366 Talbert, op. cit., 207-208.

65

more important provinces. In the event, in early 189CE he was appointed proconsul of Sicily367.

At around the same time, Julia gave birth to a second son at Rome, named Geta after his great-

grandfather and uncle368.

By midsummer 189CE at the latest, Septimius had arrived in Sicily369. Although not a senior or

military province, Sicily was still an important command. Alongside Africa and Egypt, the

island was a major exporter of grain to the capital. As such, Septimius’ main duties would have

been bureaucratic, making sure that the grain ships left harbour on time, as well as overseeing the

administration of justice. It is likely that he performed his duties diligently, at some point during

his command his was designated to serve as suffect consul for 190CE370. It is interesting to note

that Septimius’ immediate predecessor in Sicily was his own brother Geta371. Although

theoretically it was not impossible for brothers to succeed one another in the same post, it was

not a common occurrence by any means. Indeed, its very rarity requires further scrutiny.

A closer examination strongly suggests that these appointments were part of a wider plan.

Firstly, Herodian states that Cleander was trying to increase his popularity by purchasing all of

the available corn and then distributing it during the ensuing shortage372. Secondly, Cleander’s

associates are found governing the major grain-producing provinces. During 188-189CE

Pertinax was in command in Africa, whilst Geta was governing Sicily. Septimius held Sicily the

year after (189-190CE)373. There is some controversy surrounding identity of the prefect of

Egypt at this time. According to one source, Cleander recalled M. Aurelius Papirius Dionysius,

who had only recently been appointed, to his previous post of praefectus annonae at Rome374.

Papyri dated to 189-190CE show that one Tineius Demetrius was governing Egypt; it is more

than likely that he was Dionysius’ replacement375.

367 HA Sev.3.3; Thomasson LP, col.3 no.22.368 HA Sev. 4.2-3; Birley Septimius, App. 2 no.22. 369 Talbert, op. cit., 498. 370 Dio 72 (73). 12.4; HA Sev. 4.4.371 Thomasson LP, col. 3 no.21; Barbieri Albo, no.469372 Her. 1.12.3-4. 373 Thomasson LP, col. 384 no. 107374 The Suda, quoted in Whittaker Revolt, p.355. Whittaker dates the recall to 190CE, ibid.375 See Thomasson LP col. 353 no.77

66

A disgruntled Dionysius returned to Rome to find that Commodus, at Cleander’s instigation, had

made Pertinax the urban prefect376. The urban prefecture was an important and influential post.

The prefect presided over his own court, which had jurisdiction within the hundredth milestone

of Rome. More importantly, he commanded the urban cohorts, the only armed force, apart from

the Praetorian Guard and the imperial horse guard, to be based in the capital itself377.

Soon after his arrival in Rome, Dionysius began to take action against Cleander. Although the

subsequent course of events is far from clear, the recent manipulation of the grain supply was

causing a serious famine. Dio states that Dionysius deliberately made the situation worse,

presumably by delaying the distribution of corn, so that ‘Cleander, whose thefts would seem

chiefly responsible…might incur the hatred of the Romans and so be destroyed by them’ (Dio 72

(73). 13.1-3). By the beginning of 190CE, the situation had become critical; the sources speak of

an outbreak of plague at about this time, though they differ on the exact order of events378.

Discontent grew ever more serious as public awareness of the famine’s causes spread. Herodian

remarks that organised groups began to publicly insult and denounce Cleander379.

Events seem to have finally reached a climax during the ludi Ceriales, on April 19th. This

festival honoured Ceres, the goddess of corn, probably originally in the hope that her favour

would protect the grain ships that usually arrived at about this time380. On this occasion, the

festivities included horse races. However, before the start of the seventh race, a group of

children ran out into the Circus and interrupted the proceedings. Dio remarks that the children,

who were led ‘by a tall maiden of grim aspect’, ‘shouted in concert many bitter words, which the

people took up’ (Dio 72 (73). 13.3-4). These protests quickly stirred up the people, who ‘set up a

shout demanding Cleander’s blood’ (Her. 1.12.5). Rather than dispersing, the increasingly

riotous crowd set off to find the emperor, who seems to have been staying at Laurentum just

outside the city, ‘invoking many blessings upon him and many curses upon Cleander’ (Dio 72

(73). 13.4)381. Learning of the demonstration, Cleander ordered the Praetorians and imperial

376 Leunissen Konsuln, 307-308; Dabrowa (1998), 120; also see Birley (1981), 142-146377 Cadoux (1996), p.1239. 378 Dio 72 (73). 14.4; cf. Her. 1.12.2-3. 379 Her. 1.12.5. 380 Birley Septimius, 80.381 Her. 1.12.2.

67

horse guards to intercept the march, which they did with stark efficiency, ‘charging and cutting

down anyone they came across’ (Her. 1.12.6). This panicked the already excited crowd, who

fled back to the city382.

Under normal circumstances, such firmness would presumably have ended the affair. However,

both Dio and Herodian state that the demonstration regained its momentum when other soldiers

came to their aid, prompting some to attack the Guard with roof tiles and stones383. The identity

of these soldiers is important. As Cleander, the imperial chamberlain and praetorian prefect,

commanded both the Guard and the imperial cavalry these troops must have been the urban

cohorts, whose commander was Pertinax, the praefectus urbi. It was the responsibility of the

urban cohorts to police the games, which meant that they were already on hand when the

disturbance occurred384. Pertinax had therefore, either ordered or allowed the soldiers under his

command to assist the people. In other words, he was either involved in the conspiracy

beforehand or else had let it run its course without interference.

News of the disturbance eventually reached Commodus, though not from a source friendly to

Cleander. There is some disagreement regarding the identity of this person. Dio avers that it

was Marcia, Commodus’ new concubine, whilst Herodian contends that it was Fadilla, the

emperor’s older sister385. Although, as Whittaker rightly points out, this is largely unimportant, it

is possible to resolve the dispute by arguing that both women were present, and therefore

involved themselves386. At any rate, the praetorian prefect was blamed for inciting the incident

and denounced by the court as a rebel and a traitor, whereupon the emperor, fearing for his own

safety, summoned Cleander and had him executed. His body was then handed over to the mob,

who ‘dragged it away and abused it and carried his head all about the city on a pole’ (Dio 72

(73). 13.6)387. Cleander’s sons, along with many of his close associates, suffered a similar fate388.

382 Her. 1.12.8.383 Dio 72 (73). 13.5; Her. 1.12.8-9.384 Whittaker Revolt, p.351. 385 Dio 72 (73). 13.5-6; Her. 1.13.1.386 Whittaker Revolt, p.352 n.22. 387 cf. Her. 1.13.5; HA Comm. 8.2-3. 388 Dio 72 (73). 13.6; Her. 1.13.5-6.

68

Although only Dionysius is explicitly credited with Cleander’s overthrow by the sources, a

closer examination clearly demonstrates that he could not have acted alone. The organisation

needed to successfully execute the plot would have required more than one person. Also, the

timing of the incident, at a festival in honour of the corn goddess, would have had a particularly

striking effect. It is also important to note the decisive presence of such key figures as Pertinax,

whose urban cohorts actually fought the Praetorian Guard, and Fadilla and Marcia, whose

revelations to Commodus were ultimately responsible for Cleander’s death.

Although Septimius was supported by and promoted through the agency of a number of Roman-

Africans, it is an oversimplification to see this as evidence of an ‘African faction’. As this

chapter has demonstrated, it is a mistake to rely heavily upon common origin as a primary factor

in Septimius’ relationships with the wider elite. In the earlier part of Septimius’ career his key

supporters were members of his own family, in particular his consular relative C. Septimius

Severus. Members of the wider African nobility are conspicuous by their absence. Later on, it

was his family’s connections with the wider nobility that provided Septimius with the necessary

patronage. The Septimii were quickly subsumed within the patronage of such rising figures as

Pertinax, and through him the high aristocracy. In our third, and final, chapter we will further

examine these relationship networks at work within Septimius’ later career, especially during his

own bid for power.

69

Chapter Three: The Overthrow of Commodus and Septimius’ Rise to Power

This final chapter focuses upon Septimius’ later senatorial career and his own rise to power in

193CE. In particular, emphasis will be paid to his growing connection with Pertinax and to his

direct involvement in the overthrow of Commodus. The focus will then shift to an examination

the circumstances of Pertinax’ short reign and his subsequent murder. From here, we will

discuss Septimius’ own bid for the throne.

As a former associate of Cleander, Septimius seems to have come under suspicion following the

prefect’s death. Towards the end of his Sicilian command, Septimius was ordered to Rome on

charges of ‘consulting about the imperial dignity with seers and astrologers’ (HA Sev. 4.3). The

vita Severi goes on to say that the newly appointed Guard commanders, Julianus and Regillus

acquitted him, crucifying his unfortunate accuser389. Septimius was presumably saved by his

connections to Pertinax, who may well have been involved in Cleander’s murder. Although

some historians have expressed scepticism about this incident, it is highly likely that an

ambitious informant would attempt to accuse someone linked to Cleander390. Such charges are in

any event commonplace; Septimius’ own fascination with astrology was also well known391.

Pertinax’ influence kept his protégé’s career on track. In mid-190CE Septimius served his

previously designated term as suffect consul392. Although practice varied, during the second

century between six and ten consuls were appointed annually. The two consules ordinarii

normally served for the first six months of the year, which meant that the remaining suffects held

office for between two and six months393. Cleander’s designation of twenty-five consuls meant

that Septimius’ term could not have lasted much more than a month. Be that as it may, his

consulship was followed by a year without official employment. Such gaps were not by

themselves unusual. For many men, the consulship represented the crowning achievement of

389 HA Sev. 4.3-4. HA Comm. 7.4-5 gives the names of the new prefects. 390 Platnauer (1918), 47 n.3; cf. Hammond (1940), p.161.391 Syme (1983), pp.80-97.392 Dio 72 (73). 12.4; HA Sev. 4.4.393 Talbert, op. cit., 21.

70

their career. Moreover, the extraordinarily large number of consuls must have meant that less

proconsular posts were available394.

The emperor’s growing paranoia meant that public office was becoming an increasingly

dangerous honour. Cleander’s death and the events that had caused it seriously disturbed

Commodus. Suspecting the aristocracy of complicity in the act, Commodus gave vent to his

rage in an orgy of murder395. After executing Dionysius, Commodus turned against the

nobility396. The Historia Augusta records that those killed included two of the previous year’s

consuls (189), one from the year before that (188), a further six ex-consuls, a senior proconsul of

Asia and a relative of Herodes Atticus, ‘together with their kin’ (HA Comm. 7.5)397. Elsewhere,

the vita Commodi states that the emperor ‘had intended to kill fourteen others also, since the

revenues of the Roman Empire were insufficient to meet his expenditures’ (HA Comm. 7.8)398.

Amidst this slaughter, two things become apparent; the plot against Cleander had, or was

believed to have, widespread support amongst the aristocracy and that Commodus used the

incident to justify another purge of his late father’s surviving amici. Julianus, the new praetorian

prefect, was publicly humiliated and then put to death, which suggests that he may have had been

involved with the conspiracy399. Annia Fundania Faustina, Marcus Aurelius’ cousin, was

executed, as was the family of Commodus’ brother-in-law, M. Petronius Sura Mamertinus, along

with ‘innumerable others’ (HA Comm. 7.7-8)400. These others included Julius Alexander from

Emesa, who was apparently sentenced to death for his equestrian ability, though he escaped

detection for a time before eventually committing suicide401. Septimius must have been

particularly grateful for a spell of unemployment; it is likely that both Alexander and the Petronii

394 Birley (1981)?; Birley Septimius, 78-82.395 Her. 1.13.7-8; Whittaker Revolt, p.354. 396 HA Comm. 7.4; Dio 72 (73). 14.1-3; Whittaker Revolt, p.354.397 HA Comm. 7.5-8 records the names of those executed, though some are possibly bogus. They include M. Servilius Silanus (cos. II ord. 188), D. Julius Silanus (cos. 189), Q. Servilius Silanus (cos. 189). The ex-consuls were Allius Fuscus, Caelius Felix, Lucceius Torquatus, Larcius Eurupianus, Verlius Bassianus and Pactumeius Magnus (cos. suff. 183), whilst the Asian proconsul was one Sulpicius Crassus. M. Antonius Antistius Lupus, a relative of Herodes Atticus, was also killed. See Whittaker, ibid; Leunissen Konsuln, 130-131.398 Cf. Dio 72 (73). 16.2-3. 399 HA Comm. 11.3-4; Whittaker Revolt, pp.353-354.400 HA Comm. 7.5; Whittaker Revolt, p.355-356; Birley Septimius, 81. 401 Dio 72 (73). 14.1-2. HA Comm. 8.3-4 records Alexander’s murder, although with the unlikely story that he was fomenting rebellion.

71

were relatives of his402. Given this environment, it is perhaps small wonder that senior senators,

such as Claudius Pompeianus and M’. Acilius Glabrio, suddenly became convinced of the

virtues of early retirement403.

Figure 8: Commodus as Hercules (BMC IV p.842, no.714, pl.111.1).

The evidence suggests that this period marked a turning point in Commodus’ reign404. The

names that he derived from his father were suddenly removed from the coinage. He now

returned to the name he had held at birth, L. Aelius Aurelius Commodus. By these actions, the

emperor was symbolically revoking his allegiance to his late father’s ideas and ways. This is

also demonstrated by his increasing identification with Hercules on the coinage405. One coin in

particular depicts Commodus dressed as Hercules, with a bow and quiver, along with Hercules’

trademark club and lion-skin, with the legend HERCVLI ROMANO AVG (see Figure 8)406.

Commodus’ growing patronage of eastern cults, Isis, Serapis and Mithras in particular, probably

also sprang from a desire to escape from his father’s memory407.

The deaths of so many important officials created a number of vacancies in the imperial

bureaucracy. Q. Aemilius Laetus, an equestrian from North Africa, was chosen to replace

Julianus as praetorian prefect; little is known of his career prior to this appointment, though it

402 Julius Alexander (PIR 2 I 192) seems to have been a relative of Julia Domna. In Chapter one it was argued that the Septimii were probably related to the Petronii Mamertinii. See Chapter One, page 40.403 Dio 73 (74). 3.1-4.404 Birley Septimius, 82.405 BMC IV, pp. clxvi, clxxxi-clxxxii; Dio 72 (73). 15.2-16.1.406 BMC IV p.842, no.714, pl.111.1.407 See HA Comm. 9.4-6.

72

may have included a number of military posts408. Eclectus, a previously unknown imperial

freedman, replaced Cleander as the emperor’s chamberlain409. Marcia, the former mistress of

Ummidius Quadratus, became Commodus’ new concubine. Although it seems that Marcia had

been Commodus’ mistress for some time, she presumably owed her current prominence to the

part she played in exposing Cleander410. Laetus, Marcia and Eclectus quickly realised the

advantages of mutual co-operation, though it is conceivable that they were connected

beforehand.

Be that as it may, a careful examination of the sources demonstrates that the three of them

deliberately strengthened their position during the following year. An inscription from Thaenae

reveals that Aemilius Pudens, Laetus’ brother, was appointed to a senior post in the imperial

bodyguard at around this time, whilst the Historia Augusta states that Laetus successfully

defended the future emperor Didius Julianus from an accusation of treachery411.

The sources also indicate that the praetorian prefect was using his status to influence the

appointment of provincial governors. The vita Severi remarks that during 191CE, Septimius was

made governor of Pannonia Superior, ‘on the recommendation of Laetus’ (HA Sev. 4.4-5)412. It

is almost impossible to exaggerate the significance of this posting. Pannonia Superior was the

closest armed province to the capital and contained a large garrison of three legions413.

Septimius was certainly an unusual choice for such an important command. He had not had any

significant military experience, apart from a legionary legateship in Syria, whilst his two

previous commands had been in unarmed provinces. The reasons behind his appointment

become clearer when they are seen in a wider context. It seems that Septimius’ brother Geta was

also serving as a governor at this time, in Moesia Inferior414. As both men were linked to

Pertinax, it is highly likely that Laetus was trying to establish a connection of his own with the

408 AE 1949.38, from Thaenae in Africa Proconsularis, records the career of Aemilius Pudens, Laetus’ brother. Laetus’ career is discussed by PIR 2 A358; Howe, op. cit., no.13; superseded by Jarrett (1972), no.11; Birley Coup, pp.252-253.409 Dio 72 (73). 19.4. 410 Dio 72 (73). 4.6-7.411 AE 1949.38 records that Pudens was serving in comitatu of Commodus. See Birley Coup, pp.252-253. For Laetus’ rescue of Didius Julianus, see HA Did. Jul. 6.2; Leaning (1989), p.554. 412 The text erroneously names the province as Germany.413 Campbell (1996), pp.839-842; Grant (1974), 292.414 IRT 541; Thomasson LP, col. 138 no.104; cf. Birley Coup, p.263.

73

powerful urban prefect415. In any case, Pertinax’ own influence was then at its height. In early

192CE, Pertinax held his second consulship, with the emperor himself as a colleague416. This

was a rare honour, Commodus’ colleagues as consul ordinarius were either members of the

imperial family, or were otherwise senior aristocrats417.

Spurred on by his new favourites, Commodus’ behaviour continued to worsen. His official

nomenclature was altered to include such extravagant titles as ‘Herculeus’, ‘Amazonius’ and

‘Exsuperatorius’, the months of the year were named after him and in mid-191CE, Rome itself

was renamed ‘Commodiana’418. More seriously, Laetus and Eclectus encouraged him to indulge

his martial fantasies by taking part in gladiatorial contests and wild animal hunts419. They may

also have been feeding his suspicions about the nobility. During the summer of 192CE, the

emperor angrily threatened a large group of senators420.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, Commodus’ violence soon led to his own murder. Although the events

surrounding his death have been shrouded in lies and half-truths, it is possible to see beyond the

propaganda. According to the sources, Commodus had planned a blood bath at Rome for New

Year’s Eve 192CE, in which the consuls designate (C. Erucius Clarus Vibianus and Q. Sosius

Falco), along with the entire imperial household and their supporters were to be massacred.

Once the carnage had ceased, Commodus intended to emerge from the gladiators’ camp on New

Year’s Day as sole consul421. However, Marcia discovered the plan during the evening of New

Year’s Eve and hurriedly informed Laetus and Eclectus. After a brief discussion, the three of

them decided to kill the emperor in order to save their own lives, unsuccessfully trying poison

before finally having Commodus strangled by a slave422.

415 Her. 2.1.10 supports this conclusion.416 Leunissen Konsuln, 132. 417 See Leunissen, 129-132. 418 Dio 72 (73). 15ff; 18.1; HA Comm. 8.6, which says that Marcia was behind the plan to rename Rome419 Dio 72 (73). 10.2-3; 16.1-3; 18.1. According to Dio 72 (73). 19.3-4, Laetus and Eclectus frequently accompanied the emperor to the games; after each bout Commodus would ‘kiss these companions through his helmet’.420 Dio 72 (73). 22.1-2.421 Dio 72 (73) .22.1-2; Her. 1.16.1-4; HA Comm. 15.2-3. Birley Coup, pp.249-250, offers a critical analysis of all three accounts.422 Dio72 (73). 22.4-6; Her. 1.16.4-17.11; HA Comm. 17.1-2.

74

According to the official account, panic then set in. The three assassins, realising their

vulnerability, unanimously decided to offer the vacant throne to Pertinax423. Less enthusiastic at

first, Pertinax sent a friend to ascertain the truth of the report; his testimony apparently convinced

Pertinax that the offer was genuine. He then hurried to the praetorian camp, whereupon a sullen

Guard acclaimed him emperor, though only by means of a large donative424. According to the

sources, at news of Commodus’ death, an angry mob demanded that his body be dragged by a

hook and thrown into the Tiber, whilst others tore down his statues425. Although the exact

sequence of events is not clear, it seems that a large group of people then went to the praetorian

camp426. A meeting of the senate was then hastily arranged, at which Pertinax’ accession was

confirmed427.

Although the traditional story may well bear some general resemblance to the actual course of

events, several factors demonstrate that Commodus was overthrown by a well-organised

conspiracy. Firstly, as was made clear above, Laetus, Eclectus and Marcia had been actively

encouraging Commodus’ wild behaviour, on the one hand stirring up the emperor’s paranoia and

on the other nurturing senatorial hostility towards him. The frenzied celebrations that greeted the

public announcement of his death clearly illustrate this point. The presence of large crowds at

the Praetorian camp, urging the soldiers to accept Pertinax, strongly suggests some prior

organisation, in which the new emperor himself had a hand428.

Secondly, the timing of the murder itself looks decidedly pre-arranged. New Year’s Day was a

public holiday at Rome. According to Herodian, most of the Praetorian Guard were unarmed

and off-duty, enjoying themselves amidst the festivities, which meant that they would have been

far easier to control429. The newly appointed consules ordinarii also entered office on this day; a

423 Dio 73 (74). 1.1-2.424 73 (74). 1.3-4; cf. Her. 2.2.9-10.425 Dio 73 (74). 2.1-4; Her. 2.2.4-6; HA Comm. 17.4. The long and stylised account of public anger in HA Comm. 18.1-19.9 is also relevant.426 See Dio 73 (74). 1.1-2.4; Her. 2.1.1-4.3; HA Comm. 20.1-5; HA Pert. 4.5-6.1; Birley Coup, pp.248-249.427 The main events in this version of the story can be found in Dio 73 (74). 1.1-2.4; Her. 2.1.1-4.3; HA Comm. 20.1-5; HA Pert. 4.5-6.1.428 Her. 2.2.3-5; Whittaker Revolt, pp.357-358. Pertinax’ involvement was suspected by a number of ancient writers. See HA Pert. 4.3-4, 5.2-6; Julian Caes. 312C. A number of modern historians have accepted this argument, see Platnauer, op. cit., 55, 58-60; Hammond, op. cit., pp.164-165; Birley Coup, p.250 n.11; Champlin (1979), passim.429 Her. 2.2.9; Birley Coup, p.252.

75

revolt at this time might well take opponents by surprise430. These two factors must have

seriously reduced the chances of encountering effectively co-ordinated opposition. Furthermore,

the fact that Laetus, as the Guard Prefect, and Pertinax, as praefectus urbi, held command of

virtually the entire garrison of Rome between them is also highly suspicious.

Figure 9: Janus the Preserver: BMC V, pp. 1, no. 2, pl.1.2

As such, January 1st was an excellent time to mount a coup d’etat. It is surely significant

therefore, that some of the first coins to be issued in Pertinax’ name depict Janus the Preserver

(IANO CONSERVAT), the god of new beginnings (Figure 9)431. Pertinax’ adoption of this

symbol was a powerful statement of judgement on the late emperor; the gods had deserted

Commodus, Janus symbolising the conscious break with the past. Pertinax’ subsequent issues

heavily reinforce this point. Legends such as PROVIDENTIA DEORUM (‘the providence of

the gods’), DIS CVSTODIBVS (‘under the guardianship of the gods’) and LAETITIA

TEMPORUM (‘the happiness of the age’) emphasise Commodus’ failure as much as they

anticipate Pertinax’ success (Figures 10, 11 & 12)432. Moreover, New Year’s Day also celebrated

the overthrow of the old tyrant Saturn by the new king Jupiter, which would have been an

exceptionally relevant symbol at this time433.

430 Talbert, op. cit., 200-201. 431 BMC V, pp. lxi-lxii, 1, no. 2, pl.1.2; cf. Ovid Fasti 1.235ff; Virgil Aeneid 8.321ff.432 For PROVIDENTIA DEORUM, see BMC V, pp.3 & 6-7, nos. 10-13, 28-30 & 32-36, pl. 1.9-12, 2.3, 2.8, 3.1. DIS CVSTODIBVS: p. lxi, 1, no. 1 & 26, pl.1.1 & 2.1. For LAETITIA TEMPORUM, see pp.2, 5-6, nos. 6-9, 27, 31A, pl.1.6-8, 2.2.433 Her. 1.16.1-2.

76

Figure 10: Dis Custodibus: BMC V p. 1, no. 26, pl. 2.1.

This suggestion that Pertinax was involved is borne out by further evidence. Herodian states that

Pertinax had been friendly with Laetus for some time before the murder434. Eclectus in particular

seems to have been an avid supporter of his, later dying with him435. Septimius, a close supporter

of Pertinax, was appointed governor of Pannonia Superior, the closest armed province to Rome,

‘on the recommendation of Laetus’ (HA Sev. 4.4-5). Septimius’ brother Geta, another client of

Pertinax, was also given a command on the Danube at this time, in the two legion province of

Moesia Inferior436. Soon after the murder C. Julius Avitus Alexianus, a relative of Septimius’

wife, was given charge of the vital grain supply at Ostia437. L. Fabius Cilo, who seems to have

served under Pertinax in Syria and was later one of Septimius’ key supporters, was consul

designate in late 192438. The Historia Augusta remarks that Cilo buried Commodus’ body ‘at the

bidding of Pertinax’ (HA Comm. 20.1). In other words, Cilo was charged with keeping the body

of the murdered emperor out of sight.

434 Her. 2.1.10.435 Dio 73 (74). 10.1-2. 436 Thomasson LP col.138 no.104; Birley Coup, pp.261-263. 437 Leunissen Konsuln, 379; Birley Septimius, App. 2 no.45. 438 Leunissen Konsuln, 133.

77

Figure 11: Providentia Deorum: BMC V, p. 3, no. 10, pl. 1.9.

Other significant inconsistencies in the official story emerge. The Historia Augusta states that

during the night of New Year’s Eve, his former patron, the senior consular Claudius

Pompeianus, met Pertinax. For a number of years before Commodus’ death, a combination of

old age, poor health and disfavour had kept Pompeianus on his estates at Tarracina, some sixty

miles away439. If Commodus was spontaneously murdered during the night, there would have

been far too little time for news to reach Tarracina and for Pompeianus to come to Rome by

dawn; he must therefore, have been forewarned. Dio supports this, remarking that this meeting

was the only occasion on which he actually saw Pompeianus himself440. It seems certain

therefore, that Pompeianus was openly supporting his former protégé. The sources indicate that

Pertinax took great care to publicly honour Pompeianus, placing his old patron next to him on

the imperial dais in the senate441. Both Dio and Herodian state that Pertinax paid the same

respect to M’. Acilius Glabrio, consul for the second time in 186 and a member of the high

aristocracy. There is a distinct possibility that Glabrio was connected to the imperial house

itself442. At any rate, both men were key figures in Pertinax’ attempts to acquire legitimacy and

creditability at Rome; it is surely relevant that after Pertinax’ own death, Pompeianus and

Glabrio again retired, once more pleading ill health and failing eyesight443.

439 Dio 73 (74). 3.2-3; Her. 1.8.4; HA Pert. 4.9-10; HA Did. Jul. 8.3.440 73 (74). 3.3. 441 73 (74). 3.3; HA Pert. 4.9-10.442 Champlin (1979), p.295, argues that he was a great-nephew of Marcus Aurelius; cf. Birley Septimius, 242 n.1, who doubts this identification. 443 Champlin (1979), pp.303-306; Dio 73 (74). 3.3.

78

Figure 12: Laetitia Temporum: BMC V p.2, no. 6, pl.1.6.

An analysis of the governors of other key provinces shows that others may well have been

actively involved in the conspiracy, or else sympathetic to it. From midsummer 192CE, the

proconsul of Africa was Cornelius Anullinus444. Anullinus, an important senator under Marcus

Aurelius, served as governor of Baetica in 171-172, at the time when Septimius was supposed to

serve as that province’s quaestor445. His lack of office under Commodus demonstrates that he

had fallen from grace, a sudden appointment during 192CE is therefore somewhat suspicious446.

The Egyptian prefect L. Mantennius Sabinus may also have been party to the plot. A papyrus

shows him in office in early 193CE, when news of Pertinax’ accession became public; another

prefect, Larcius Memor, is attested during late 192CE, which suggests that there was some doubt

about Egypt’s loyalty447. Clodius Albinus, appointed governor of Britain in 192, may also have

been linked to the conspiracy; he had a strong connection to Hadrumetum, which was not far

from Laetus’ home city of Thaenae448. If this is correct, it is interesting to note that Albinus’

relative, Asellius Aemilianus, held the proconsulship of Asia during this crucial period449.

Although the evidence for other important provinces is much less certain, there is a good

possibility that at least some were involved in the conspiracy. Of the governors known to be in

office in late 192-early 193CE, a number of them were later key supporters of Septimius450.

444 Birley Coup, p.270; Barnes (1967), p.98; cf. Thomasson LP, col. 385 no.114.445 See Chapter Two, pages 57-58. 446 Birley Coup, p.270. 447 Birley Coup, pp.268-269; Thomasson LP, col. 353 nos. 79 & 80.448 Thomasson LP col.72 no. 32; Birley (1981), ?. For his origins, see Birley Coup, pp.265-266; cf. Barnes (1970), pp.45-50.449 Thomasson LP col.232 no.165450 C. Valerius Pudens: Pannonia Inferior ?192-194, Alfoldy Senat, p.153; Birley Coup, p.274; Thomasson LP col.115 no. 25. Virius Lupus: Germania Inferior ?192/194-197, Alfoldy Senat p.154; Birley Coup, p.276; Thomasson LP col.58 no.92. [Vettule]nus (?) Pompeianus: Moesia Superior ?192-195, Alfoldy Senat, p.153; Birley Coup, p.265; Thomasson LP col. 128 no.49. Q. Aurelius Polus Terentianus: Dacia ?191-194, Alfoldy Senat, p.135; Birley Coup, p. pp.267-268; Thomasson LP col. 155-156 no. 44.

79

As has been seen, Pertinax’ faction consisted of some of Rome’s most eminent men. Pertinax

himself was a senior figure. He had held a number of important military posts and had governed

a string of provinces, including Britain and Africa. He had also served as praefectus urbi and

had twice been consul, once as colleague of the emperor. His aristocratic supporters were men

of similar standing. M’. Acilius Glabrio (cos. II ord. 186) was one of the few surviving members

of the old Republican nobility and had been one of Marcus Aurelius’ chief counsellors451. Like

Pertinax, Ti. Claudius Pompeianus (cos. II 173) had risen through the ranks of the military

during the crises of the late 160s, holding a number of senior commands before eventually

becoming Marcus’ son-in-law, through marriage to his daughter Lucilla452.

Despite this immense auctoritas, there was still strong opposition. In particular, the Praetorian

Guard seems to have felt deeply aggrieved at the circumstances of Pertinax’ accession. By all

accounts, Commodus had treated the Guard leniently, giving them frequent donatives and

allowing breaches of military discipline to go unpunished. Pertinax by contrast, had a reputation

for stinginess and was a strict disciplinarian453. Pertinax’ initial speech to the troops, during the

early hours of January 1st, seemed to confirm their worst fears. According to Dio, after appealing

to them for support and promising them twelve thousand sesterces each, he finished his address

with the words ‘There are many distressing circumstances, fellow-soldiers, in the present

situation; but the rest with your help shall be set right again’ (Dio 73 (74). 1.3). Dio continues,

remarking that ‘On hearing this, they suspected that all the privileges granted them by

Commodus in violation of precedent would be abolished, and they were displeased; nevertheless,

they remained quiet, concealing their anger’ (Dio 73 (74). 1.3-4)454.

Opposition to the new regime seems to have mobilised quickly in the senate, gathering around a

nucleus of aristocratic families. During Pertinax’ first senatorial meeting as emperor on January

1st, Q. Sosius Falco, the newly-appointed consul ordinarius, attacked him: ‘We may know what

sort of an emperor you will be from this, that we see behind you Laetus and Marcia, the

instruments of Commodus’ crimes’ (HA Pert. 5.2-3). Although Pertinax’ reply was swift and

451 Champlin, op. cit., pp.291-292. 452 Champlin, op. cit., pp.290-291.453 See Chapter Two, page 69.454 Herodian does not mention this incident, though he does remark that the praetorians were ‘expected to be totally against accepting a rule of moderation since they had grown used to a tyrant as their master…’ (Her. 2.2.4-5).

80

assured, such public criticism was damaging455. The key objection to Pertinax seems to have

been his humble background. Herodian states that some members of the aristocracy were

‘dissatisfied with the succession passing from an emperor of the highest nobility to an upstart

from a family without status and of humble origin’ (Her. 2.3.1-2). In other words, some clearly

felt that they had sufficient auctoritas to rule themselves.

This discontent soon led to a major disturbance. On January 3rd, when the oath of allegiance to

Pertinax was being administered, a group of disgruntled soldiers tried to proclaim Triarius

Maternus Lascivius (cos. ord. 185 ) emperor instead456. Maternus, who was an unwilling

participant according to the Historia Augusta, only managed to escape from the guardsmen by

removing his clothes and running to Pertinax for protection, before leaving Rome altogether457.

Although he was not involved in the mutiny, Maternus’ connections with the high aristocracy

suggest that there was more to the incident than was at first apparent. He seems to have been the

son of A. Junius Rufinus (cos. ord. 153) and thus nephew of M. Junius Rufinus Sabinianus (cos.

ord. 155). His brother-in-law was the C. Erucius Clarus (cos. ord. 170). This last piece of

information is interesting. Maternus was therefore, the uncle of C. Julius Erucius Clarus, one of

the consuls for 193 itself458. Given the opposition of Sosius Falco, the other consul ordinarius, to

Pertinax, this relationship becomes all the more significant.

Pertinax’ reaction demonstrates the seriousness of the situation. In order to appease the Guard,

he confirmed the concessions that Commodus had granted to them, no doubt reiterating his

promise of twelve thousand sesterces per man. A sum of four hundred sesterces was also set

aside for the common people of Rome459. A number of other measures designed to restore the

senate’s confidence were also introduced. Treason trials were abolished by means of a public

oath, those exiled by Commodus were recalled and the bodies of those who had been killed by

him were exhumed and given a proper funeral460. More importantly, Pertinax attempted to

455 According to HA Pert. 5.3-4 Pertinax replied: ‘You are young, Consul, and do not know the necessity of obedience. They obeyed Commodus, but against their will, and as soon as they had an opportunity, they showed what had always been their desire’.456 Leunissen Konsuln, 130. 457 HA Pert. 6.4-5; Birley Septimius, 90-91; Champlin, op. cit., p.289. 458 Champlin, op. cit., pp.297-299. 459BMC V, p. lxii. 460 HA Pert. 6.6-9; Birley Septimius, 91.

81

restore order to senatorial career patterns, which Cleander’s sale of offices had seriously

disrupted, by giving precedence to those who had actually served as praetor over those who had

merely been adlected461. This last measure received a mixed reaction. Those who benefited from

it, like Dio, praised it warmly. The Historia Augusta, whose main source here seems to have

been Marius Maximus, remarked that it brought Pertinax ‘the bitter enmity of many men’ (HA

Pert. 6.11)462. As another means of restoring stability, Pertinax also kept in office those

magistrates appointed under Commodus, though his father-in-law, T. Flavius Sulpcianus, was

made city prefect463.

However, the major problem facing the new regime was financial. Commodus’ extravagant

behaviour and the demands of the Guard had emptied the imperial treasury, whilst the

subsequent debasement of the coinage caused serious economic instability. To combat this

crisis, Pertinax restored the coinage to its Flavian standard464. A series of coins refer to Aequitas

(AEQVIT. AVG. TR. P. COS II), the goddess who ensured the fair distribution of available

wealth, whilst another, possibly genuine, coin refers to MONETA AVG., the goddess who

oversaw smooth running of the mint465. In an attempt to revitalise trade and agriculture, newly

instituted customs tariffs were repealed, farmers were given tax immunity for ten years and land

lying fallow was given over to willing farmers466. Moreover, the fortunes amassed by

Commodus’ freedmen were confiscated and their luxuries were sold467. Furthermore, in a move

reminiscent of Marcus Aurelius, imperial property was put up for public auction468.

Septimius’ friends and allies probably conveyed news of the discontent at Rome to him. It is

possible that Plautianus, Septimius’ kinsman from Lepcis, was appointed praefectus vehiculorum

at this time469. An intriguing incident, recorded by both Dio and Herodian, should also be

assigned to this period. After overseeing his province’s oath of allegiance to the new ruler,

461 HA Pert. 6.10-11.462 Dio 73 (74). 12.2; Birley Septimius, 90. 463 HA Pert. 12.8; Leunissen Konsuln, 308.464 Birley Septimius, 91. 465 For AEQVITAS, see BMC V, p. 3, 8, 10, nos. 14-17, 37, 47a, pls.1.13-15, 2.4. For MONETA, see BMC V, p.5.466 Her. 2.4.6-7; HA Pert. 7.7.467 Dio 73 (74). 6.2-3; HA Pert. 7.8-9, 8.1.468 Dio 73 (74). 5.4-5. 469 Because Septimius later damned Plautianus’ memory, it is extremely difficult to reconstruct his early career. However, he seems to be the man referred to in a fragmentary inscription from Lepcis. IRT 572, dedicated by a Fulvia Nepotilla, seems to record Plautianus as a praefectus vehiculorum. See IRT 572 n.1; Birley Septimius, 93.

82

Septimius was apparently overcome by sleep, whereupon he had a dream in which Pertinax was

thrown from a ‘fine, large horse wearing the imperial trappings’ in the Forum at Rome (Her.

2.9.5). The horse then stooped to lift Septimius onto its back. Eight years later, in 201CE,

Septimius erected a bronze statue on this spot, issuing a special coin to commemorate the event

(Figure 13)470. Although this dream was certainly publicised for its propaganda value, it need not

be fictitious; the sources repeatedly stress the importance Septimius assigned to visions and

omens471.

Figure 13: Equestrian Statue of Septimius: Hill (1989), 66, pl.115

Meanwhile, Pertinax was still finding it difficult to assert his authority. An inspection of the

grain warehouses, at nearby Ostia, was disrupted by news from Rome that the Praetorian Guard

had mutinied once again. Although the exact course of events is unclear, it appears that the

troops wanted to proclaim Sosius Falco, the consul ordinarius, emperor. Learning of their plan,

Pertinax hurriedly returned to the capital, whereupon a nervous senate declared Falco a public

enemy. Before the verdict had been finalised however, Pertinax intervened on Falco’s behalf,

sparing his life and allowing him to retire. The emperor then angrily denounced the greed of

both the soldiers and imperial freedmen:

‘You should not be left in ignorance of the fact, Fathers, that although I found on hand only a million sesterces, yet I have distributed as much to the soldiers as did Marcus and Lucius, to whom were left twenty-seven hundred millions. It is these wonderful freedmen who are to blame for the shortage of funds’ (Dio 73 (74). 8.3-4).

470 The story itself can be found in Dio 74 (75). 3.3; Her. 2.9.4-6. For the statue, see Benario (1958), p.715. The coin is discussed in BMC V, p.624, no.810a; Hill (1977), p.24, no.810; Hill (1989), 66, pl.115.471 See Dio 72 (73). 23.1-5. A number of other incidents are discussed at the relevant points in this paper. See also Syme (1983), pp.80-97.

83

This was not true, as Pertinax must have been himself aware. Marcus Aurelius had given the

Guard twenty thousand sesterces per man, whilst Pertinax had only promised twelve thousand.

Moreover, Pertinax had, as yet, been unable to pay even this much. Dio then continues, ‘the

soldiers and the freedmen who were present in the senate in very large numbers became highly

indignant and muttered ominously’ (Dio 73 (74). 8.4-5). This anger was no doubt increased by

the summary execution of those troops who were involved472.

Another serious incident soon followed473. A dispute of some kind broke out at the Praetorian

camp whilst Pertinax was attending a poetry reading at the Athenaeum. The emperor reacted by

sending his father-in-law Flavius Sulpicianus, who was also the praefectus urbi, to listen to the

soldiers’ demands and negotiate with them. Sulpicianus was however unable to calm the

situation and a large group of some two hundred armed Praetorians marched on the palace.

Pertinax responded by speaking to the soldiers personally, reminding of their oath of allegiance

and trying to overawe them with the dignity of his office. Dio remarks that the soldiers ‘on

seeing him were at first abashed, all save one, and kept their eyes on the ground, and they thrust

their swords back into their scabbards’ (Dio 73 (74). 10.1). This one man, called Tausius by the

Historia Augusta, ‘hurled his spear at Pertinax’ breast. And he, after a prayer to Jupiter the

Avenger, veiled his head with a toga and was stabbed by the rest’ (HA Pert. 11.9-11). Eclectus,

Commodus’ former chamberlain, tried in vain to defend him and was also killed474.

Although both Dio and the Historia Augusta blame Laetus for Pertinax’ overthrow, this seems

unlikely475. Firstly, Laetus, who had meticulously organised the earlier overthrow of Commodus,

had no contingency plan ready. There were no new candidates waiting in the wings, we may

safely discount Falco who was unaware of the plot carried out in his name. Indeed, he virtually

disappears from view. Though certainty is impossible, Pertinax’ death seems to have been the

result of a spontaneous mutiny, as Birley suggests476.

472 See Dio 73 (74). 8.1-5; HA Pert. 10.1-7. Herodian does not mention this incident. See Champlin, op. cit., pp.300-305; Birley Septimius, 94.473 Dated by HA Pert. 15.6-7, to 28th March 193CE.474 See Dio 73 (74). 9.1-10.3; Her. 2. 5.1-9; HA Pert. 10.8-11.13; Birley Septimius, 95. 475 Dio 73 (74). 6.1-3, 8.2; HA Pert. 10.8-9.476 Birley Septimius, 95.

84

The political faction that had overthrown Commodus collapsed with the death of Pertinax. No

doubt realising this, Pertinax’ assassins returned to their barracks and barricaded themselves

inside. News of the murder and the Praetorians’ role in it, spread panic throughout the capital.

A number of wealthy senators began to leave Rome for their country estates, whilst those of

lesser means ran to their homes in fear477. Significantly, Claudius Pompeianus and M’. Acilius

Glabrio, the chief supporters of the now defunct regime, also retired from the city, once again

claiming old age and failing health478. The absence of such key figures placed the initiative

firmly in the Praetorians’ hands. Without a suitable candidate for emperor, the troops climbed

the walls of the fort and announced their intention to auction off the empire to the highest bidder.

This unprecedented event, unanimously condemned by the sources, highlights the crisis of

auctoritas at Rome479. The paranoia of Commodus’ reign and the swift demise of Pertinax had

created a dangerous vacuum in which no one person or group could gather sufficient influence to

rule effectively. In the absence of such authority, two rival claimants moved to fill the void.

Flavius Sulpicianus, Pertinax’ father-in-law and urban prefect, was still inside the barracks when

the troops returned. Seizing the opportunity, Sulpicianus attempted to have himself made

emperor, promising the Guard a hefty donative for its support. As a senior ex-consul, and former

proconsul of Asia, Sulpicianus was a serious candidate480. Although he seems to have gained a

measure of initial success, a number of officers argued against accepting him, warning that, as

Pertinax’ relative, he would probably want to punish those responsible for the murder.

M. Didius Julianus, a member of the high aristocracy and a senior ex-consul, emerged as a

second candidate. According to the sources, which are almost uniformly hostile, Julianus learnt

of Pertinax’ death ‘while in a drunken stupor’ (Her. 2.6.6)481. From here, so the traditional story

goes, Julianus realised the size of the opportunity before him and rushed to the barracks;

Herodian adds that Julianus’ avaricious wife and daughter goaded him into the act 482. Such a

story is highly improbable and is undoubtedly a result of subsequent events. The Historia

477 Her. 2.6.3-4.478 Dio 73 (74). 3.3.479 Dio 73 (74). 11.2-3; Her. 2.6.3-6. 480 For his career, see PIR 2 F373; Alfoldy Senat, p.142; Barbieri Albo, no.241; Leunissen Konsuln, 308 & 402. 481 Dio 73 (74). 11.2. See Leaning, op. cit., pp.548-552, 556-557.482 Her. 2.6.7.

85

Augusta, which seems to have relied on an otherwise unknown source, has a much more

favourable account. On hearing news of Pertinax’ death, Julianus went to the senate house,

where a meeting had been called. Finding the doors closed, two tribunes of the Guard, Publius

Florianus and Vectius Aper met Julianus and persuaded him to press his claim, arguing that he

was a more suitable candidate than Sulpicianus483. This was not idle flattery. Julianus was a

well-connected aristocrat and had strong links to the Antonine imperial house, being raised at the

home of Marcus Aurelius’ mother Domitia Lucilla. He had also had an eminent career,

culminating in a suffect consulship in 175CE and the proconsulship of Africa in 190CE 484.

Significantly, a number of incidents connect Julianus with other influential figures of the period.

In 167-168CE, Julianus had been one of the presiding officials at Septimius’ trial for adultery485.

During Commodus’ reign, Julianus had twice been suspected of sedition; on the second occasion

he was cleared of suspicion through Laetus’ influence486. Dio admits that he had successfully

prosecuted Julianus on several occasions himself487. In the event, Julianus quickly outbid

Sulpicianus, winning the auction with an enormous raise of 5,000 sesterces per man488.

Although Julianus’ rank and wealth were instrumental in gaining him the throne, the very fact

that he had had to buy the loyalty of the troops reveals just how deep the crisis of auctoritas ran.

His attempts to play the role of the traditional ‘good’ emperor, by seeking senatorial approval

and promising large donatives to the urban populace, were thus doomed to fail. In his first

senatorial address, Julianus tried to portray himself as the reluctant ruler chosen by the popular

will: ‘…I have not even asked to be attended here by many soldiers, but have come to you alone’

(Dio 73 (74).12.4-5). The presence of large numbers of heavily armed Praetorians was an

obvious contradiction. The ordinary people of Rome regarded Julianus as Pertinax’ murderer, in

which they were no doubt encouraged by others. Dio remarks that after this meeting, Julianus

went to the temple of Janus to sacrifice, at which point a large mob ‘all fell to shouting, as if by

pre-concerted arrangement, calling him stealer of the empire and parricide’ (Dio 73 (74). 13.3)489. 483 HA Did. Jul. 2.4-7. The fact that a L. Publicius Florianus is recorded on an inscription at Auximum, strongly supports the basic veracity of the vita’s account. See CIL 9.5842; Leaning , op. cit., p.557 n.49.484 His career, which included imperial recommendations for both aedile and quaestorial posts, is discussed in PIR 2 D77; Leaning, op. cit., pp.552-555.485 HA Sev. 2.2-3.486 Dio 73.5.1-2; HA Comm. 3.2; 4.1.7-10; HA Did. Jul. 1.9-2.2, 6.2; Leaning, op. cit., p.554.487 Dio 73 (74). 12.2-3. 488 Dio 73 (74). 11.5; HA Did. Jul. 3.2; Leaning, op. cit., p.557. 489 Given Pertinax’ fascination with Janus, it is interesting that this incident occurred outside his temple.

86

During another serious demonstration, a large group occupied the Circus Maximus, lamenting

the present situation and calling upon Pescennius Niger, the governor of Syria, for aid; there

were clearly other forces at work490.

News of Pertinax’ death on 28th March seems to have quickly reached Septimius in Pannonia,

possibly sometime between 1st – 3rd April491. Carnuntum, the capital of Pannonia Superior, lay

some 683 Roman miles from the capital. A mounted rider travelling sixty miles per day would

take eleven and a half days to complete such a journey. Using the imperial post system, which

kept fresh riders and horses at various points along the major roads, could significantly reduce

this time. It is interesting to note therefore that Septimius’ kinsman, C. Fulvius Plautianus,

seems to have been made praefectus vehiculorum (the official in charge of the imperial post) by

Pertinax492. In any case, it is likely that news of the disturbances at Rome had already been

received and that Septimius was preparing for action. One late source provides some evidence of

this. The Epitome de Caesaribus records that Septimius was proclaimed emperor at the city of

Savaria, some seventy miles south west of Carnuntum493.

The speed of Septimius’ response again suggests some kind of prior organisation. Messages

were sent to nearby governors and legionary commanders, informing them of Pertinax’ murder

and of his own intention to replace him as emperor. Presumably, it would not have taken long

for replies to be received from Septimius’ own legionary legates, as well as from the

neighbouring provinces of Pannonia Inferior and Noricum. Although the evidence is a little

fragmentary, most of these commanders offered their unconditional support and were later

rewarded by Septimius. The oriental T. Flavius Secundus Philippianus, legate of XIV Gemina,

became consul in 195-196CE, whilst L. Aurelius Gallus, the Italian legate of I Adiutrix, was

made consul ordinarius in 198CE494. Interestingly, it seems that the loyalty of the legate of X

Gemina was in some way doubtful; no record of this man’s name survives and more importantly,

490 Dio 73 (74). 13.5; Her. 2.7.2-4.491 Birley Septimius, 97; Graham, op. cit., p.257492 Page 93.493 Epit. De Caes. 19.2. This may account for Victor De Caes. 19.4; HA Did. Jul. 5.2 and Zonaras 12.7, which all implausibly give ‘Syria’ as the location. See Birley Septimius, 97, 244 n.21494 Flavius Secundus: PIR 2 F362; Alfoldy Senat, p.142; Barbieri Albo, no.241; Birley Coup, p. 275; Leunissen Konsuln, 343. Aurelius Gallus: PIR 2 A1514; Alfoldy Senat, p.135; Barbieri Albo, no. 76; Birley Coup, p.275; Leunissen Konsuln, 335.

87

the legion was not given a special commemorative coin495. The governor of Pannonia Inferior,

C. Valerius Pudens, must have given his full support; he was made a suffect consul in 195-

196CE and later became the proconsul of Africa496.

Although it undoubtedly took longer for messages to reach the more distant provinces, the

governors of the Danube region all subsequently pledged their allegiance. The identity of the

governor of Moesia Superior during 193 is uncertain, although it could possibly have been the

shadowy […]n Pompeianus497. Septimius’ brother Geta, who was also a former client of

Pertinax, was then commanding the two-legion province of Moesia Inferior; his support could

perhaps be taken for granted498. Only one of his legates is known. L. Marius Maximus

Perpetuus, from Africa, was then legate of I Italica. His subsequent career, culminating in two

consulships, shows clearly that he had supported Septimius499. Q. Aurelius Polus Terentianus,

governor of Dacia, seems to have been part of the original conspiracy to overthrow Commodus.

In any case, his appointment to the senior post of Asian proconsul in 200 confirms his support

during this critical period500. T. Manilius Fuscus, legate of XIII Gemina under Terentianus, was

another early supporter, being rewarded for his loyalty with a consulship in 195-196CE501.

The reaction of the Rhine provinces is a little harder to ascertain. Unfortunately, the governors

of both Raetia and Noricum are not known. There is also doubt regarding the identity of the

legatus Augusti in Germania Superior; it is possible that it was Q. Memmius Fidus Julius Albius,

from Bulla Regia in Africa502. Virius Lupus, who is attested as governor of Germania Inferior

from 194-197CE, may well have been in post as early as 192CE. He was nevertheless a noted

supporter of Septimius and after this command he was sent to govern Britain, possibly until

202CE503. The name of one of the legionary legates of Germania Inferior is known. Q. Venidius

Rufus Marius Maximus L. Calvinianus, who seems to have been related to Marius Maximus,

was in command of I Minerva, based at Bonn, during 193CE; his consulship in 197-198CE

495 Birley Septimius, 97.496 Alfoldy Senat, p.153; Barbieri Albo, no.514; Birley Coup, p. 275; Thomasson LP col.115 no. 25.497 Alfoldy Senat, p.153; Thomasson LP col. 128 no.49.498 Birley Coup, pp.262-263. 499 PIR 2 M308; Alfoldy Senat, pp.146-147; Barbieri Albo, no. 1100; Birley Coup, p.276; Leunissen Konsuln, 336. 500 Alfoldy Senat, p.135; Birley Coup, p. pp.267-268; Thomasson LP col. 155-156 no. 44.501 PIR 2 M137; Alfoldy Senat, p.146; Barbieri Albo, no. 347; Leunissen Konsuln, 342.502 Alfoldy Senat, p.147; Birley Coup, p. 274. 503 Alfoldy Senat p.154; Birley Coup, p.276; Thomasson LP col.58 no.92.

88

proves his allegiance to Septimius504. Whilst all of these provinces subsequently declared for

Septimius, it is extremely unlikely that news of their support reached him quickly. He was also

waiting for news of his sons in Rome505. By 9th April, Septimius felt sure enough of his position

to publicly declare himself emperor. It was a mere twelve days since Pertinax’ assassination506.

In his initial speech to the troops, Septimius justified his revolt by stressing his desire to avenge

Pertinax. As a token of this he added Pertinax to his own name, styling himself ‘Imperator

Caesar L. Septimius Severus Pertinax Augustus’507. He also seems to have laid responsibility for

the murder at the feet of the Praetorian Guard. By concentrating upon their dereliction of duty,

Septimius may well have been trying to raise his troops’ hopes of serving in the capital. In any

case, the assembled soldiers were given a donative. The Historia Augusta gives the sum as one

thousand sesterces per man508.

In order to successfully portray himself as the legitimate candidate Septimius needed to take

control of the capital. Rome was not only the empire’s largest city and seat of lawful authority;

it was its symbolic heart. Only the senate, meeting in the time-honoured manner, could legally

sanction the rule of a new emperor. The emperor’s tribunician power, which gave him the right

to propose and veto legislation, could only be conferred at the capital. There is no doubt that

Septimius understood this, carefully avoiding the tribunician title for the present. Moreover, by

seizing the capital, Septimius could begin to rebuild the traditional structure of Roman

patronage, by offering prestigious positions in government to those noblemen willing to co-

operate.

With this aim in mind, once the official proclamation was over Septimius began mobilising his

forces for the coming march on Rome. Military units from the entire northern frontier were

ordered to gather in Pannonia. Although he seems to have had the support of the Rhine and

Danube armies, a force of some fifteen legions (approximately eighty-one thousand men) and

504 Leunissen Konsuln, 336; Alfoldy Senat, p. 153; Barbieri Albo, no. 519.505 Her. 3.2.4.506 Feriale Duranum, col. 2 line 3, quoted in Birley Coup, p.272 n.180. Cf. HA Sev. 5.1-2 erroneously gives the Ides of August as his date of accession.507 Her. 2.10.1; HA Sev. 5.5, 7.9; BMC V, p. lxxix.508 HA Sev. 5.2.

89

their attendant auxiliary units, a number of other governors had yet to declare their intentions509.

Chief amongst these was Clodius Albinus, the governor of Britain. During the second century,

Britain contained a large garrison of some three legions and a number of auxiliary units510.

Albinus was a serious potential rival. He came from, or had strong links to Africa, and was a

member of a wealthy and well-connected aristocratic family511. More significantly, he was

related to Asellius Aemilianus, the proconsul of Asia512. Not surprisingly therefore, Albinus

reputedly had a large and influential following at Rome513. Early reports suggested that Albinus

was seriously considering his own bid and had already gaining the support of L. Novius Rufus,

the governor of Hispania Tarraconensis514. Septimius responded to these reports by sending

messages of his own to Albinus, offering him the position of Caesar in return for his support 515.

After some negotiation, Albinus accepted, becoming ‘D. Clodius Septimius Albinus Caesar’516.

The sources are unanimously sceptical of Septimius’ motives. His offer is not seen as genuine,

but as merely an attempt to buy time in which to fight Niger. Septimius is thus cast in the role of

deceiver, whilst Albinus is portrayed as a naïve simpleton. This is due in part to the common

ancient stereotype of the unfaithful African and in part to the subsequent course of events.

Although it is true that, after the war against Niger, Septimius broke with Albinus, appointing his

son Caracalla heir, both men were manoeuvring for position from the very beginning. At this

early stage, both men had much to gain in such an alliance, as even Herodian makes clear. In his

account of Septimius’ letter to Albinus, Herodian states that Septimius needed a ‘man of noble

birth, still in the prime of life, when he himself was an old man, racked by gout and with children

who were very young’ (Her. 2.15.4). Although we may safely discount his pleas of old age and

ill health, Septimius stood very much in need of the sizeable auctoritas a man like Albinus must

have possessed. Albinus, for his part, must have been aware of the depth of support for

Septimius amongst the Rhine and Danube armies, which outnumbered his own forces

509 Campbell (1996), p.839. 510 II Augusta, VI Victrix and XX Valeria Victrix. See Grant (1974), 292; Breeze & Dobson (1987), pp.243-258; Todd (1997), 167-170, 173.511 Albinus’ origins are disputed. See Birley Coup, pp.265-266; cf. Barnes (1973), pp.45-59. The wealth and nobility of his family is however, unanimously accepted. 512 Dio 74 (75). 6.2. 513 Alfoldy Senat, pp.119-120. 514 Birley Septimius, 98. Novius Rufus: Birley Coup, p.274-275; Alfoldy Senat, p.148; Barbieri Albo, 392. 515 See Dio 73 (74). 15.1-2; Her. 2.15.1-3; HA Sev. 6.9-10. Less credibly, HA Nig. 2.1-2; HA Alb. 1.2, 3.4-5, 10.3.516 BMC V, pp. lxxxii-lxxxiii.

90

significantly. He must also have been aware that Septimius’ sons were still very young.

Moreover, he would gain credibility by being publicly associated with Pertinax’ self-styled

avenger and the alliance also gave him space in which to build up his own contacts517.

With this alliance concluded, serious military operations could begin. In the following weeks,

legionary and auxiliary detachments from nearby provinces began to arrive in Pannonia. Food

and materiel also began to arrive, whilst further supplies were arranged. It is also likely that

advance forces took control of the alpine passes. Amidst these preparations news began to filter

through of the demonstrations in Rome in favour of Pescennius Niger, the governor of Syria518.

To counter this, Marius Maximus, legate of I Italica, was given a special command and sent

southwards to seize control of the vital sea crossing at Byzantium519.

By late April 193CE, the expeditionary force had been assembled and had begun to march520.

Septimius himself was in overall command. The mysterious Julius Laetus, who should not be

confused with the praetorian prefect, seems to have been given charge of the advance guard; it is

possible that he had already left by this point, attempting to seize the alpine passes521. One L.

Valerius Valerianus, also of uncertain origin that seems to have been commanding a cavalry unit

in the region, was given command of the cavalry522. M. Rossius Vitulus, who seems to have

been from Tergeste (modern Trieste), was made praepositus annonae, or quartermaster-

general523. At any rate, according to Herodian, Septimius’ forces arrived in Italy before news of

his proclamation had become widely known524.

517 Moran (1996), p.5.518 Her. 2.7.2-4.519 Dio 73 (74). 15.2; Her.2.14.6-7, 3.2.1; HA Sev. 8.12-13.520 Graham, op. cit., p.257. 521 Her. 2.11.8-9. Laetus is a shadowy figure. His earlier career is unknown. See PIR2 I373 & L69; Birley Septimius, 98; Graham, op. cit., p.258. 522 AE 1966.495, restored and re-interpreted by Speidel (1985), pp.321-326. See also Graham, ibid. 523 Graham, ibid. 524 Her. 2.11.3.

91

Figure 14: Concord Militum: BMC V, p. 11, no. 1, pls. 3.5.

Meanwhile, with news of the events in Pannonia, Julianus was making preparations of his own.

Septimius and Niger were proclaimed public enemies and the Praetorians were immediately put

to work in fortifying the capital, despite this Dio comments that their efforts were largely

useless525. An appeal to the provincial legions was made via the coinage. A large series of coins

proclaiming the ‘harmony of the soldiers’ (CONCO R D MILIT) were issued in all metals

(Figure 14)526. Other issues, with the legend RECTOR ORBIS (‘ruler of the world’), attempted

to emphasise this point, giving Julianus the aura of a legitimate ruler527. As a more practical

measure, a senatorial delegation was sent to the approaching army. Its members included

Vespronius Candidus, a former governor of Dacia, Valerius Catullinus, Septimius’ supposed

successor in Pannonia and Aquilius Felix, a man ‘notorious as the assassin of senators’ (HA Did.

Jul. 5.7-8), all three were either arrested or joined Septimius528.

By the time this commission arrived, Septimius had already taken control of the port city of

Ravenna, brushing aside the new praetorian prefect Tullius Crispinus, who had been given

command of the city’s marines by Julianus529. Panicking, Julianus had Marcia and Laetus put to

death as supposed Severan supporters530. Turning to religion, he suggested that the priests and

Vestal Virgins, at the head of the senate, should be sent to implore Septimius to turn back.

Significantly, the augur M. Peducaeus Plautius Quintillus, a son-in-law of Marcus Aurelius and a

possible relative of Albinus, vetoed this proposal531. Realising the seriousness of the situation,

525 Dio 73 (74). 16.1-2. 526 BMC V, p. lxx-lxxiii, p. 11-12 & 15, nos. 1-3, 9, 20-23, pls. 3.5-7, 11 & 4.1.527 BMC V, p. 12, 15-16, nos. 6-8, 19 & 28-31, pls. 3.9-10, & 4.8.528 HA Sev. 5.5; HA Did. Jul. 5.5-8; Leaning, op. cit., pp. 560-561.529 Her. 2.12.1-3; Birley Septimius, 99. 530 Dio 73 (74). 16.5; HA Did. Jul. 6.2. 531 HA Did. Jul. 6.6; Birley (1993), 182; HA Alb. 10.7.

92

Julianus issued a decree assigning half of the empire to Septimius532. Not surprisingly, Septimius

rejected this.

Clearly desperate, Julianus tried to appease Septimius by appointing his nominees as prefects of

the Guard and by offering to share power with Pertinax’ old patron, Claudius Pompeianus533.

The coinage also reveals that he added ‘Severus’ to his own name534. Finally, Septimius issued a

direct command to the Praetorians to arrest Pertinax’ murderers which they obeyed. Julianus

was finished. At a hastily convened meeting, the senate recognised Septimius as emperor, giving

Pertinax public deification and declaring Julianus a public enemy, with a sentence of death. His

last words, as Dio records them, reveal that he had fatally misunderstood the nature of the crisis

facing Rome: ‘But what evil have I done? Whom have I killed?’535.

Septimius had arrived at Interamna, some fifty miles north of Rome, when news of Julianus’

execution reached him on June 1st 193CE; the entire expeditionary force had taken just thirty

days to march nearly 700 Roman miles536. The speed with which this feat was accomplished

demonstrates Septimius’ acknowledgement of the seriousness of the situation. If his regime was

to have any hope of permanency, the damage of the previous thirteen years had to be repaired.

Upon entering the city, Septimius moved decisively to establish his position. The wayward

Praetorian Guard were tricked into assembling unarmed outside the city and then dishonourably

discharged. As punishment for their disloyalty to Pertinax, they were banished from Rome en

masse under threat of death537. The removal of the Guard’s disruptive influence gave Septimius

the chance to impose order on the capital, allowing a vital breathing space in which the normal

pattern of life could resume. Effective security was also ensured by the institution of a new

force, of much larger size and filled with loyal Danubian troops538.

532 Dio 73 (74). 17.2; Her. 2.12.3; HA Sev. 5.7; HA Did. Jul. 6.8-9. 533 HA Did. Jul. 7.4-5, 8.1-4.534 BMC V, p.12-17. See especially no. 9, pl. 3.11.535 Dio 73 (74). 17.4-5. 536 HA Sev. 6.2. At some point in his career, Fabius Cilo was the curator of Interamna. See PIR 2 F27.537 Dio 74 (75). 1.1-2; Her. 2. 13.1-12; HA Sev. 6.11.538 Dio 74 (75). 2.4-6; Her. 2.14.5; Birley (1969), pp.63-82.

93

In spite of Dio’s testament to the contrary, Septimius’ entry into Rome, at the head of a large

army, caused widespread fear539. Moving swiftly to allay these concerns, Septimius called an

official meeting of the senate, before publicly sacrificing at all the major temples540. Addressing

the senate, Septimius reiterated his statement of proclamation that he had only revolted in order

to avenge Pertinax, adding further that he would take Marcus Aurelius as an example and taking

an oath not to kill any senator541. Although such rhetoric had been tarnished in recent years,

Marcus’ memory and the ideal it represented was still widely cherished at Rome542. It was no

doubt for this reason that soon after his arrival Septimius designated himself and his new Caesar

as consuls for the coming year (194CE); it is also more likely that those consuls designate who

had not shown themselves disloyal were allowed to serve their terms in office543.

Figure 15: Divus Pius Pater: BMC V, p.25, no. 36, pl. 6.6.

Further steps were taken by Septimius to link himself his former patron. Pertinax, who had

already been voted divine honours by the senate, was now to be mentioned ‘at the close of all

prayers and all oaths’ (Dio 74 (75). 4.1-2). A golden statue of Pertinax was to be carried by an

elephant into the Circus Maximus and three gilded thrones were to be paraded through the city’s

amphitheatres544. An elaborate funeral was arranged, at which a wax effigy of Pertinax was

buried as though it was real; at the end of the ceremony, an eagle was released, symbolising his

divine transformation545. Not wanting anyone to miss the spectacle, Septimius placed the bier on

a wooden platform in the Forum; senators and equestrians received their own stands, ‘in a

539 Dio 74 (75). 1.3-5; cf. Her. 2.14.1; HA Sev. 6.6 & 7.2-4; Tert. Apol. 35.4.540 Her. 2.14.2; Dio 74 (75). 1.3-2.1. 541 Dio 74(73). 2.1; Her. 2.14.3; HA Sev. 7.5-6, although, as Dio notes, this oath was later broken. See Birley (1962), pp.197-199.542 Her. 2.14.3; Moran, op. cit, p.6.543 HA Alb. 6.8. 544 Dio 74 (75). 4.2. 545 Dio 74 (75). 4.1-5.5; HA Sev. 7.7-8.

94

manner befitting their station’ (Dio 74 (75). 4.1-5). The machinery of imperial propaganda also

began to move. Writers such as Dio, were commissioned to praise Pertinax in their works and a

commemorative coin was also issued546. The reverse bore a depiction of the divine eagle (Figure

15). The obverse legend ran DIVVS PERT PIVS PATER (‘our divine and pious father

Pertinax’)547. The senate responded by confirming Septimius’ adoption of Pertinax’ name548.

Figure 16: Septimius’ Special Legionary coin issue: BMC V, p. 21-23, nos. 8-25, pls. 5.4-5.19

Septimius took a number of other important measures to reinforce his position. The soldiers

were given an immediate cash donative, although the actual amount is uncertain549. This largesse

was presumably paid by means of a special coin issue. A large series of coins, dating to mid-546 See the excessive flattery of Pertinax in Dio 74 (75). 5.6-7; Millar (1966), 1-15.547 BMC V, p.25, nos. 36-37, pls. 6.6-6.7.548 HA Sev. 7.9; BMC V, p. lxxix.549 Her. 2.14.5.

95

193CE, commemorate those legions initially loyal to Septimius (Figure 16)550. Further issues of

this period recall the ‘faith of the legions’ (FIDEI. LEG T RP COS – Figure 16)551. Celebratory

games were held for the general public, who received a donative of their own, paid for by

another commemorative coin (LIBERAL AVG COS – Figure 17)552.

Figure 17: Liberalitas Aug.: BMC V, p. 20, no.1, pl. 5.16.

Septimius could also hope to acquire popular support by concerning himself with the business of

government. Care was thus taken to reorganise the city’s grain supply, presumably still

controlled from Ostia by Septimius’ Emesene relative, C. Julius Avitus Alexianus553. Septimius

also heard a number of pressing lawsuits; a rescript dating to June 27 th 193CE, deciding a

technical point of law, has survived554. Septimius’ first appointments as emperor show his

concern for security. Veturius Macrinus, a former prefect of Egypt, and Flavius Juvenalis were

made join prefects of the Guard555. The ephemeral Bassus was appointed praefectus urbi, only to

be replaced soon afterwards by C. Domitius Dexter556. Dexter was an interesting choice; it is

possible that he was Septimius’ commander in Syria for a short time in the 170sCE557.

These measures were an important means of restoring calm to the city and thence to the empire

at large. Like Pertinax before him, Septimius was careful to court the affection of the senatorial

nobility. However, unlike his erstwhile patron, Septimius realised that in order to establish his 550 Interestingly, X Gemina is not recorded. See, BMC V, p. lxxxii-lxxxiii, p. 21-23, nos. 8-25, pls. 5.4-5.19.551 BMC V, p. 20-21, nos. 5-6, pls. 5.1-5.2. 552 Her. 2.14.5; Moran, ibid; BMC V, p. 20, nos.1-3, pls. 5.16-5.17.553 HA Sev. 8.5; Moran, ibid; Leunissen Konsuln, 379; Birley Septimius, App. 2 no.45.554 HA Sev. 8.3-4; CJ 3.28.1, quoted in Birley Septimius, 245 n.36.555 Veturius Macrinus: Howe (1966), no.16; Thomasson LP, col. 352 no.72. Flavius Juvenalis: Howe, op. cit., no. 17.556 Leunissen Konsuln, 308. 557 See Chapter Two, page 62.

96

regime effectively, he had to create a stable political environment; his replacement of the old

Italianate Guard allowed him to do this. Furthermore, by holding public games and reorganising

the corn supply Septimius could portray himself in the emperor’s traditional role of pater patriae

(‘father of the nation’). Through these means Septimius could portray himself as the legitimate

emperor.

During the next four years, Septimius’ forces destroyed first Niger and then Albinus558.

However, that he had been able to do this was based squarely upon his swift action in early

193CE and his careful attempts to play the role of the traditional emperor. Although the

chronological narrative employed throughout much of this dissertation has enabled us to see the

gradual unfolding of events, it has, to a certain extent, obscured the broader picture. In order to

remedy this and to draw together the dissertation’s various threads, in this final section focus will

be given to analysing Septimius’ supporters559.

In an influential article, Birley argued that a politically active African faction formed the

backbone of aristocratic resistance to Commodus. This group, it is argued, was headed by

members of the high nobility and was directly responsible for replacing Commodus with

Pertinax. Despite this success, the new regime was marred by a conflict between the faction’s

principal leaders, Pertinax and Laetus. Thereafter, Laetus either actively conspired against his

former ally, or else turned a blind eye to his troops’ opposition. The death of Pertinax split the

faction in two, with one group headed by Septimius in Pannonia and the other by Clodius

Albinus in Britain. When these two men made common cause to defeat Niger, the African

faction was again united. After Niger’s defeat, Septimius turned on Albinus and, in a huge battle

at Lyons in 197CE, killed him. The strength of the African faction in the ensuing conflict is

demonstrated by Septimius’ subsequent appointment of a special official to administer the

confiscated wealth560.

In support of this notion, Birley argues that most of the important governors were either from

Africa, or were otherwise strongly connected with it. Unfortunately, although this hypothesis is

558 See Birley Septimius, 108-129; Graham (1973), pp. 255-278; Harrer (1923), pp.155-168.559 See Alfoldy Senat, pp.112-160; also Nicols (1978), passim, especially p.99-115.560 Birley Coup, pp. 247-280; see also Whittaker Revolt, pp.352-353.

97

interesting, there are a number of weaknesses in the argument. To start with, although many of

his claims for African origin are accurate, many others are at best based upon inconclusive

evidence. Albinus himself is perhaps the most significant doubtful case. Although he was

strongly connected with Africa, his actual African heritage is far from certain561. In a number of

other places, Birley relies too heavily upon probabilities. Thus it is suggested that Q. Aurelius

Polus Terentianus, the governor of Dacia in 193CE, may well originate in Africa because the

otherwise rare combination of Q. Aurelii are found eighteen times in Africa562. This may well be

accurate, but it is dangerous to base his argument on such a slight foundation. Similarly, in his

concluding analysis Birley offers some collated figures. Of twelve consular provinces in the

Severan period, the names of forty-four governors are known563. As Birley’s own figures admit,

only five of these men (or 11%) are definitely from Africa, with a further six probable cases and

eight possibilities564. Although regional variations in nomenclature are a useful source of

evidence, they must be used with extreme caution. This approach, which is totally reliant on the

vagaries of the extant epigraphic corpus, is methodologically uncertain, to say the least. If this

conspiracy were the result of an African faction, then it would be reasonable to expect its

figurehead to be from Africa, or else to have a strong link to it. Pertinax however, was an Italian

from Alba Pompeia in Liguria565. Birley’s attempt to link his father with Africa is thus

somewhat implausible566. Moreover, as has been seen, the coup’s most senior supporters were

men like M’ Acilius Glabrio and Claudius Pompeianus, neither of whom had a connection with

Africa. Finally, as this dissertation has tried to stress, provincial origin was not the primary

motivating factor in Roman aristocratic politics. Common political goals, or less generously

self-interest, provided the key link between the conspirators against Commodus, as well as

amongst Septimius’ key supporters. Whilst a shared African background may have been an

initial means of recruitment or introduction, had there been no common interest the faction

would soon have dissolved. As Barnes points out, ‘the basis of the Severan party ought to be

clear. It is opportunism’567.

561 Birley Coup, pp.265-266; cf. Barnes (1970), pp.45-59. 562 Birley Coup, p.267, citing the index of CIL 8. 563 The provinces are Britain, Pannonia Superior, Germania Inferior and Superior, Moesia Inferior and Superior, Dacia, Syria Coele, Hispania Tarraconensis, Dalmatia and Pontus-Bithynia; Birley Coup, pp.278-279. 564 Birley Coup, p. 279. 565 Dio 73 (74). 3.1; Her. 2.1.4. 566 Birley Coup, pp.271-272. 567 Barnes (1967), p.103.

98

ConclusionDuring the mid-eighteenth century, the famous historian Edward Gibbon wrote a scathing attack

on the character of Septimius. In his, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

Gibbon denounced Septimius as both devious and violent568. In his final analysis, he candidly

remarked that Septimius was the, ‘principal author of the decline of the Roman Empire’569.

Miller, writing some two centuries later, expresses a strikingly similar conviction; Septimius,

who was possessed of a ‘realism unembarrassed by historical sympathies or scruples’, was in

actual fact not a Roman at all but a ‘New Hannibal on the throne of the Caesars’570.

Although Septimius’ ruthlessness and violence are not at issue, this dissertation has attempted to

demonstrate that he was an altogether more complex figure than is generally imagined, as both

Gibbon and Miller grudgingly admit571. Indeed, it is precisely this mixture of cruelty and

generosity, of single-minded ambition and concern for justice that has made him one of the most

intriguing characters of antiquity. The ancients themselves were aware of this paradox; he

‘should never have been born at all or never should have died’ (HA Sev. 18.7-8).

This present work has avoided a discussion of Septimius’ reign as emperor. Several factors

influenced this decision. To start with, the Severan period has attracted the attention of an

increasing number of historians in recent years. During the last fifty years, important advances

have been made in a wide range of relevant fields. The literary sources for the Severan era have

been exhaustively examined; the works of Dio, Herodian and the peculiar, yet fascinating

Historia Augusta have been studied in great detail572. Archaeology has also contributed a great

deal to the understanding of the ancient world. In particular, recent research has brought the

cultural diversity of Septimius’ native Tripolitania to light573. Linguists have also made

568 Gibbon (Wonersley ed. 1994), 150, 140.569 Gibbon (Womersley ed. 1994), 148.570 Miller (1939), 26.571 Gibbon, op. cit., 148-150; Miller, op. cit., 24.572 For Dio, see Millar (1966). For Herodian, see Whittaker (1969). For the Historia Augusta, see initially Syme (1971b), pp.30-53; Syme (1980), passim. 573 Mattingly & Hitchner (1995), pp. 165-213 give an overview of recent archaeological research in North Africa. See also Mattingly (1995); Sjöström (1993); Libya, passim.

99

significant contributions, especially with regards to the interaction of Latin and Punic in

Lepcis574. Others have attempted to assess the influence of Africa and individual Africans upon

second century Rome575. Moreover, a number of eminent scholars have discussed various

aspects of Septimius’ reign itself at some length576.

This means that any new treatment requires the absorption of a now extensive secondary

literature. It would also be beyond the scope of this paper to tackle a discussion of this size. In

any case, it was felt that the ground had to be prepared before any such attempt was made. In

other words, it was first necessary to locate Septimius within his proper context. During the

initial research, it became clear that although many important advances have been made,

Septimius’ place within the ancient world was still somewhat misunderstood. This

misunderstanding has caused scholars to either over-emphasise Septimius’ African-ness, to the

point where he becomes an unrecognisable stranger to classical civilisation, or to ignore it

completely. Few studies seem prepared, as yet, to accept that Septimius was both African and

Roman. This dissertation has attempted to examine this duality and to show that he was an

integral member of the Roman imperial aristocracy during the second century CE.

This present study has tried to assess this fundamental aspect by two distinct means. The first

chapter set out to examine the link between Septimius’ family and the city of his birth, Lepcis

Magna. As such, Lepcis’ political and social history, particularly its connections with the

growing power of Rome, was discussed. It became clear that the cardinal factor in the city’s

success was its skilful use of available resources. The emporium’s economic strength enabled it

to adapt quickly to the changes brought about by the reforms of Augustus; wealthy Lepcitanes

were thus excellently placed to take advantage of the new opportunities. As leading members of

the native aristocracy, the Septimii stood at the forefront of Lepcis’ drive for social recognition,

acquiring Roman citizenship and equestrian status at some point during the mid-first century CE.

574 See Jongeling (1994); Adams (1994), pp.87-112; Adams (1999), pp.109-134.575 See Champlin (1980); Harrison (2000); Jarrett (1963), pp.209-226; Jarrett (1972), pp.146-232; Carandini (1983), pp.145-162; Noy (2000); Ricci (1994), pp.189-207.576 Birley Septimius remains the fundamental starting point. See Alföldy Senat, pp.112-160; Moran (1996), Leaning (1989), pp.548-565; Alston (1994), pp.113-123; Bahardal (1989), pp.566-580; Barnes (1967), pp.87-107; Barnes (1970), pp.45-59; Birley (1969), pp.63-82; Graham (1973), pp. 255-278; Rubin (1976/1977), pp.153-173.

100

The future emperor’s grandfather thereby gained access to the circles of the Roman elite, a

breakthrough that his younger relatives capitalised upon fully.

The second and third chapters sought to discuss Septimius’ place within the Roman world by

examining his developing senatorial career. Chapter two aimed to widen the discussion by

looking at the main features of Romano-African society. From this discussion, the extent to

which African culture mirrored that of Rome became clear. The provincial nobility swiftly and

enthusiastically adopted imperial culture and its trappings. Throughout virtually the entire

region, local worthies competed with each other to prove their refinement; Latin poetry, much of

it bad, flourished, as did classically inspired architecture. In particular, the deep regard for

education was also noted, which led many Africans into a legal career. As also became clear,

there was some degree of ambiguity towards Africa. The writings of Fronto in particular reveal

his deep affection for his native Cirta. Despite this, his connections with Africa as a whole are

virtually non-existent, with few references to non-Cirtan Africans in his surviving

correspondence.

Septimius’ own career, the main subject of chapter two, reveals similar processes at work. The

first thing to note is that his career pattern is fundamentally typical. In the earlier part of

Septimius’ career his key supporters were members of his own family, in particular his consular

relative C. Septimius Severus. Members of the wider African nobility are conspicuous by their

absence. Later on, it was his family’s connections with the wider nobility that provided

Septimius with the necessary patronage. Thus although Septimius was supported by and

promoted through the agency of a number of Roman-Africans, it is an oversimplification to see

this as evidence of an ‘African faction’. In other words, it is a mistake to suggest that Africa was

the primary factor in Septimius’ developing relationships with the Roman elite.

As we have seen, Septimius was linked to P. Helvius Pertinax, the future emperor, from a very

early stage of his career. It is also likely that Septimius’ brother Geta was also an early protégé

of Pertinax. In any case, both men were linked to Pertinax and through him to such senior men

as Ti. Claudius Pompeianus, Marcus Aurelius’ chief military adviser. Septimius’ connection to

the Antonine nobility is significant. It reveals that, like other Roman-Africans, Septimius was an

101

ambitious man, eager to make a name for himself. It also reveals his deeply conservative

outlook. Like other members of the Africa’s provincial elite, Septimius had a deep respect for

the Antonine imperial family, Marcus Aurelius in particular. Although his self-adoption into the

Antonine house was undoubtedly a shrewd political move, there were also other motives at work.

The Historia Augusta records Septimius’ pleasure in leaving two Antonines to rule after him577.

Chapter three continued our examination of Septimius’ career, focusing on the vital years from

190CE. Septimius was seen to have been an integral member of the conspiracy which overthrew

Commodus on New Year’s Eve 192CE. Although Commodus’ death definitely sprang from an

organised conspiracy, chapter three set out to discuss the nature of this faction. In contrast to

Birley, it was seen that the key factor uniting the conspirators was opposition to Commodus,

whether from altruistic or more selfish motives. In other words, common interest was the

deciding factor. As Barnes points out, ‘the basis of the Severan party ought to be clear. It is

opportunism’578. Thus although many of the coup’s members were undoubtedly Africans, many

of them were not. Moreover, if this were the action of an African party, then it would be

reasonable to expect its figurehead to be from Africa, or else to have a strong link to it. As we

have seen, Pertinax was an Italian579. Furthermore, as the most senior supporters of Pertinax

were men like M’ Acilius Glabrio and Claudius Pompeianus, it is surely more reasonable to

argue that Commodus’ death represents the final triumph of Marcus Aurelius’ advisers.

Septimius, in his own bid for the throne, utilised the support offered by a number of different

groups. Septimius’ most important supporters were thus either those men, like L. Fabius Cilo

and C. Domitius Dexter, with whom he seems to have had some prior connection, or were those

men placed into command of the northern armies by Pertinax and Laetus. Thus, in April 193CE

Septimius quickly and definitively assumed leadership of Pertinax’ former faction.

As this dissertation has tried to stress, provincial origin was not the primary motivating factor in

Roman aristocratic politics. Common political goals, or less generously self-interest, provided

the key link between the conspirators against Commodus, as well as amongst Septimius’ key

supporters. Whilst a shared African background may have been an initial means of recruitment

577 HA Geta 3.1. 578 Barnes (1967), p.103. 579 Dio 73 (74). 3.1; Her. 2.1.4.

102

or introduction, had there been no common interest the faction would soon have dissolved. As

this present work has repeatedly attempted to stress, Septimius was a complicated individual,

with complex aspirations and allegiances. His Lepcitane homeland was clearly important to him,

as his complete remodelling of the city in the early third century demonstrates. Having said this,

he was also fundamentally Roman in outlook, keen to follow the traditional senatorial career

structure. Furthermore it is highly evident that he had a great awareness of the exact value his

joint African and Roman heritage.

103

Appendix: Statius and the gens Septimia.

In the fifth poem of his fourth book of Silvae, the Roman court poet Statius refers to a young

equestrian from Lepcis called Septimius Severus. As was argued in Chapter One, this Septimius

is almost certainly to be identified with the emperor’s grandfather, Lucius Septimius Severus,

whose career is known from two inscriptions found at Lepcis. As both the poem and the

inscriptions are of vital significance to the discussion, it seems appropriate to set out the relevant

texts below in full.

Silvae Book four preface:

‘Then follows an Ode to Septimius Severus, who is, as you know, one of the most distinguished young men of equestrian rank, and not only a school companion of yours, but, even apart from that claim on me, one of my closest friends’

Silvae 4.5: (Latin text)

Parvi beatus ruris honoribus,Qua prisca Teucros Alba colit lares,Fortem atque faundum SeverumNon solitibus fidibus saluto.

Iam trux ad Arctos Parrhasias hiems (Line 5)Concessit altis orbuta solibus,Iam Pontus ac tellus renidentIn Zephyros Aquilone fracto.

Nunc cuncta veris frondibus annuisCrinitur arbos, nunc volucrum novi (Line 10)Questus unexpertumque Carmen,Quod tacita statuere bruma.

Nos parca tellus pervigil et focusCulmenque multo lumine sordidumSolantur exemptusque testa (Line 15)Qua modo ferbuerat Lyaeus.

Non mille balant lanigeri greges,Nec vacca dulci mugit adultero,

104

Unique siquando canentiMutus ager domino reclamat. (Line 20)

Sed terra primis post partiam mihiDilecta curis; hic mea carminaRegina bellorum viragoCaesareo peramavit auro,

Cum tu sodalis dulce periculumConisus omni pectore tolleres, (Line 25)Ut Castor ad cunctos tremebatBebryciae strepitus harenae.

Tene in remotis Syrtibus aviaLeptis creavit? Iam feret Indicas (Line 30)Messes odoratisque raraCinnama praeripiet Sabaesis.

Quis non in omni vertice RomuliReptasse dulcem Septimium putet?Quis fonte Iuturnae relictis (Line 35)Uberibus neget esse pastum?

Nec mira virtus: protinus AusonumPortus vadosae nescius AfricaeIntras adoptatusque TuscisGurgitibus puer innatasti. (Line 40)

Hinc parvus inter pginora curiaeContentus artae luminae purpuraeCrescis, sed immensos laboresIndole patricia secutus.

Non sermo Poenus, non habitus tibi, (Line 45)Externa non mens: Italus, Italus.Sunt Urbe Romanisque turmis,Qui Libyam deceant alumni.

Est et frementi vox hilaris foro,Venale sed non eloquium tibi; (Line 50)Ensisque vagina quiescit,Stringere ni iubeant amici.

Sed rura cordi saepius et quies,Nunc in paternis sedibus et soloVeiente, nunc frondosa supra (Line 55)

105

Hernica, nunc Curibus vetustis.

Hic plura pones vocibus et modisPassu solutes, sed memor interimNostri verecundo latentemBarbiton ingemina sub antro. (Line 60)

106

English translation (by Mozley, 1961):

‘Happy amid the glories of my small estate, where ancient Alba dwells in her Trojan home, I salute in unwonted strains the brave and eloquent Severus. At last harsh winter has fled to the Parrhasian North, o’erwhelmed by lofty suns; at last the cold winds are softened into mild zephyrs, and sea and land are smiling. Now every tree puts forth her yearly tresses of spring leaves, now are heard the birds’ new plainings and the unpractised songs which they planned in the silent winter. As for me, my thrifty domain and ever-wakeful hearth and rooftree blackened by many a fire console me, and the wine that I take from the jar where lately it fermented. Here no thousand woolly sheep utter bleatings, no cow lows to its sweet lover; and only to their master’s voice, as he sings, whene’er he sings, do the mute fields re-echo. But this land, after my native country, holds first place in my love: here the maiden queen of battles favoured my songs with Caesar’s golden crown, when you, striving with all your might, succoured your friend in his joyous hazard, even as Castor trembled at all the noise of the Bebrycian arena.

Did Leptis that loses itself in the distant Syrtes beget you? Soon shall she bear Indian harvests, and despoil the perfumed Sabaeans of their rare cinnamon. Who would not think that my sweet Septimius had crawled an infant on all the hills of Rome? Who would not say that he had drunk, his weaning done, of Juturna’s fountain? Nor is your prowess to be wondered at: straightway, still ignorant of Africa and its shallows, you entered the havens of Ausonia, and sailed, an adopted child, on Tuscan waters. Then, still a lad, you grew to manhood among the sons of the Senate, content with the glory of the narrow purple, but with patrician soul seeking unmeasured labours. Neither your speech nor your dress is Punic, yours is no stranger’s mind; Italian, you are, Italian! Yet in our city and among the knights of Rome are men who might well be foster-sons of Libya. Pleasing too is your voice in the strident courts, but your eloquence is never venal; your sword sleeps in its scabbard, save when your friends bid you draw it.

But oftener do you enjoy the quiet country, now in your father’s home on Veientine soil, now on the leafy heights of Hernica, now in ancient Cures. Here will you plan more themes in the words and measures that move unfettered, but remembering me at times strike anew the lyre that lies hid in some shy grotto’.

107

IRT 412:

Found at Lepcis, in the Forum Vetus, between the Temple of Rome and Augustus and the Temple of Liber Pater. Dated between 10th December 201 and 9th December 202.

Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) L(uci) Septimi Severi Pii PertinacisAug(usti) Arabici AdiabeniciParthici max(imi) t(ribunicia) p(otestate) X imp(eratoris)XI co(n)s(ulis) III p(atris) p(atriae)proc(n)s(ulis)avo d(omini) n(ostri)L(ucio) Septimio Severo sufeti praef(ecto)publ(ice) creato cum primum civitas Romana adacta estdu(u)muir(o) fl(amini) p(er)p(etuo) indecuriiset inter selctos Romaeiudicauit Lepc(I)t(ani) publ(ice)

IRT 413:

Found in an upper tier of the Theatre at Lepcis. Dated between 10 th December 202 and 9th

December 203.

Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris)L(uci) Septimi SeveriPii Pertin(acis) Aug(usti)Arabic(I) Adiab(enici)Parth(ici) max(imi)trib(unicia) potes(tate) XIimp(eratoris) XII co(n)s(ulis) IIIproco(n)s(ulis)L(ucio) Septimio Severoflam(ini) perpe(tuo)avoCuriae duaeTraiana Dacicaex voto statuerunt

108

Bibliography: Primary Sources.

AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS (trans. Hamilton, W., with notes by Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1986),Ammianus Marcellinus. The Later Roman Empire (AD 354-378), London: Penguin Books.

APULEIUS, Apologia Apuleii, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/apuleius/

APULEIUS (unknown trans., 1878), The Works of Apuleius, London: George Bell & Sons Ltd.

AUGUSTINE (trans. Watts, W., 1631, 1912 Edition), St. Augustine’s Confessions, London: Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann Ltd.

AUGUSTINE (trans. Baxter, J.H., 1965), St. Augustine, Select Letters, London: Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann Ltd.

AURELIUS VICTOR (trans. with commentary Bird, H.W., 1994), Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

AUSONIUS (trans. White, H.G.E 1968), Ausonius, London: Loeb Classical Library, WilliamHeinemann Ltd.

CAESAR (trans. Gardner, J.F., 1967), Caesar, The Civil War. Together with the Alexandrian War, The African War and the Spanish War By Other Hands, London: Penguin Books.

DIO CASSIUS (trans. Cary, E.,1961), Dio's Roman History, London: Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann Ltd.

EUTROPIUS (trans. with commentary, Bird, H.W., 1993), Eutropius: Breviarium, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

FLORUS (trans. Forster, E.S., 1929), Lucius Anneaus Florus. Eptiome of Roman History, London: Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann Ltd.

FRONTO (trans. Haines, C.R., 1955), The Correspondence of Marcus Cornelius Fronto,London: Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann Ltd.

HERODIAN (trans. Whittaker, C.R., 1969), Herodian, London: Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann Ltd.

HISTORIA AUGUSTA (trans. Magie, D., 1960), The Scriptores Historiae Augustae, London: Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann Ltd.

JOHN MALALAS (trans. Jeffreys, E., et al, 1986), The Chronicle of John Malalas, Sydney:

109

Sydney UP.

JULIAN (trans. Wright, W.C., 1959), The Works of the Emperor Julian, London: Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann Ltd.

JUVENAL (trans. Green, P.), The Sixteen Satires, London: Penguin Books.

LIVY (trans. Bettenson, H., with introduction McDonald, A.H., 1976), Livy. Rome and the Mediterranean, London: Penguin Books.

LIVY (trans. De Selincourt, A. with introduction Radice, B., 1972), Livy. The War with Hannibal, London: Penguin Books.

LUCIAN (trans. with commentary, MacLeod, M.D., 1991), Lucian, A Selection, Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

OVID (trans. Boyle, A.J. & Woodard, R.D., 2000), Ovid: Fasti, London: Penguin Books.

PHILOSTRATUS (trans. Wright, W.C., 1968), Philostratus and Eunapius, the Lives of the Sophists, London: Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann Ltd.

PLINY THE ELDER (trans. Rackham, H., 1947), Pliny. Natural History, London: Loeb Classical Library: William Heinemann Ltd.

PLINY THE YOUNGER (trans. Radice, B., 1969), The Letters of the Younger Pliny, London: Penguin Books.

PLUTARCH (trans. Scott-Kilvert, I., 1965), Makers of Rome, London: Penguin Books.

PLUTARCH (trans. Scott-Kilvert, I., 1972), Fall of the Roman Republic, London: Penguin Books.

PSEUDO-VICTOR, Epitome de Caesaribus, http://www.intratext.com/x/LAT0210.htm

SALLUST (trans. Handford, S.A., 1963), The Jugurthine War/The Conspiracy of Catiline, London: Penguin Books.

STATIUS (trans. Mozley, J.H., 1961), Statius, London: Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann Ltd.

STATIUS (trans. with commentary, Coleman, K.M., 1988), Statius Silvae IV, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

TERTULLIAN (trans. Glover, T.R., 1966), Tertullian. Apology, De Spectaculis. Minucius Felix, London: Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann Ltd.

110

VIRGIL (trans. Dickinson, P., 1964), Virgil: The Aeneid, New York: The New Amsterdam Press.

111

Bibliography: Secondary Sources.

Adams, J.N. (1994), ‘Latin and Punic in Contact? The Case of the Bu Njem Ostraca’, JRS 84, pp.87-112.

Adams, J.N. (1999), ‘The Poets of Bu Njem: Language, Culture and the Centurionate’, JRS 89, pp.109- 134.

Alföldy, G. (1968), ‘Septimius Severus und der Senat’, Bonner Jahrbucher 168, pp.112-160.

Alföldy, G. (1976), ‘Consuls and Consulars under the Antonines: Prosopography and History’, Ancient Society 7, pp. 263-299.

Alföldy, G. (1985), ‘Bellum Mauricum’, Chiron 15, pp.91-109.

Alston, R. (1994), ‘Roman Military Pay from Caesar to Dicoletian’, JRS 84, pp.113-123.

Astin, A.E. (1959), ‘The Status of Sardinia in the Second Century A.D.’, Latomus 18, pp.150-153.

Balsdon, J.P.V.D. & Levick, B. (1996), ‘Iuvenes (or Iuventus)’, in Hornblower, S. & Spawforth, A. (eds., 3rd Edition), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, London: Oxford UP, pp.791-792.

Bahardal, D. (1989), ‘Portraits of the Emperor L. Septimius Severus (193-211AD) as an Expression of his Propaganda’, Latomus 48, pp.566-580.

Barbieri, G. (1952), L’Albo Senatorio Da Settimio Severo a Carino (193-285), Rome: Antonia Signorelli.

Barnes, T.D. (1967), ‘The Family and Career of Septimius Severus’, Historia 16, pp.87-107.

Barnes, T.D. (1970), ‘A Senator from Hadrumetum and Three Others’, Historia Augusta Colloquium, 1968/1969, pp.45-59.

Barton, I.M. (1972), Africa in the Roman Empire, Accra: Ghana Universities Press.

Barton, I.M. (1977), ‘The Inscriptions of Septimius Severus and his Family at Lepcis Magna’, Melanges Offerts a Leopold Sedar Senghor, pp.1-13.

Barton, I.M. (1977/78) ‘The Effects of Imperial Favour: Septimius Severus and Lepcis Magna’, Museum Africum Vol.6, 60-63.

Barton, I.M. (1995), ‘Lepcis and Sabratha: A Tale of Two Cities’ in Horton, M. & Wiedemann, T. (eds.), North Africa from Antiquity to Islam, CMS Occasional Paper No. 13,

112

pp.7-11.

Benario, H.W. (1958), ‘Rome of the Severi’, Latomus 17, pp.712-722.

Beschaouch, A. (1965/1966), ‘Mustitana. Recueil Des Nouvelles Inscriptions De Mustis, Cite Romaine De Tunisie’, Karthago 14.

Birley, A.R. (1962), ‘The Oath Not to Put Senators to Death’, Classical Review New Series 12, pp.197-199.

Birley, A.R. (1969), ‘The Coups d’Etat of the Year 193’, Bonner Jahrbücher 169, pp.247-280.

Birley, A.R. (1970), ‘Some Notes on HA Severus 1-4’, Historia Augusta Colloquium 1968/1969, pp.59-78.

Birley, A.R. (1981), The Fasti of Roman Britain, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Birley, A.R. (1988), ‘Names at Lepcis Magna’, Libyan Studies 19, pp.1-20.

Birley, A.R. (1993), Marcus Aurelius, London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.

Birley, A.R. (1994), ‘Further Notes on HA Severus’, Historia Augusta Colloquium, Baria: Edipuglia.

Birley, A.R. (1999, Revised Edition), Septimius Severus. The African Emperor, London: Routledge.

Birley, E. (1950), ‘The Governors of Numidia AD193-268’, JRS 40, pp.60-68.

Birley, E. (1969), ‘Septimius Severus and the Roman Army’, Epigraphische Studien 8, pp.63-82. Bowersock, G.W. (1969), Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire, Oxford: Oxford UP.

Breeze, D.J. & Dobson, B. (1987, 3rd Edition), Hadrian’s Wall, London: Penguin Books.

Broughton, T.R.S (1951-1952), Magistrates of the Roman Republic, New York: American Philological Association.

Cadoux, T.J. (1996), ‘Praefectus Urbi’, in Hornblower, S. & Spawforth, A. (eds., 3rd Edition), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, London: Oxford UP, p.1239.

Cagnat, R. et al (1923), Inscriptions Latines D’Afrique (Tripolitaine, Tunisie, Maroc), L’Institut de France: Paris.

Campbell, J.B. (1984), The Emperor and the Roman Army 31BC-AD235, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

113

Campbell, J.B. (1996), ‘Legion’, in Hornblower, S. & Spawforth, A. (eds., 3rd Edition), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, London: Oxford UP, pp.839-842.

Carandini, A. (1983), ‘Pottery and the African Economy’ in Hopkins, K. & Whittaker, C.R. (eds.), Trade in the Ancient Economy, London: Chatto & Windus, pp.145-162.

Champlin E.J. (1979), ‘Notes on the Heirs of Commodus’, AJP 100, pp.288-306.

Champlin, E.J. (1980), Fronto and Antonine Rome, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard UP.

Cherry, D. (1998), Frontier and Society in Roman North Africa, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Citroni, M. (1996), ‘Martial (Marcus Valerius Martialis)’, in Hornblower, S. & Spawforth, A. (eds., 3rd Edition), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, London: Oxford UP, pp. 930-932.

Cotton, H.M. (1981), ‘Military Tribunates and the Exercise of Patronage’, Chiron 11, pp.229-238.

Croke, B. (1990), ‘Malalas, the Man and his Work’, in Jeffreys, E. (ed.), Studies in John Malalas, Sydney: Sydney UP, pp.1-26.

Dabrowa, E. (1998), The Governors of Roman Syria from Augustus to Septimius Severus, Bonn: Habelt.

Daniels, C. (1970), The Garamantes of Southern Libya, London: The Oleander Press.

Daniels, C. (1987), ‘The Frontiers: Africa’, in Wacher, J. (ed.), The Roman World, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp.238-308.

Di Vita, A. et al (1999), Libya: The Lost Cities of the Roman Empire, Cologne: Konneman.

Dixon, S. (1992), The Roman Family, London: John Hopkins UP.

Drinkwater, J.F. (1975), ‘Lugdunum: ‘Natural Capital’ of Gaul?’, Britannia 6, pp.133-140.

Drinkwater, J.F. (1983), Roman Gaul, Beckenham: Croom Helm Ltd.

Duncan-Jones, R.P. (1962), ‘Costs, Outlays, and Summae Honoriae from Roman Africa’, PBSR 30, pp.47-115.

Duncan-Jones, R.P. (1963), ‘City Population in Roman Africa’, JRS 53, pp.85-90.

Duncan-Jones, R.P. (1963), ‘Wealth and Munificence in Roman Africa’, PBSR 31, pp.159-177.

114

Elmayer, A.F. (1984), ‘The Reinterpretation of Latino-Punic Inscriptions from Roman Tripolitania’, Libyan Studies 15, pp.93-105.

Frere, S. (1987, 3rd Edition), Britannia, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Garnsey, P. (1971), ‘Taxatio and Pollicitatio in Roman Africa’, JRS 61, pp.116-129.

Geagan, D.J. (1979), ‘Roman Athens: Some Aspects of Life and Culture I’, ANRW II.7.1,pp.371-437.

Gibbon, E. (Womersley, E. ed., 1994), The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, London: Allen Lane.

Gillam, J.F. (1958), ‘The Governors of Syria Coele from Severus to Diocletian’, American Journal of Philology 79, pp.225-242.

Goodchild, R.G. (1950a), ‘Roman Tripolitania: Reconnaissance in the Desert Frontier Zone’, Geographical Journal 115, pp.-161-178, Reprinted in Reynolds, J. (ed., 1976), Libyan Studies. Select Papers of the Late R.G. Goodchild, London: Paul Elek, pp.3-16.

Goodchild, R.G. (1950b), ‘The Limes Tripolitanus, II’, JRS 40, pp.30-38.

Goodchild, R.G. (1951), ‘Roman Sites on the Tarhuna Plateau of Tripolitania’, PBSR 19, pp.43- 77, Reprinted in Reynolds, J. (ed., 1976), Libyan Studies. Select Papers of the Late R.G. Goodchild, London: Paul Elek, pp.72-106.

Goodchild, R.G. (1954), ‘The Romano-Libyan Cemetery at Bir ed-Dreder’, Quaderni di Archeologia della Libia 3, pp.91-107, Reprinted in Reynolds, J. (ed., 1976), Libyan Studies. Select Papers of the Late R.G. Goodchild, London: Paul Elek, pp.59-71.

Goodchild, R.G. (1964), ‘Medina Sultan (Charax-Iscina-Sort)’, Libyan Antiquities 1, pp.99-106, Reprinted in Reynolds, J. (ed., 1976), Libyan Studies. Select Papers of the Late R.G. Goodchild, London: Paul Elek, pp.133-142.

Goodchild, R.G. (1969), ‘The Roman Roads of Libya and their Milestones’, in Gadallah, F. (ed., 1969), Libya In History, Beyruth: University of Libya Press, pp.155-171.

Goodchild, R.G. (1976, edited by Reynolds, J.), ‘Inscriptions from Western Tarhuna’, in Reynolds, J. (ed., 1976), Libyan Studies. Select Papers of the Late R.G. Goodchild, London: Paul Elek, pp.107-113.

Goodchild, R.G. & Ward-Perkins, J.B. (1949), ‘The Limes Tripolitanus in the Light of Recent Discoveries’, JRS 39, pp.81-95.

115

Graham, A. (1902), Roman Africa, London: Longmans, Green & Co.

Graham, A.J. (1973), ‘Septimius Severus and his Generals, AD 193-7’ in Foot, M.R.D. (ed.), War and Society, Essays in Honour and Memory of J.R. Western 1928-1971, London: Paul Elek, pp. 255-278.

Graham, A.J. (1978), ‘The Numbers at Lugdunum’, Historia 27, pp.625-630.

Grant, M. (1974), The Army of the Caesars, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Grant, M. (1975), Erotic Art in Pompeii, London: Octopus.

Grant, M. (1996), The Severans: the Changed Roman Empire, London: Routledge.

Hammond, M. (1940), ‘Septimius Severus, Roman Bureaucrat’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 51, pp.137-174.

Hammond, M. (1957), ‘Composition of the Senate AD68-235’, JRS 47, pp.74-81.

Hanfmann, G.M.A. (1964), Roman Art, London: Cory, Adams & Mackay.

Hannestad, K. (1944), ‘Septimius Severus in Egypt. A Contribution to the Chronology of the Years 198-202’, Classica et Mediaevalia 6, pp.194-222.

Hardie, A. (1983), Statius and the Silvae, Liverpool: Francis Cairns.

Harrer, G.A. (1920), ‘The Chronology of the Revolt of Pescennius Niger’, JRS 10, pp.155-168.

Harrison, S.J. (2000), Apuleius: A Latin Sophist, Oxford: Oxford UP.

Haynes, D.E.L. (1959), The Antiquities of Tripolitania, Tripoli: Antiquities Department of Tripolitania.

Haywood, R.M. (1940), ‘The African Policy of Septimius Severus’, TAPA 71, pp.175-185.

Hill, P.V. (1977), The Coinage of Septimius Severus and his Family of the Mint of Rome, London: Spink & Son.

Hill, P.V. (1978), ‘The Monuments and Buildings of Rome on the Coins of the Early Severans, A.D. 193-217’, in Carson, R.A.G. & Kraay, C.M. (eds.), Scripta Nummaria Romana. Essays Presented to Humphrey Sutherland, London: Spink & Son Ltd, pp.58-64.

Hill, P.V. (1989), The Monuments of Ancient Rome as Coin Types, London: Seaby.

Honore, A.M. (1962), ’The Severan Lawyers: A Preliminary Survey’, Studia et Documenta

116

historiae et iuris 28, pp.162-232.

Howe, L.L. (1966), The Pretorian Prefect from Commodus to Diocletian, Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Jarrett, M.G. (1963), ‘The African Contribution to the Imperial Equestrian Service’, Historia 12, pp.209-226.

Jarrett, M.G. (1972), ‘An Album of the Equestrians from North Africa in the Emperor’s Service’

Epigraphische Studien 9, pp.146-232.

Jeffreys, E. (1990), ‘Malalas’ Sources’, in Jeffreys, E. (ed.), Studies in John Malalas, Sydney: Sydney UP, pp.167-216.

Jones, B. & Ling, R. (1993), ‘The Great Nymphaeum’ in Ward-Perkins, J.B. (ed. Kenrick, P.), The Severan Buildings of Lepcis Magna, London: Society for Libyan Studies Monograph No.2, pp.79-87.

Jones, A.H.M. (1973), The Later Roman Empire, 284-602, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Jones, C.P. (1971), Plutarch and Rome, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Jones, C.P. (1978), The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom, London: Harvard UP.

Jones, G.D.B. (1989), ‘Town and City in Tripolitania: Studies in Origins and Development 1969-1989’, Libyan Studies 20, pp.91-106.

Jongeling, K. (1994), North African Names from Latin Sources, Leiden: CNWS.

Kajanto, I. (1965), The Latin Cognomina, Helsinki: Commentationes Humanorum Litterarum.

King, A. (1990), Roman Gaul and Germany, London: British Museum Publications.

Kolbe, H. -G. (1962), ‘Der Pertinaxstein aus Brühl’, Bonner Jahrbücher 162, pp.407-420.

Lanciani, R. (1901), The Destruction of Ancient Rome, London: MacMillan & Co.

Laurence, R. (1994), Roman Pompeii: Space and Society, London: Routledge.

Le Bohec, Y. (1994), The Imperial Roman Army, London: B.T. Batsford.

Leaning, J.B. (1989), ‘Didius Julianus and his Biographer’, Latomus 48, pp.548-565.

Leunissen, P.M.M. (1989), Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander (180 – 235 n.Chr.), Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

117

Levi della Vida, G. & Amadasi Guzzo, M.G. (1986), Iscrizioni Puniche della Tripolitania (1927-1967), Monografie Di Archaeologia Libica XXII, Roma: Di Bretschneider.

Luttwak, E. (1999, Revised Edition), The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

McAlindon, D. (1957), ‘Entry to the Senate in the Early Empire’, JRS 47, pp.191-197.

McDermott, W.C. (1976), ‘Stemmata Quid Faciunt? The Descendants of Frontinus’, Ancient Society 7, pp.229-265.

MacKendrick, P. (1980), The North African Stones Speak, London: Croom Helm.

MacMullen, R. (1990), ‘Provincial Languages in the Roman Empire’ AJP 87 (1966), repr. InChanges in the Roman Empire, Princeton: Princeton UP, pp.32-40.

Marrou, H.I. (1956), A History of Education in Antiquity, London: Sheed & Ward.

Mattingly, D.J. (1988), ‘The Olive Boom. Oil Surpluses, Wealth and Power in Roman Tripolitania’, Libyan Studies 19, pp.21-42.

Mattingly, D.J. (1995), Tripolitania, London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.

Mattingly, D.J. & Hitchner, R.B. (1995) ‘Roman Africa: An Archaeological Review’, JRS85, 165-213.

Mattingly, H. (1975, 2nd Edition, prepared by Carson, R.A.G & Hill, P.V.), Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, London: British Museum Publishing Ltd.

Maxfield, V.A. (1996), ‘Limes’, in Hornblower, S. & Spawforth, A. (eds., 3rd Edition), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, London: Oxford UP, p.862.

Millar, F. (1966), A Study of Cassius Dio, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Millar, F. (1968), ‘Local Cultures in the Roman Empire: Libyan, Punic and Latin in Roman Africa’ JRS 58, pp.126-134.

Millar, F. (1992, 2nd Edition), The Emperor in the Roman World, London: Duckworth & Co.

Miller, S.N. (1939), ‘The Army and the Imperial House’, in Cook, S.A., et al (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History Volume XII, Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Mocsy, A. (1974), Pannonia and Upper Moesia, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Moran, J.C. (1996), ‘193: Severus and Traditional Auctoritas’, http://parthia.com/rome/septimiusseverus.htm

118

Muller, L. et al (1977), The Coinage of Ancient Africa, Chicago: Obol International.

Muir J.V. (1996), ‘Education, Roman’, in Hornblower, S. & Spawforth, A. (eds., 3rd Edition), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, London: Oxford UP, pp.509-510.

Nichols, J. (1978), ‘Vespasian and the Partes Flavianae’, Historia Einzellschriften 28.

Noy, D. (2000), Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers, London: Duckworth.

Piso, I. (1993), Fasti Provinciae Daciae I, Bonn: Habelt.

Platnauer, M. (1918), The Life and Reign of the Emperor Lucius Septimius Severus, London: Oxford UP.

Raven, S. (1993, 3rd Edition), Rome in Africa, London: Routledge.

Reidinger, W. (1956), Die Statthalter Des Ungeteilten Pannonien und Oberpannoniens von Augustus bis Diokletian, Bonn: Habelt.

Reynolds, J.M. (1955), ‘The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania: A Supplement’ PBSR 23, pp.124-147.

Reynolds, J.M. et al (1958), ‘Inscriptions in the Libyan Alphabet from Ghirza in Tripolitania’, Antiquity 32, pp.112-115.

Reynolds, J.M. & Ward Perkins, J.B. (1952) The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, London: British School at Rome.

Ricci, C. (1994), ‘Africani a Roma. Testimonianze epigrafiche di eta imperiale di personaggi rovenienti dal Nordafrica’, Antiquites Africaines 30, pp.189-207.

Romanelli, P. (1958), ‘Fulvii Lepcitani’, Archeologia Classica 10, pp. 258-261.

Rozenberg, S. (1993), Enchanted Landscapes: Wall Paintings from the Roman Era, London: Thames & Hudson.

Rubin, Z. (1974), ‘A Review of Anthony Birley, Septimius Severus, The African Emperor’, JRS 64, pp.231-233.

Rubin, Z. (1976/1977), ‘The Felicitas and the Concordia of the Severan House’, Scripta Classica Israelica 3, pp.153-173.

Salway, B. (1994), ‘What’s in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c.700BC to AD700’, JRS 84, pp.124-145.

119

Scheidel, W. (1999), ‘Emperors, Aristocrats, and the Grim Reaper: Towards a Demographic Profile of the Roman Elite’, Classical Quarterly 49 no.1, pp.255-281.

Shaw, B.D. (1995a), ‘The Undecemprimi in Roman Africa’ in Museum Africum 2 (1973), repr. in Shaw, B.D., (1995, ed.), Rulers, Nomads and Christians in Roman North Africa, Hampshire: Variorum, Ashgate Publishing, Pt. II, pp.3-10.

Shaw, B.D. (1995b), ‘The Formation of Africa Proconsularis’, in Hermes 105 (1977), repr. in Shaw, B.D. (1995, ed.), Rulers, Nomads and Christians in Roman North Africa, Hampshire: Variorum, Ashgate Publishing, Pt. V, pp.369-380.

Shaw, B.D. (1995c), ‘Fear and Loathing: The Nomad Menace and Roman Africa’, in Wells, C.M. (ed., 1982), Roman Africa/L’ Afrique romaine, Revue de l’Universite d’Ottawa 52, repr. In Shaw, B.D. (ed.), Rulers, Nomads and Christians in Roman North Africa, Hampshire: Variorum, Ashgate Publishing, Pt. VII, pp.25-46.

Sherwin-White, A.N. (1939), The Roman Citizenship, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sherwin-White, A.N. (1973), ‘The Tabula Banasa and the Constitutio Antoniniana’, JRS 63, pp.86-98.

Sjöström, I. (1993), Tripolitania in Transition: Late Roman to Early Islamic Settlement, Avebury: World-wide Archaeology.

Smith, R.E. (1972), ‘The Army Reforms of Septimius Severus’, Historia 21, pp.481-500.

Speidel, M.P. (1985), ‘Valerius Valerianus in Charge of Septimius Severus’ Mesopotamian Campaign’, Classical Philology 80, pp.321-326.

Stout, S.E. (1911), The Governors of Moesia, Princeton: Princeton UP.

Sullivan, R.D. (1977), ‘The Dynasty of Emesa’, ANRW 2.8, pp.198-219.

Syme, R. (1958), Tacitus, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Syme, R. (1968), ‘The Ummidii’, Historia 17, pp.72-105, repr. in Syme, R. (1979, ed. Badian, E.), Roman Papers II, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.659-693.

Syme, R. (1971a), ‘The Bogus Names’, in Syme R (ed.), Emperors and Biography, Oxford:Clarendon Press, pp.1-16.

Syme, R. (1971b), ‘Ignotus, the Good Biographer’, in Syme R (ed.), Emperors and Biography, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.30-53.

Syme, R. (1971c), ‘The Nomen Antoninorum’, in Syme, R. (ed.), Emperors and Biography, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.78-88.

120

Syme, R. (1971d), ‘The Careers of Maximus and Dio’, in Syme, R (ed.), Emperors and Biography, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.135-145.

Syme, R. (1980a), ‘Guard Prefects of Trajan and Hadrian’, JRS 70, pp.64-80, repr. in Syme, R. (1984, ed. Birley, A.R.), Roman Papers III, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.1276-1302.

Syme, R. (1980b), ‘An Eccentric Patrician’, Chiron 10, pp.427-448, repr. in Syme, R. (ed. Birley, A.R.), Roman Papers III, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.1316-1336.

Syme, R. (1981), ‘The Travels of Suetonius Tranquillus’, Hermes 109, pp.105-117, repr. in Syme, R. (ed. Birley, A.R.), Roman Papers III, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.1337-1349.

Syme, R. (1983), ‘Astrology in the Historia Augusta’, in Syme, R. (ed.), Historia Augusta Papers, (1983) Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.80-97.

Talbert, R.J.A. (1984), The Senate of Imperial Rome, Princeton: Princeton UP.

Thomasson, B.E. (1984), Laterculi Praesidium, Gothenburg: Gothenburg UP.

Thomasson, B.E. (1996), Fasti Africani, Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Rom.

Thompson, L.A. (1969a), ‘Settler and Native in the Urban Centres of Roman Africa’ in Thompson, L.A. & Ferguson, J. (eds.), Africa in Classical Antiquity, Ibadan: Ibadan UP, pp.132-181.

Thompson, L.A. (1969b), ‘Roman and Native in the Tripolitanian Cities in the Early Empire’, in Gadallah, F. (ed., 1969), Libya In History, Beyruth: University of Libya Press, pp. 235-249.

Todd, M. (1997, 2nd Edition), Roman Britain, London: Fontana Press.

Turton, G. (1974), The Syrian Princesses, London: Cassell & Co. Ltd.

Van Dommelen, P. (1998), ‘Punic Persistence. Colonialism and Cultural Identities in Roman Sardinia’, in Laurence, R. & Berry, J. (eds.), Cultural Identities in the Roman Empire, London: Routledge, pp.25-48.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1983), Suetonius. The Scholar and his Caesars, London: Duckworth.

Ward-Perkins, J.B. (1948),‘Severan Art and Architecture at Lepcis Magna’, JRS 38, pp.59-80.

Ward-Perkins, J.B. (1993, ed. Kenrick, P.), The Severan Buildings of Lepcis Magna, London: Society for Libyan Studies Monograph no.2.

121

Whittaker, C.R. (1978), ‘Land and Labour in North Africa’, Klio 60.1, pp.331-362.

Whittaker, C.R. (1983), ‘Trade and Frontiers of the Roman Empire’, in Garnsey, P. & Whittaker, C.R. (eds.), Trade and Famine in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, pp.110-127.

Whittaker, C.R. (1964), ‘The Revolt of Papirius Dionysius A.D. 190’, Historia 13, pp.348-369.

Wilson, A. (1997) ‘A Review of Mattingly’s Tripolitania’, Libyan Studies 28, pp.71-73.

Wilson, A.N. (1999), ‘Commerce and Industry in Roman Sabratha’, Libyan Studies 30, pp.29-52.

Wilson, R.J.A. et al (1996), ‘Africa, Roman’ in Hornblower, S. & Spawforth, A. (eds., 3rd Edition), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, London: Oxford UP, pp.34-35.

Zanker, P. (1998), Pompeii: Public and Private Life, London: Harvard UP.

122