Rebecca Edwards’ monograph on Tiberius and the charisma of Augustus addresses one of the most persistent problems in the historiography of the early Principate: how a political system founded on the personal authority of Augustus was able to establish itself as a durable form of monarchical rule. E. relocates the decisive moment in this transformation to the reign of Augustus’ successor Tiberius — thus shifting the focus from Augustus’ achievements to the test of succession. She argues that the Principate was only fully institutionalised through Tiberius’ systematic preservation and routinisation of Augustan charisma. He transformed Augustus’ personal charisma into a durable institutional structure, ‘enshrining’ the Principate.
I find E.’s central argument to be clear and consistently pursued. The principate had not been fully established under Augustus himself but only under Tiberius, who as his successor adopted and preserved systematically not only his policies, but also his ideological framework. E. states that Tiberius’ success was based on his reliance on the charismatic authority of Augustus. She uses Max Weber’s concept of charismatic leadership and its routinisation, and further enhances her discussion with modern leadership theory, notably by Roger Eatwell in Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 7 (2006). The combination of sociological theory with close historical reading is one of E.’s major strengths. Tiberius, who clearly lacked personal charisma, established his own rule through Augustan precedent.
E.’s discussion proceeds from the theoretical framework to the imperial cult, precedents of policies, visual culture, literature, and legal practices. Ch. 1 establishes the theoretical framework, analysing a leader’s charisma as a two-way street in which charisma must be recognised by their followers but also the leader needs to manipulate his followers to secure his position. According to E., Augustus meets the criteria of a charismatic leader, including missionary vision, demonisation of enemies and cultivated personal presence. Importantly, instead of the creation of charismatic power, E. focuses on the transfer of charisma; the triumph of revolutionary political change is measured by how effectively the succession of a charismatic leader continues.
Ch. 2 examines the ruler cult as the primary religious mechanism through which Augustan charisma was routinised. While Augustus laid the groundwork for his own posthumous worship as the saviour and restorer of the Roman state and social order, Tiberius was decisive in its implementation. Tiberius consistently refused divine honours for himself and instead promoted devotion to Divus Augustus and the domus Augusta, reinforcing the idea that Augustus, after his death, continued to protect Rome and its ruling house. Ch. 3 explores political and legal practice as part of the routinisation of Augustan authority. Tiberius insisted on observing Augustus’ words and deeds as if they were law (Tac., Ann. 4.37), thus setting Augustan precedent for his policies and transforming personal charisma into normative authority. Annual senatorial oaths to preserve the acts of Augustus further sacralised his legacy.
Chs 4 and 5 form the cultural-historical core of the book. The former analyses visual culture as vehicles of charismatic continuity, while the latter looks at the literature written during the Tiberian era and the ambiguous responses to the succession of charismatic leadership. As E. herself remarks, ch. 4 is a nod to Paul Zanker’s influential The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (1988). Coins, portraits and luxury objects consistently differentiated Augustus as divine father and protector and Tiberius as his mortal continuator. The distinction was carefully maintained, even as Tiberius’ portraits subtly echoed Augustan features to assert dynastic legitimacy. I am inclined to regard ch. 5 as the book’s most enjoyable part with its nuanced analysis of literature during Tiberius’ reign. E. examines Ovid, Manilius, Strabo, Velleius Paterculus, Valerius Maximus and other writers as participants in the ideological negotiation of imperial succession. In E.’s reading, Velleius Paterculus emerges as a key witness to the desired image propagated by the Tiberian regime: Velleius enhances the glory of the newly created Principate, portraying Tiberius as the only man who was able to ensure a peaceful succession.
Ch. 6 addresses the darker side of the routinisation of charisma: the rise of maiestas trials. E. argues that once Augustus had been deified, his image and the domus Augusta required protection. In the absence of clear legislative precedents, the Senate increasingly relied on the flexible category of crimen maiestatis. Tiberius’ own reverence for Augustus as well as his retreat from Rome and reliance on intermediaries fostered an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. E. interprets the increase in the number of trials not as Tiberius’ personal cruelty but as the structural consequences of sacralised authority. In her conclusion, E. emphasises that every subsequent emperor negotiated power with the Senate from a position made possible by their relationship to Divus Augustus. Through cult, precedent, imagery, and legal practice, Tiberius transformed the statio of Augustus into the permanent institution known as the Principate.
In its ambitious interdisciplinary engagement with sociological theory, combined with careful analysis of historical evidence, E.’s monograph is a significant contribution to the study of the early Roman Empire. Her argument is coherent, consistently developed and grounded in refined close readings of the sources. The book will be of considerable value to scholars of Augustus, Tiberius and the imperial ideology of Rome.
