Germanicus

Valerius Maximus characterizes the times in which he lives as an aetas felix, and Tiberius, as optimus princeps (2.praef.). This contrasts markedly with the Tacitean view of a period of unrelieved misery, of the emperor as ‘savage’ (Ann. 1.74.1-2). What would Valerius have made of the later historian’s account of the emperor and the reign for which he expresses such admiration? This paper addresses this (admittedly fanciful) question by applying the moral and ethical standards promoted in the FDM to Tacitus’ account. Concentrating on a representative set of exempla from the FDM, I ‘map’ these onto various comparable events or individuals in Tacitus. The FDM of course often addresses
concerns that surface in Tacitus, though two examples must suffice here.

Tacitus devotes considerable space to mutiny among the Pannonian legions in AD 16, precipitated by the accession of Tiberius, whose authority (channeled through his son Drusus) fails to quell the disturbance (Ann. 1.16-30). While the instigators will ultimately be punished, it is only through the happenstance of an eclipse that the soldiers retreat (1.28). At FDM 2.7, Valerius raises the issue of militaris disciplina, the stabilimentum Romani imperii ad hoc tempus, offering several anecdotes about Republican generals who proved effective at exerting discipline. This stands in stark contrast to the largely mismanaged events of AD 16 described by Tacitus. A similarly comparable episode is Tiberius’ persecution of Aemilia Lepida in AD 20. Tacitus conjures a memorable tableau in which Lepida, brought up on a series of charges, including treason, makes a scene in the Theater of Pompey in order to protest her treatment by the emperor (3.23.1). Whereas Tacitus’ sympathies quite clearly lie with Lepida, Valerius has little patience for such displays by women. At FDM 8.3 he sharply criticizes, and provides examples of, women whose condicio naturae et uerecundia stolae did not discourage them from making a spectacle of themselves in legal matters (8.praef.).

This project draws on, among others, studies by Andreas Weileder (Valerius Maximus: Spiegel kaiserlicher Selbstdarstellung, Munich 1998) and Isabella Wiegand’s important Neque libere neque vere (Tübingen 2013), both of which are concerned with Valerius’ place in the intellectual discourse of the Tiberian period. My particular aim, however, is to juxtapose the Tiberian period’s most significant author and moralist with the fullest and most problematic historical account of the period we possess. The distinctions laid bare are striking, and throw into relief two very different views of the Tiberian regime, held by authors of different generations and with what appear to be fundamentally dissimilar political and moral values.

With the start of more recent archaeological research work, several inscriptions were discovered in the central Pamphylian city of Aspendos. This article presents eight of them, mostly copied in the urban area in 2019. The first three inscriptions are imperial dedications, followed by several honorary decrees for Roman and local officials. No. 1, whose upper part was already known from a copy by Hirschfeld, contains a dedication for Germanicus Caesar and mentions four priests of emperors and Thea Rome. No. 2 is a public dedication to Hadrian from AD 125. The milestone no. 3, originally set up about 7.0 km southeast of Aspendos, bears an honorary inscription for Emperor Iulian, which overwrites a previous text. No. 4 honours the previously unknown proconsul of the province of Lycia-Pamphylia, Aelius Antonius. Municius Touesianos, the dedicant, held high positions both in Aspendos and in the Pamphylian League. The honorary inscription no. 5 is dated after the well-known equestrian governor Terentius Marcianus, who excelled in fighting a major uprising in AD 278. No. 6 honours the local dignitary Demetrios, priest of the imperial cult for five years, who also served as demiourgos. Here, the long tenure of archiereia seems to be highlighted as an outstanding achievement. No. 7 honours the physician Zoilos, who served as archiatros in his hometown. The last inscription names a C. Curtius (cognomen lost), who was probably related to the senatorial family of the Curtii, known for the foun-dation of the great theatre.