Introduction



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 Classics

University of Wales Lampeter

Dr. David Shotter

Teacher and Friend

Abstract

Septimius 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.

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’.

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: Sevenska

Institutet 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.

Contents

Abstract 3

Acknowledgements 4

Abbreviations 5

Stemma 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

Introduction

Septimius 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 power[1]. 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 Memnon[2]. 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 indulgence[3]. ‘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 fully[4]. The Historia Augusta remarks that:

‘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 émigrés[9].

Despite these advances, intense debate regarding Septimius’ heritage, and its ultimate significance, continues[10]. As we have seen, this is due in part to our own historical prejudices. It 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.

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 figures[12]. 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 check[13].

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 episodes[14]. As a senior consular, Dio also had access to senatorial archives[15]. Moreover, despite some examples of gross sycophancy, his overall view of Septimius remains remarkably balanced[16]. 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 senator[17]. His work is divided into 7 books and chronological precision is not a strong point[18]. He is somewhat naïve, literary style frequently takes precedence over accuracy and the distortion of events to fit rhetorical devices is common[19]. Herodian is sometimes guilty of basic errors and occasionally he omits significant material[20]. Yet despite these faults, he does supply us with some otherwise unknown information and seems to have been genuinely interested in his subject[21].

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. Current scholarly consensus rejects this however, and holds a single author responsible, most probably writing under Theodosius[22].

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 fictions[24]. 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 sources[25]. 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 Caracalla[26].

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 Septimius[27]. Given Septimius’ penchant for legal matters, rescripts (imperial replies to legal petitions) are understandably plentiful[28]. 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 erroneous[29]. Eutropius’ Breviarium, written at much the same time, is of much the same quality and is described by Jones as ‘an 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 here[31].

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 empire[32]. 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].

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 model[34]. Thereafter, virtually his entire coinage makes reference to his apparent mentor. The name Pertinax is added to Septimius’ official nomenclature[35]. During mid-193, a special denarius commemorating the consecration of Pertinax was issued[36]. 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 him[37]. 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 Africa[39].

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.

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 light[40]. 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 perceived[41]. 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.

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 Lepcis[42]. 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 death[43].

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 Tripolitania[44]. 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 respectively[45]. 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 settlement[46]. 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].

[pic]

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 land[48]. 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 region[49]. 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 Africa[50]. 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 revenue[51]. 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 year[52].

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 camp[53].

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 suzerainty[54]. Despite his victory however, Lepcis seems to have enjoyed a large measure of autonomy; soon afterwards it began to mint its own coinage[55]. 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 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 Utica[56].

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 them[57]. 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 consuls[58].

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 later[59]. Consequently, the city was fined an enormous three million pounds of olive oil per year[60].

[pic]

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 Proconsularis[61]. 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 out[62]. A large new Theatre in the city’s western district, paid for by Annobal, followed this in 2CE[63].

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 priests[64]. This was the first such temple in an allied treaty-state and, interestingly, its dedication recalls Venus Genetrix, the patron deity of the Julian house[65]. 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 Forum[66]. 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 deity[67]. Work also began on the Carthage to Alexandria highway, with sizeable sections being laid out at nearby Oea and Tacape[68].

[pic]

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 Apollo[70] and interestingly, Eumachia, a female member of another notable family, paid for the construction of an expensive Chalcidicum[71].

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 frontier[72]. Tacitus notes the interest that Tacfarinas’ exotic looking Garamantian allies caused at Rome when they brought news of their unconditional surrender[73]. Lepcis probably served as the campaign headquarters. P. Cornelius Dolabella, the victorious general, placed a dedication to Victoria Augusta inside the city’s Forum[74].

[pic]

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 Forum[75]. Shortly afterwards, the 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 project[76]. The grateful city responded by erecting a statue of G’y nearby[77]. Under Nero, a new amphitheatre was added and the city’s vital harbour underwent major renovation work[78]. 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].

[pic]

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 order[80]. Rutilius Gallicus was sent to calm the situation further, as a specially appointed provincial 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 African[82]. 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 Gate[83]. The city also paid for a pair of honorary statues of the proconsul and his wife to be erected in their home city of Turin[84].

[pic]

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 poet[85]. 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 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 afterwards[87]. 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 citizens[88]. In gratitude, the people of Lepcis dedicated a large quadrifons arch to Trajan, close to the Market and Chalcidicum[89].

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 work[90]. 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 variations[91]. 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]fer[93]. 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].

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 midst[95]. 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 settlers[96]. 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 mother[97]. 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 street[98]. 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 community[99]. 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 cities[100]. That Lepcis did not have such a corporation suggests that the native aristocracy retained their importance under Roman rule[101].

[pic]

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 period[102]. 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 magistrates[103]. 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 Lamia[104].

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 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 tribe[105].

The surviving epigraphic record includes thirteen examples of Claudii at Lepcis[106]. 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 Nero[107]. The neo-Punic text is a direct translation of the Latin[108]. Another set of inscriptions from the city market records one Ti Claudius Amicus, a first century aedile[109]. Other evidence is less precise. There are nineteen names recalling either Claudian or Neronian officials[110]. 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 Nero[111]. Q. Servius Candidus, who dedicated a large statue group to Claudius in the Forum Vetus, also seems to have been enfranchised at this time[112]. One especially interesting inscription records the dedication of a statue of Cupid to Hadrian by C. Claudius Septimius [A]fer[113]. It is possible that this man was a relative of Septimius[114]. 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 paid for this work[115]. 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 period[116]. By contrast, there are only four aediles recorded at Lepcis, three of which fit these criteria[117]. 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 dated[118]. Caution is required however, because Vespasian himself served as proconsul under Nero, whilst his successor was L. Tampius Flavianus[119]. 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 dubious[120].

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 Rufus[122]. 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 Aurelius[123].

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 Forum[124]. 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 distinctive[126]. Ostraca from Bu Njem reveal a number of peculiar expressions, as well as abnormal syntax and bizarre grammar[127]. 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 mistakes[129]. 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 lengths[130]. 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 Arabic[131].

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 in Greek too[132]. 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 speaker[133]. The Historia Augusta’s remarks that Septimius’ sister could barely speak Latin are, however, of arguably greater significance[134]. 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 life[135].

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 inaccurate[137]. Macer, a fairly common Latin name meaning ‘lean’, is found throughout Tripolitania[138]. Interestingly enough, inscriptions from Lepcis record the donations of one Anno Macer and his family during the mid-first century CE[139]. The last of them records the dedication of a statue to his son, Gaius Phelyssam, in 54CE[140].

In light of this, Birley suggests that Macer was Septimius’ great-grandfather, citing a possible corruption of the Historia Augusta in support[141]. 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 Macer[142]. 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 accepted[143]. 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 man[144]. Interestingly however, a L. Septimius Flaccus (cos. suff. 183) served as a proconsul of Pannonia Inferior early in Commodus’ reign[145]. 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 career[146]. 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 inscription in the early part of Trajan’s reign[147]. 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 Rome[148]. As such, he appears to have been commemorated by the late first century Roman poet Statius[149].

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’ origo[155].

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 Sabaeans[156]. 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 poems[157]. 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 competitions[158]. 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 centuries[159]. 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 Veii[160]. 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 supported by the discovery of a nearby lead pipe, with the name ‘P. Septimius Geta’ inscribed upon it[163].

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 Rome[164]. 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 Four[165]. 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/Gaetulicus[166]. Similarly Septimia Polla, the emperor’s aunt, recalls Argentaria Polla, Lucan’s famous widow and a member of Roman high society[167].

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 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 father[168]. Thus, very little is known about him beyond his name and the fact that he was the emperor’s father[169]. 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 Lepcis[170]. 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 Lepcis[172].

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].

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 Rome[175].

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 emperor[176]. 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 legate[177]. 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 career[178]. 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 tribe[180]. 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 settlers[181].

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 leader[182]. Appended to the main text of the document is an archival copy of the senatorial debate, which includes the names of those present[183]. 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 tribe[185]. 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 Chalcidicum[186]. 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 Afer[187]. If true, this would put him in the same generation as the emperor’s grandfather Lucius, to which no serious objection arises[188]. 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 Lepcis[189].

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 actual blood relationship[190]. 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 Septimia[192]. Further corroborative evidence can be found in Septimius' appointment of Fronto’s two grandsons, M. Aufidius Fronto and C. Aufidius Victorinus, to ordinary consulships[193]. That they served in consecutive years (199 and 200 respectively) seems particularly suggestive of a family connection[194]. It is possible, therefore, that the ‘…]o Front[o]ni’, recorded as the city’s first senator under Trajan, is also distantly related[195].

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 families[196]. The Historia Augusta states that Septimius had two daughters by this marriage, who were married to Probus and Aetius in 193[197]. 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 himself[198]. Her family, the Fulvii Lepcitani, were originally Italian immigrants and are first attested at Lepcis under Augustus[199]. As epigraphic evidence reveals, the family soon married into the local elite, most notably with the native Plautii (from whom sprang C. Fulvius 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’s[201]. 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 Rome[202]. 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 name[203]. 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.

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 centres[204].

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 contexts[205]. 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 Greek and he later insults his opponent by pointing to his ignorance of both Greek and Latin[207]. In this climate, it is perhaps not surprising that amateur poets were abundant. Septimius’ own grandfather wrote poetry[208]. Champlin cites some three hundred ‘metrical efforts’ in the region’s epigraphic corpus[209]. Other examples could also be added. Two long hexameter-style poems have been discovered on two inscriptions from Bu Njem dating to the third century[210].

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 itself[211]. 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 Rome[212]. By the mid-second century, the Africans Cornelius Fronto and Tuticius Proculus were the Latin tutors of the young Caesar Marcus Aurelius[213].

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 bar[214]. 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 bureaucracy[215].

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 adolescence[216]. 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 time[217]. 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 elite[218]. 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 Cirtans[219]. 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 correspondence[220]. 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 Ammon[221]. Elsewhere, he defensively compares himself to Anacharsis, the learned Scythian, believing his own background was similarly wild, despite his erudition[222].

The extant works of the Apuleius, from Madauros in Numidia, allow us further insight into the culture of second century Africa[223]. 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, Athens[224]. 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 cult[225]. Although Apuleius was not known to have been a lawyer, his works betray a clear understanding of Roman law; one of his earliest published works, the Apologia, is a stylised account of his defence against a charge of sorcery[226]. 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 11th April 145, little else is known of his early years[228]. 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 ludi[229]. Here he would have learned basic reading, writing and arithmetic, alongside the memorisation of short moral maxims[230]. On completing these elementary studies, children generally progressed to a more intensive study of grammar, under the direction of the grammaticus[231]. Although Dio has raised some doubt about the extent of Septimius’ education, he must have studied grammar at least[232]. 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 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 exempla[233].

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 Theatre[234]. 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 lore[235].

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 163-164[236]. 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 Septimii[237]. It is also worth bearing in mind that M. Aufidius Fronto and C. Aufidius Victorinus, Fronto’s two grandsons, later served under Septimius as ordinary consuls[238]. That they served in consecutive years (199 and 200 respectively) is particularly suggestive of a family connection of some sort[239].

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 particular[240]. 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 vital[241].

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 cases[242]. 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 law[243]. 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 Augusta[244].

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 Severus[245]. 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 senate[247]. Indeed, his brother Geta served as a decemvir stlitibus iudicandis[248]. It is virtually certain, therefore, that he held one of these posts, most probably sometime between 164 and 166CE[249].

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 senate[251]. 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 periods[252]. Interestingly enough, Septimius’ brother Geta held a tribunate with the legio II Augusta in Britain[253]. 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 Britain[254]. 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 Wall[255]. The second, and more significant, seems to have been the command of coh. I Tungrorum, most probably based at Housesteads[256].

Two late sources state that Septimius served as an advocate for the imperial treasury (an advocatus fiscus), however this is extremely unlikely[257]. Both references are problematic. In its life of Geta, the Historia Augusta remarks that Septimius named his second son Antoninus because the emperor Antoninus Pius had made him an advocate[258]. Firstly, as there is no mention of this in the epigraphic and numismatic record, this is highly suspicious[259]. 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 position[260]. In his Breviarium, Eutropius makes a similar remark. However, he is far too vague with details to be given much credence on this occasion[261].

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 Parthia[262]. 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 city[263]. Unfortunately, the victorious soldiers brought back a deadly plague with them, which spread quickly throughout the capital[264]. 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 legate[265]. 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 193[266]. It also seems that, during this time, the emperor Lucius Verus died from a stroke, whilst preparing for a major offensive against the hostile tribes of the north[267].

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 hundred[269]. He could therefore speak and vote at senatorial meetings, though as a new senator his more senior colleagues took precedence[270]. 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 assistants[271]. 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, sacking the Shrine of the Mysteries at Eleusis[272]. 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 167[274]. 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 wife[275].

Pompeianus also became the emperor’s chief military adviser, with special responsibility for driving the invaders out of Italy[276]. 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 time[277]. 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 north[278].

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 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 Spain[279]. 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 193[280]. Given that the governor had some influence over the appointment of subordinate officials, it is possible that Anullinus selected Septimius personally[281].

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 estate[282]. Whilst he was at Lepcis, however, Moorish tribes from Mauretania invaded southern Spain[283]. 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 Julianus[284]. Meanwhile Septimius received orders transferring him to the island province of Sardinia, which had been specially assigned to the senate’s control during the crisis[285]. 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 Africa[286]. During the second century the proconsul’s administrative staff included two legates, Caius, not unnaturally, gave one of these posts to Septimius[287]. As we saw above, the enhancement of familial prestige in this manner was not unusual. Septimius’ duties would have included deputising for the governor, as well as a judge in local assizes[288]. 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 Numidarum[289].

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 cause[290]. 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 backgrounds[291]. 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 ceremonial[292]. 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 election[293]. Such commendations could be granted in a number of ways: through the emperor’s personal whim, through an official report or through the 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 politics[294]. 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 revolt[295]. 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 Pompeianus[296]. 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 Lepcis[297]. 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 century[298]. 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 Pertinax[299]. Although the evidence is somewhat conjectural, if accurate, it demonstrates a growing link between Septimius’ family and Pertinax, whose own patron was the eminent soldier Claudius Pompeianus[300]. 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 elected[301]. 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 way[302]. 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 supporters[303].

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 cases[304]. 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 Callaecia[305]. 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 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 years[306]. As such, Septimius was unable to organise public games at Rome in person. Instead, as the Historia Augusta records, he gave them in absentia[307].

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 commander[308]. In the event, he was given the command of Legio IV Scythica in Syria[309]. This was Septimius’ first military post and it is surely significant that the then governor was none other than P. Helvius Pertinax[310]. 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 Septimius[311].

On the 17th March 180 the emperor Marcus Aurelius died at Bononia in Pannonia Inferior[312]. 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 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 him[313]. 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 Bithynia[314]. According to one source, he was the emperor’s lover[315]. 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 Crispina[316]. 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 Pompeianus[318]. In the event, however, the melodramatic Pompeianus failed in his attempt. Just before stabbing Commodus, he is said to have paused 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 estates[320]. Two of the emperor’s other favourites, Cleander and Paternus, used the ensuing chaos to have Saoterus murdered[321]. 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 others[322].

The entire affair seems to have affected Commodus deeply[323]. 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 opponents[325]. 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 suspicion[326]. 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 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 manhunt[327].

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 Cassius[328]. 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 Rome[329]. 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 ordinarius[330]. 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 arrival[331].

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 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 gymnasiarch[332]. 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 Alexandria[333]. Septimius may well have attended the lectures of such leading thinkers as Apollonius[334]. 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 Mysteries[335]. 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 death[336]. 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 conflict[337]. Controversially, Perennis’ sons were given a command along the Danube towards the end of the campaign. A rumour quickly began to circulate, presumably spread by Perennis’ enemies at court, that he was trying to claim the credit for himself[338].

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 soldiers[340]. The legionaries reacted by attempting to proclaim Priscus, one of their legates, emperor. Priscus wisely refused[341]. Perennis, no doubt sensing an orchestrated plot, dismissed the province’s legionary legates and replaced them with equestrian officials[342].

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 executed[343]. 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 killed[344].

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 Britain[345]. Septimius, as a client of Pertinax, was also reinstated and later in the same year, was given his first provincial governorship in Gaul[346]. 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 empire[347]. It was also the site of an imperial mint[348]. 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 posts[349]. 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 ordinarii[350]. 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 executed[351]. 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 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 time[352]. Interestingly enough, L. Fabius Cilo, who may well have served with Septimius under Pertinax in Syria, was the proconsul of neighbouring Narbonensis during 185[353].

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 marriage[354]. 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 king[355]. 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 Lugdunensis[357]. 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. 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 house[358]. Burrus was summarily executed, along with many of his supporters[359]. In particular, Cleander was able to strengthen his own position by having the Guard prefect Attilius Aebutianus killed and filling the vacant post himself[360]. Antoninus seems to have been murdered somewhat later in the year[361]. 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 Caracalla[362].

The executions of Burrus and Antoninus caused widespread discontent. There was public disquiet at Rome itself[363]. 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 insistence[365]. 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 allocated[366]. Given Pertinax’ patronage, Septimius could reasonably expect a fairly senior command in one of the more important provinces. In the event, in early 189CE he was appointed proconsul of Sicily[367]. At around the same time, Julia gave birth to a second son at Rome, named Geta after his great-grandfather and uncle[368].

By midsummer 189CE at the latest, Septimius had arrived in Sicily[369]. 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 190CE[370]. It is interesting to note that Septimius’ immediate predecessor in Sicily was his own brother Geta[371]. 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 shortage[372]. 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 Rome[374]. Papyri dated to 189-190CE show that one Tineius Demetrius was governing Egypt; it is more than likely that he was Dionysius’ replacement[375].

A disgruntled Dionysius returned to Rome to find that Commodus, at Cleander’s instigation, had made Pertinax the urban prefect[376]. 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 itself[377].

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 events[378]. 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 Cleander[379].

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 time[380]. 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 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 city[382].

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 stones[383]. 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 occurred[384]. 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 sister[385]. 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 themselves[386]. 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 fate[388].

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.

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 accuser[389]. 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 Cleander[390]. Such charges are in any event commonplace; Septimius’ own fascination with astrology was also well known[391].

Pertinax’ influence kept his protégé’s career on track. In mid-190CE Septimius served his previously designated term as suffect consul[392]. 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 months[393]. 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 their career. Moreover, the extraordinarily large number of consuls must have meant that less proconsular posts were available[394].

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 murder[395]. After executing Dionysius, Commodus turned against the nobility[396]. 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 conspiracy[399]. 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 suicide[401]. Septimius must have been particularly grateful for a spell of unemployment; it is likely that both Alexander and the Petronii were relatives of his[402]. 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 retirement[403].

[pic]

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’ reign[404]. 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 coinage[405]. 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 memory[407].

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 may have included a number of military posts[408]. Eclectus, a previously unknown imperial freedman, replaced Cleander as the emperor’s chamberlain[409]. 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 Cleander[410]. 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 treachery[411].

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 legions[413]. 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 Inferior[414]. As both men were linked to Pertinax, it is highly likely that Laetus was trying to establish a connection of his own with the powerful urban prefect[415]. 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 colleague[416]. This was a rare honour, Commodus’ colleagues as consul ordinarius were either members of the imperial family, or were otherwise senior aristocrats[417].

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 hunts[419]. They may also have been feeding his suspicions about the nobility. During the summer of 192CE, the emperor angrily threatened a large group of senators[420].

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 consul[421]. 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 slave[422].

According to the official account, panic then set in. The three assassins, realising their vulnerability, unanimously decided to offer the vacant throne to Pertinax[423]. 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 donative[424]. 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 statues[425]. Although the exact sequence of events is not clear, it seems that a large group of people then went to the praetorian camp[426]. A meeting of the senate was then hastily arranged, at which Pertinax’ accession was confirmed[427].

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 hand[428].

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 control[429]. The newly appointed consules ordinarii also entered office on this day; a revolt at this time might well take opponents by surprise[430]. 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.

[pic]

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 time[433].

[pic]

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 murder[434]. Eclectus in particular seems to have been an avid supporter of his, later dying with him[435]. 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 Inferior[436]. Soon after the murder C. Julius Avitus Alexianus, a relative of Septimius’ wife, was given charge of the vital grain supply at Ostia[437]. 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 192[438]. 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.

[pic]

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 away[439]. 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 himself[440]. 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 senate[441]. 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 itself[442]. 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 eyesight[443].

[pic]

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 Anullinus[444]. 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 quaestor[445]. His lack of office under Commodus demonstrates that he had fallen from grace, a sudden appointment during 192CE is therefore somewhat suspicious[446]. 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 loyalty[447]. 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 Thaenae[448]. If this is correct, it is interesting to note that Albinus’ relative, Asellius Aemilianus, held the proconsulship of Asia during this crucial period[449]. 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 Septimius[450].

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 counsellors[451]. 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 Lucilla[452].

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 disciplinarian[453]. 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 assured, such public criticism was damaging[455]. 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 instead[456]. 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 altogether[457]. 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 itself[458]. 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 Rome[459]. 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 funeral[460]. More importantly, Pertinax attempted to 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 adlected[461]. 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 prefect[463].

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 standard[464]. 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 mint[465]. 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 farmers[466]. Moreover, the fortunes amassed by Commodus’ freedmen were confiscated and their luxuries were sold[467]. Furthermore, in a move reminiscent of Marcus Aurelius, imperial property was put up for public auction[468].

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 time[469]. 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, 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 omens[471].

[pic]

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).

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 involved[472].

Another serious incident soon followed[473]. 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 killed[474].

Although both Dio and the Historia Augusta blame Laetus for Pertinax’ overthrow, this seems unlikely[475]. 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 suggests[476].

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 fear[477]. 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 health[478]. 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 Rome[479]. 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 candidate[480]. 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 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 Sulpicianus[483]. 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 adultery[485]. During Commodus’ reign, Julianus had twice been suspected of sedition; on the second occasion he was cleared of suspicion through Laetus’ influence[486]. Dio admits that he had successfully prosecuted Julianus on several occasions himself[487]. In the event, Julianus quickly outbid Sulpicianus, winning the auction with an enormous raise of 5,000 sesterces per man[488].

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]. 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 work[490].

News of Pertinax’ death on 28th March seems to have quickly reached Septimius in Pannonia, possibly sometime between 1st – 3rd April[491]. 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 Pertinax[492]. 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 Carnuntum[493].

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 198CE[494]. 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, the legion was not given a special commemorative coin[495]. 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 Africa[496].

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 Pompeianus[497]. 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 granted[498]. 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 Septimius[499]. 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 period[500]. T. Manilius Fuscus, legate of XIII Gemina under Terentianus, was another early supporter, being rewarded for his loyalty with a consulship in 195-196CE[501].

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 Africa[502]. 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 202CE[503]. 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 proves his allegiance to Septimius[504]. 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 Rome[505]. By 9th April, Septimius felt sure enough of his position to publicly declare himself emperor. It was a mere twelve days since Pertinax’ assassination[506].

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 man[508].

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 their attendant auxiliary units, a number of other governors had yet to declare their intentions[509]. 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 units[510]. 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 family[511]. More significantly, he was related to Asellius Aemilianus, the proconsul of Asia[512]. Not surprisingly therefore, Albinus reputedly had a large and influential following at Rome[513]. 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 Tarraconensis[514]. 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 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 contacts[517].

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 Syria[518]. 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 Byzantium[519].

By late April 193CE, the expeditionary force had been assembled and had begun to march[520]. 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 passes[521]. 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 cavalry[522]. M. Rossius Vitulus, who seems to have been from Tergeste (modern Trieste), was made praepositus annonae, or quartermaster-general[523]. At any rate, according to Herodian, Septimius’ forces arrived in Italy before news of his proclamation had become widely known[524].

[pic]

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 useless[525]. 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 ruler[527]. 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 Septimius[528].

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 Julianus[529]. Panicking, Julianus had Marcia and Laetus put to death as supposed Severan supporters[530]. 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 proposal[531]. Realising the seriousness of the situation, Julianus issued a decree assigning half of the empire to Septimius[532]. 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 Pompeianus[533]. The coinage also reveals that he added ‘Severus’ to his own name[534]. 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 miles[536]. 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 death[537]. 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 troops[538].

In spite of Dio’s testament to the contrary, Septimius’ entry into Rome, at the head of a large army, caused widespread fear[539]. Moving swiftly to allay these concerns, Septimius called an official meeting of the senate, before publicly sacrificing at all the major temples[540]. 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 senator[541]. Although such rhetoric had been tarnished in recent years, Marcus’ memory and the ideal it represented was still widely cherished at Rome[542]. 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 office[543].

[pic]

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 amphitheatres[544]. 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 transformation[545]. 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 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 issued[546]. 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’ name[548].

[pic]

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 uncertain[549]. This largesse was presumably paid by means of a special coin issue. A large series of coins, dating to mid-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].

[pic]

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 Alexianus[553]. Septimius also heard a number of pressing lawsuits; a rescript dating to June 27th 193CE, deciding a technical point of law, has survived[554]. 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 Guard[555]. The ephemeral Bassus was appointed praefectus urbi, only to be replaced soon afterwards by C. Domitius Dexter[556]. Dexter was an interesting choice; it is possible that he was Septimius’ commander in Syria for a short time in the 170sCE[557].

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 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 Albinus[558]. 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’ supporters[559].

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 wealth[560].

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 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 certain[561]. 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 Africa[562]. 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 known[563]. 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 possibilities[564]. 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 Liguria[565]. Birley’s attempt to link his father with Africa is thus somewhat implausible[566]. 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].

Conclusion

During 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 violent[568]. 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 admit[571]. 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 detail[572]. 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 light[573]. Linguists have also made significant contributions, especially with regards to the interaction of Latin and Punic in Lepcis[574]. Others have attempted to assess the influence of Africa and individual Africans upon second century Rome[575]. Moreover, a number of eminent scholars have discussed various aspects of Septimius’ reign itself at some length[576].

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. 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 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 him[577].

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 Italian[579]. 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 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.

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 Severum

Non solitibus fidibus saluto.

Iam trux ad Arctos Parrhasias hiems (Line 5)

Concessit altis orbuta solibus,

Iam Pontus ac tellus renident

In Zephyros Aquilone fracto.

Nunc cuncta veris frondibus annuis

Crinitur arbos, nunc volucrum novi (Line 10)

Questus unexpertumque Carmen,

Quod tacita statuere bruma.

Nos parca tellus pervigil et focus

Culmenque multo lumine sordidum

Solantur exemptusque testa (Line 15)

Qua modo ferbuerat Lyaeus.

Non mille balant lanigeri greges,

Nec vacca dulci mugit adultero,

Unique siquando canenti

Mutus ager domino reclamat. (Line 20)

Sed terra primis post partiam mihi

Dilecta curis; hic mea carmina

Regina bellorum virago

Caesareo peramavit auro,

Cum tu sodalis dulce periculum

Conisus omni pectore tolleres, (Line 25)

Ut Castor ad cunctos tremebat

Bebryciae strepitus harenae.

Tene in remotis Syrtibus avia

Leptis creavit? Iam feret Indicas (Line 30)

Messes odoratisque rara

Cinnama praeripiet Sabaesis.

Quis non in omni vertice Romuli

Reptasse dulcem Septimium putet?

Quis fonte Iuturnae relictis (Line 35)

Uberibus neget esse pastum?

Nec mira virtus: protinus Ausonum

Portus vadosae nescius Africae

Intras adoptatusque Tuscis

Gurgitibus puer innatasti. (Line 40)

Hinc parvus inter pginora curiae

Contentus artae luminae purpurae

Crescis, sed immensos labores

Indole 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 solo

Veiente, nunc frondosa supra (Line 55)

Hernica, nunc Curibus vetustis.

Hic plura pones vocibus et modis

Passu solutes, sed memor interim

Nostri verecundo latentem

Barbiton ingemina sub antro. (Line 60)

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’.

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 Se

veri Pii Pertinacis

Aug(usti) Arabici Adiabenici

Parthici 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 ci

vitas Romana adacta est

du(u)muir(o) fl(amini) p(er)p(etuo) in

decuriis

et inter selctos Romae

iudicauit Lepc(I)t(ani) publ(ice)

IRT 413:

Found in an upper tier of the Theatre at Lepcis. Dated between 10th December 202 and 9th December 203.

Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris)

L(uci) Septimi Severi

Pii Pertin(acis) Aug(usti)

Arabic(I) Adiab(enici)

Parth(ici) max(imi)

trib(unicia) potes(tate) XI

imp(eratoris) XII co(n)s(ulis) III

proco(n)s(ulis)

L(ucio) Septimio Severo

flam(ini) perpe(tuo)

avo

Curiae duae

Traiana Dacica

ex voto statuerunt

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,

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, William

Heinemann 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:

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,

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.

VIRGIL (trans. Dickinson, P., 1964), Virgil: The Aeneid, New York: The New Amsterdam

Press.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. In

Changes 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’, JRS

85, 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’,



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.

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.

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.

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.

-----------------------

[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 8th 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 4th 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.

[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.

[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 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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[40] Mattingly & Hitchner (1995), pp.165-213.

[41] See Ward-Perkins (1993), passim.

[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.

[48] Sjöström (1993), 4-16; Mattingly, op. cit., 8-9, 24-26.

[49] Hdt. 4.175.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 & 347

[108] 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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.269

[191] 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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 25th 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, P85

[266] The author of the HA seems to have been particularly confused by the Julianii. For a useful corrective, see Barnes (1970), pp.45-51.

[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., 29-30

[270] Talbert, op. cit., 16-17

[271] Talbert, op. cit., 17

[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.

[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 13th 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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.469

[372] Her. 1.12.3-4.

[373] Thomasson LP, col. 384 no. 107

[374] The Suda, quoted in Whittaker Revolt, p.355. Whittaker dates the recall to 190CE, ibid.

[375] See Thomasson LP col. 353 no.77

[376] Leunissen Konsuln, 307-308; Dabrowa (1998), 120; also see Birley (1981), 142-146

[377] 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 Rome

[419] 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.165

[450] 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.

[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).

[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.

[459]BMC V, p. lxii.

[460] HA Pert. 6.6-9; Birley Septimius, 91.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[490] Dio 73 (74). 13.5; Her. 2.7.2-4.

[491] Birley Septimius, 97; Graham, op. cit., p.257

[492] 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.21

[494] 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[577] HA Geta 3.1.

[578] Barnes (1967), p.103.

[579] Dio 73 (74). 3.1; Her. 2.1.4.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download