The transformative processes that brought about and shaped the principate after the demise of the Roman Republic, the inherent tension between old Republican traditions and imperial innovations, as well as the role of Rome’s first emperor Augustus in these processes, have long been central concerns in the study of ancient history.Footnote ¹ Besl’s dissertation and Kuhn’s edited volume contribute to this ongoing debate by addressing several, partially neglected developments in the Roman Empire. Although only Besl has an explicit focus on Augustus, both contributions enhance our understanding of the crucial role Augustus played in the formation of the principate even after his death.

Kuhn’s volume brings together experts who shed light on various aspects of the Julio-Claudian principate. The ten contributions investigate different transformational phenomena during the Julio-Claudian era, but do not appear to be linked by an overarching research question or clear-cut definitions of key concepts such as ‘tradition’, ‘transition’ or ‘innovation’. Instead, they use fairly distinctive approaches to illuminate various, often neglected aspects of the early principate. Each chapter offers new insights or challenges established views on this seemingly well-understood period of Roman history, so that even scholars familiar with the field may profit from this stimulating book.

In the introduction Kuhn conceptualises the formation of the Julio-Claudian principate as ‘a complex and gradual process of experimentation, adaptation, and negotiation, marked by paradoxes and ambiguities’ (p. 10), thus formulating a key idea of the book that is more or less tangible in each chapter. The main part of Kuhn’s introduction consists of concise summaries of the ten contributions, providing helpful insights into the volume’s main theses and approaches.

The first chapter, by T.P. Wiseman, bears the noteworthy title ‘Caesar Augustus. A Call to Order’. In this contribution Wiseman challenges the notions and terminology used by seven major scholars, including R. Syme and M. Beard, to analyse the life and deeds of Rome’s first emperor. According to Wiseman, his colleagues made mistakes when they interpreted Augustus’ rise to power as an ‘usurpation’ (p. 30) or described his principate in monarchical terms, since those interpretations are anachronistic and resemble Tacitus’ distorted, much later perspective. Wiseman’s plea is therefore to prefer contemporary, Augustan sources over later sources such as Tacitus. Wiseman rightly stresses the importance of contemporary sources, which still seem to receive less attention in the study of Augustus than later narratives. However, it remains questionable whether the Augustan material can provide a more trustworthy picture since critical comments are much less likely in contemporary than in later sources.

The subsequent contribution, by E. Cowan, focuses on the historiographer Velleius Paterculus and his narrative of the period between 49 bce and 29 ce. To enhance the understanding of this section of Velleius’ work, Cowan introduces the concept of ‘transitional justice’ (p. 39). This encompasses all developments through which a society deals with past injustices – for example after a civil war – in order to establish legality and enable reconciliation. Cowan shows how Velleius depicts Rome as a society that moves from a status of illegality (49 bce–29 ce) to a post-conflict era under Augustus, before finally returning to iustitia and aequitas under Tiberius, who appears as the guarantor of Rome’s internal stability.

A well-known peculiarity of Tiberius’ principate is his frequent rejection of honours. This phenomenon is discussed in A.B. Kuhn’s contribution. While ancient authors such as Tacitus regard Tiberius’ dealings with honours as hypocritical, Kuhn argues that the focus should not lie on the honours that Tiberius rejected, but rather on the amount of prestige and honour he already possessed at the beginning of the principate. Apart from Tiberius’ high descent and his political career under Augustus, Kuhn emphasises his military success, which ‘meant that he could afford to do without any further honours’ (p. 69). This, combined with Tiberius’ aversion to undeserved honours and his conviction of the vanity of honours, which Kuhn detects through a meticulous analysis of the sources, constitute the mindset behind the emperor’s behaviour.

In a broader perspective Kuhn’s chapter illustrates that the principate and the relationships between its main protagonists were still part of a process of experimentation and negotiation, which is further clarified by J.F. Drinkwater. He investigates the role that the two praetorian prefects Sejanus and Macro played in the development of the principate. For this purpose he introduces the concept of the ‘plastic principate’ (p. 95), referring to the incompleteness and plasticity of the new political system left behind by Augustus. Drinkwater identifies several aspects of the ‘plastic principate’, such as the formability of the newly constituted Praetorian Guard and the insecurity of Tiberius’ succession that allowed Sejanus to rise to the position of the second most powerful man of Rome. While Sejanus’ gamble for power eventually failed, his successor, Macro, shaped the principate much more effectively.

C.T. Mallan’s contribution focuses on Cassius Dio’s use of exemplarity in the portrayal of Rome’s third emperor Caligula. Mallan demonstrates persuasively that Dio employs two devices to make use of exempla for the characterisation of Caligula: firstly, the composition of his narrative in rubrics and, secondly, a speech put in Caligula’s mouth in which he ventriloquises Tiberius giving him advice on how to deal with the Senate. The arrangement of facts about Caligula at the beginning of Book 59 and about Tiberius in Book 57 in rubrics allows for a comparison of the two emperors through which Caligula appears as the worse example of emperorship. Caligula’s speech also invites comparison with the ‘actual’ Tiberius of Dio’s earlier narrative. Ironically, this comparison reveals that – according to Dio – Caligula misunderstood the exemplum set by Tiberius and failed to implement those measures that secured his predecessor’s survival.

M. Goodman’s article pursues a prosopographical endeavour. He investigates the presence and influence of Herod the Great and his descendants at the imperial domus in Rome. Goodman reveals the close connections between Herod and his descendants to Rome or even the imperial domus. Although there is some evidence for the Herodians’ influence in Rome, such as Agrippa I’s role in Claudius’ accession, Goodman convincingly points out their precarious position, which ultimately depended on the princeps’ goodwill. Less persuasive is Goodman’s conclusion that ‘it was essential that they [i.e. the Herodians] retained an aura of exotic royalty’ under Augustus (p. 137). Goodman’s assumption that probably most Herodians became Roman citizens and Suetonius’ remark that client kings used to wear togas when they visited Augustus (Aug. 60) rather imply the opposite.

The history of the consulship during the Julio-Claudian era is the central topic of W. Eck’s contribution. Eck shows that after the turbulent years of the Triumvirate, which saw the election of suffect consuls (a breach of the principle of annuity), and a reintroduction of annual consulships in the period from 22 to 6 bce, suffect consulships were reestablished in 5 bce. Apart from minor exceptions, the institution of the suffect consulate was continued through the last years of Augustus’ principate and under Tiberius. Later, the Claudian principate saw years in which there were more than two suffect consuls per year – a practice continued by his successor Nero. Importantly, the consulate remained attractive to senators, who rose to the prestigious rank of consulars and were eligible for the governorship of significant provinces after their terms of office.

In the following chapter J. Osgood investigates the role of senatorial women in the Julio-Claudian principate. Through six case studies Osgood illuminates different aspects of these women’s increasingly powerful role in society and politics. One important aspect is the considerable wealth senatorial women could acquire and use for their own purposes, as was the case with Julia Silana. Her wealth enabled her to exert influence over a clientele she used to plot against Agrippina the Younger. Furthermore, senatorial women gained access to the imperial court and could use other women who were close to the princeps to make their voices heard. The juridical sphere was another field that saw changes to the status of senatorial women who could now be on trial in the senate and faced new forms of punishment. Osgood’s contribution thus demonstrates that more influential female protagonists are not only a phenomenon of the much more prominent imperial domus, but also of the broader elite of the early principate.

The Augustan and Neronian coin reforms are the topic of A. Burnett’s contribution. He traces the introduction and circulation of new bronze and orichalcum coinage during the reign of Augustus. Burnett interprets this as evidence of a previously doubted systematic coin policy under Rome’s first princeps. Augustus’ coin reforms, however, do not seem to have been very successful, and the situation only improved effectively under Nero. Amongst other things, Nero reduced the weight and purity of the silver denarius and started recycling old silver coinage. Burnett convincingly shows that Nero’s changes of the coinage in precious metals should not be explained with the emperor’s alleged wastefulness and lack of money. Instead, he interprets these measures as an attempt to tackle a notorious lack of silver that had persisted since the first century bce.

C. Rowan’s chapter is particularly noteworthy since it sheds light on an often-neglected source: Roman lead tokens (tesserae), which were, for example, used as a kind of voucher for the public distribution of money and other goods. Rowan shows that the imagery on these coin-like artefacts not only copies, but also creatively engages with the imagery of Roman coins. Moreover, some lead tokens even show representations that were not used on imperial coins or convey messages that only appeared there later. Thus, Rowan illuminates how tesserae can significantly enhance our understanding of how imperial ideology developed and how it spread in the rather mundane contexts the lead tokens were made for.

Like Rowan’s chapter, the entire volume opens many new perspectives on the Julio-Claudian principate and invites further scholarly investigation. The book is generally well edited, and there are only very few typographical errors or logical inconsistencies. Each chapter comes with its own bibliography, which seems sensible, given the diverse topics of the contributions. The volume is rounded off by a general index. Although some readers might criticise the lack of a coherent approach and closer thematic links between the contributions, the variety of the different perspectives in Kuhn’s volume is a strength: this demonstrates that there are several promising roads that lead to (Julio-Claudian) Rome.

Besl’s book investigates the development and formation of the principate from a different angle, by analysing the reception of Rome’s first emperor Augustus from 14 to 500 ce. In the introduction Besl explains his concept of reception, which comprises intentional references (‘intentionale Bezugnahmen’; p. 18), ascribing meaning to a certain entity in hindsight; for his analysis he prefers reception to the concept of memory, which focuses on more technical questions of remembrance and does not take into account the perspective of the recipient sufficiently. These reflections show that Besl has thought carefully about the appropriate methodological approach to his research question. The same can be said for his considerations on the source material underlying the study, which comprises both media of imperial representation – particularly coins and panegyrics – and historiography. Besl rejects the idea of imperial representation as propaganda. Instead, he argues that this phenomenon should rather be conceptualised as a multifaceted, polyphonic discourse about emperorship, which was not solely directed by the ruler. Historiography, on the other hand, may describe acts of imperial representation. Besl is aware that those accounts of imperial representation must be read carefully, since ancient authors also used such descriptions for their individual narrative purposes. He is therefore right to understand those historiographical sources primarily as evidence of an elite conversation about politics and not per se as objective depictions of later emperors’ references to Augustus.

Besl investigates the reception of Augustus in three main chapters: Chapter 1 focuses on the role the first princeps played in the legitimation and representation of his successors; Chapter 2 looks into historiographical reflections on Augustus; and Chapter 3 with the slightly cryptic title ‘Gesellschaftliche Selbstvergewisserung’ (‘societal self-assurance’) examines how Augustus was received as a social exemplum.

The first chapter follows a chronological structure, which allows Besl to trace the development of Augustus’ role in the legitimation of later emperors throughout the centuries. Through a careful analysis of the sources, particularly coins, Besl shows that Tiberius and Caligula relied to a considerable extent on Augustus to legitimise their positions. In comparison to that, Claudius and Nero made much less reference to the first princeps in their representation. Interestingly, these imperial tendencies correlate with the way in which the Roman subjects employed Augustus in the communication with the ruler. In this context they evoked Augustus solely as a positive example in the early years of the principate, as Philo’s Legatio ad Gaium shows. Contrary to that, the later Julio-Claudian period allowed for a more negative portrayal of Augustus. This can be seen in Seneca the Younger’s De Clementia, which highlights Augustus’ cruelty in the civil wars in contrast to Nero’s alleged clemency. After the demise of the Julio-Claudian dynasty Augustus remained an important point of reference, albeit his relevance varied from emperor to emperor and clearly decreased after the era of Hadrian. Interestingly, Augustus could be used to legitimate completely different purposes. While Vespasian constructed a link to Augustus to legitimise his new dynasty, Nerva referenced the first emperor’s adoption of Tiberius to justify his adoption of Trajan, which ran counter to dynastic thinking. In late antiquity panegyrists bringing forward wishes to their rulers could instrumentalise Augustus as a positive example that should be imitated or even surpassed by their addressees. Similar to Seneca’s De Clementia, they could also employ the first princeps as a negative foil, against which they could praise their rulers.

In Chapter 2 Besl looks at historiography. The first part of the chapter focuses on Velleius Paterculus’ and Tacitus’ depictions of the Augustan succession model and the challenges it provoked. Besl convincingly shows that Velleius Paterculus solved the problem of praising Tiberius without degrading Augustus by attributing different qualities to the two rulers. While Augustus – according to Velleius – created peace after the civil wars, Tiberius established a just order and eventually fulfilled the work initiated by Augustus – an interpretation that strongly resembles Cowan’s results in her contribution to Kuhn’s volume. Contrary to Velleius, Tacitus gives a much more sinister account of the Augustan dynastic succession model, which in his view prevented a selection of the most capable potential rulers and opened the door for bad emperors, such as Tiberius. The second part of the chapter deals with the reception of Augustus in ancient biography, for which Besl is also able to retrace a development: while Suetonius saw Augustus as a model emperor and used him as a standard for the evaluation of other principes, later biographers, such as Aurelius Victor, who could refer to other positive examples of emperorship, painted a less positive picture of the first princeps. The last part of the second chapter focuses on aspects of peace and war in the historiographical reception of Augustus. While Florus and Appian celebrate the peaceful, stable empire that Augustus allegedly created, Cassius Dio is more ambivalent. Despite his general appreciation of Rome’s first emperor, he also problematises the challenging relation between ruler and senators in the political system left behind by Augustus.

The third and last chapter of Besl’s book deals with Augustus’ social exemplarity. In line with contemporary imperial representation, the Tiberian author Valerius Maximus employs Augustus exclusively as a positive model. Augustus’ proverbial felicitas opened room for more ambivalence, as Pliny shows, who uses the first princeps as an example for the unsteadiness of fortune.

Besl’s book concludes with a concise summary of the most important findings. An index locorum and a comprehensive general index facilitate consultation. Somewhat cumbersome are several redundancies in the text, especially at the beginning and the end of the chapters. For example, at the beginning of a sub-chapter on Nero (p. 58) Besl stresses that legitimation through Augustus was not crucial for Nero in two short, consecutive paragraphs – a claim that is shortly reiterated a third time on p. 62. Moreover, not all of Besl’s assessments seem to be beyond doubt. To select one example (p. 110), Besl speaks of Augustus’ successful dynastic policy (‘erfolgreiche dynastische Politik’), which seems fairly optimistic in light of the many early deaths and internal conflicts the domus Augusta had to face. However, such minor and potentially subjective objections cannot cloud the positive overall impression of Besl’s book, which provides the first comprehensive study of the reception of Augustus in antiquity. Similar to Rome’s first princeps, the study has a certain exemplary value since it offers a useful methodological approach that could fruitfully be applied to the study of the aftermath of other emperors, such as Trajan or Constantine. Like Kuhn’s stimulating volume, Besl’s dissertation can be strongly recommended to all scholars interested in the study of Augustus and the principate.