¹ Cassius Dio includes many of the individual exempla found in Suetonius, but does not collect them in one place (e.g. 43.41.2-3, 45.1.2-2.7). It is clear that Suetonius has exercised some judgement in the selection of the portents he includes, as he is far from indiscriminate; cf. Wagner, F., De ominibus quae ab Augusti temporibus usque ad Diocletiani aetatem Caesaribus facta traduntur (Diss. Jena 1888) 85Google Scholar. The degree of selectivity is highlighted by the detailed tabulation of all the supernatural material available by Vigourt, A., Les présages impériaux d' Auguste à Domitien (Paris 2001) 22–44Google Scholar.

The material I discuss in this paper has been treated more thoroughly in recent years than ever before: e.g. Bertrand-Écanvil, E., ‘Présages et propagande idéologique: à propos d'une liste concernant Octavien Auguste’, MEFRA 106 (1994) 487–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lorsch, R.S., Omina Imperii. The Omens of Power Received by Roman Emperors from Augustus to Domitian (Diss. UNC Chapel Hill 1993)Google Scholar; Weber, G., Kaiser, Träume und Visionen in Prinzipat und Spätantike (Stuttgart 2000)Google Scholar; and Lorsch-Wildfang, R.S., ‘The propaganda of omens: six dreams involving Augustus’, in Lorsch-Wildfang, R.S. and Isager, J. (eds), Divination and Portents in the Roman World (Odense 2000) 43–55Google Scholar. I aim to bring to the fore at least one element omitted by these scholars.

² Of the nineteen exempla (the computation of Gascou, J., Suétone historien [Paris 1984] 777)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, eleven fall within the competence of haruspices and augurs, while eight relate to dreams, astrology and omens.

³ It is worth considering that the second and third centuries AD were a period in which scepticism about dreams was rare; cf. Harris, W.V., ‘Roman Opinions about the Truthfulness of Dreams’, JRS 93 (2003) 31-3.Google Scholar The considerable space that Suetonius allots to supernatural material in the Lives is attributed to personal belief by many scholars (e.g. Gugel, H., Studien zur biographischen Technik Suetons [Vienna 1997] 24Google Scholar, and Lorsch [n. 1] 18-9), who extrapolate from one episode related by Pliny (Ep. 1.18.1) that belongs early in Suetonius' career (cf. Lounsbury, R.C., The Arts of Suetonius [New York 1987] 20Google Scholar; Weber [n. 1] 72-3). Dio's first work was on the portents and dreams that foreshadowed the rule of Septimius Severus (72.23.1: and his later History contains passages which underline his acceptance of traditional Greco-Roman divinatory practices (e.g. 39.61.1, 72.7.1-2. See Millar, F.G.B., A Study of Cassius Dio [Oxford 1964] 77, 179-81).Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. the suggestion of Lorsch (n. 1) 27, that the forcible seizure of power made legitimation particularly necessary

⁵ E.g. Serv, . Ecl. 9.46Google Scholar, Plut, . Brut. 41.4Google Scholar. See Malcovati, H., Caesaris Augusti Imperatoris Operum Fragmenta (Turin 1941) 61–71.Google Scholar The reading of Tertullian's De Anima (46.7: ‘reformatorem imperii, puerulum adhuc et privati loci et Iulium Octavium tantum et sibi ignotum, Marcus Tullius iam et Augustum et civilium turbinum sepultorem de somnio norat. in vitae illius commentariis conditum est’) used by Malcovati to attribute another dream to the commentarii, has been challenged: Waszink, J.H., De Anima (Amsterdam 1947) 494Google Scholar, reads Vitelliis instead of vitae illius (accepted by Lorsch [n. 1] 72; cf. Lorsch-Wildfang [n. 1] 51), but Vitelliis is not an adjectival form, and the manuscript reading should stand (cf. Bertrand-Écanvil [n. 1] 503 n. 68). Bertrand-Ecanvil (ibid.) takes illius of Augustus, but rejects any reference to his commentarii. Furthermore, her caution (503) in thinking that the Tertullian passage is too slender a basis on which to attribute the portents of Suetonius and Dio to Augustus' commentarii is excessive, given the indisputable appearance of similar material in the commentarii (esp. Plut, . Brut. 41.4Google Scholar). The testimony of Pliny (NH 2.93Google Scholar) on Augustus' public and private views of the comet of 44 BC may be connected with the commentarii, even though he does not name his source; the public view best relates to an edict promulgated in 44 and the private to the commentarii, published later, when Augustus had surpassed Caesar. For the most emphatic statement of Augustus' use of divine material, see Lewis, R.G., ‘Imperial autobiography, Augustus to Hadrian’, ANRW II 34.1 (Berlin 1993) 686.Google Scholar

Alonso-Nuñez, J. M., ‘Los commentarii de vita sua del emperador Augusto y su proyeccion’, in Defosse, P. (ed.), Hommages à Carl Deroux 2(Brussels 2002) 17Google Scholar, holds that the commentarii were accessible in the late second and early third centuries AD and does not dispute the attribution of this dream to them. Suetonius' direct use of De vita sua is possible, but not certain; cf. Malitz, J., ‘Autobiographic und Biographie römischer Kaiser im I Jhdt. n. Chr.’, in Weber, G. and Zimmermann, M. (eds), Propaganda – Selbstdarstellung – Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreich des I. Jhs. n. Chr. (Stuttgart 2003) 229-30Google Scholar, yet the issue is not essential for the argument here.

⁶ The meaning of res publico was a question for philosophical debate in antiquity; cf. e.g. Schofield, M., ‘Cicero's definition of respublica’, in Powell, J.G.F. (ed.), Cicero the Philosopher (Oxford 1995) 66Google Scholar = Schofield, M., Saving the City: Philosopher-Kings and other Classical Paradigms (London 1999) 180,Google Scholar but its meaning in the political context of the Late Republic and Early Empire was and is particularly contentious. In general, see Drexler, H., ‘Res publico’, Maia 9 (1957) 245-81Google Scholar; Stark, R., ‘Respublico’, in Oppermann, H. (ed.), Römische Wertbegriffe (Darmstadt 1967), 42–110Google Scholar; and Ehrenberg, V., ‘Some Roman Concepts of State and Empire’, in his Man, State and Deity: Essays in Ancient History (London 1974) esp. 108-12Google Scholar. The most accessible discussion, with specific focus on the Augustan period and the issues which lie behind the dreams analysed in this article, is that of Judge, E. A., ‘Res Publico Restituta: A Modern Illusion’, in Evans, J.A.S. (ed.) Polis and Imperium: Studies in Honour of Edward Togo Salmon (Toronto 1974) esp. 280-85.Google Scholar

⁷ Weber (n. 1) 155-59, and a paper springing from the monograph, idem, ‘Augustus und die Träume’, in Weber and Zimmermann (n. 5) esp. 304-05.

⁸ Cf. Weber (n. 1)156.

⁹ Bertrand-Écanvil (n. 1) 489 n. 6.

¹⁰ Cf. e.g. Cic, . Div. 1.12 and 25Google Scholar, Suet, . DA 97.1Google Scholar

¹¹ Suetonius' rubric sets out the principle by which the material on signs is organised, ‘quae ei prius quam nasceretur et ipso natali die ac deinceps evenerint’: a threefold chronological division: i) before his birth (94.2-4), ii) on the day of his birth (94.5a) and iii) after his birth (94.5b-95). The division is made somewhat differently by Gugel (n. 3) 36, who considers 94.1 -9 as signs relating to Augustus' birth and 94.10-96 as signs from his adulthood, but this clearly disregards what Suetonius himself sets out; 96 is clearly different material from 94.1-95, as Suetonius specifies that it relates to the outcome of wars, and 97 again is clearly advertised by Suetonius as relating to Augustus' death and divinity.

¹² It has been argued that Suetonius' exemplum relating to the portent received by Augustus' father at the grove of Dionysus (DA 94.5Google Scholar), which dates to the former's propraetorship of Thrace beginning in March 59 BC, has been inserted incorrectly between two exempla connected with Augustus' birth (Weinstock, S., Divus Julius [Oxford 1971] 21)Google Scholar, but nothing in the second of these exempla (DA 94.6Google Scholar) precludes a date for Octavius' dream in 60-59 BC. Nor does the exemplum of the young Augustus' precocious ability to silence frogs (DA 94.7Google Scholar), introduced by the words ‘cum primum fari coepisset’, necessarily predate Octavius' departure for Thrace.

¹³ E.g. (45.2.1), (45.2.5).

¹⁴ Cic, . Cael. 59Google Scholar, Att. 1.20.3Google Scholar (after 12 May 60); alive in January 61 (Cic, . Att. 1.13.2Google Scholar). Bertrand-Écanvil (n. 1) 495 n. 33 places Catulus' death in 61, but nothing privileges this date over 60.

¹⁵ Manuwald, B., Cassius Dio unci Augustus. Philologische Untersuchungen zu den Büchern 45-56 des dionischen Geschichtswerkes (Wiesbaden 1978) 266.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Manuwald (n. 15) 265. Some of the differences will be discussed below.

¹⁷ Catulus features in four of Valerius' exempla: as the first to introduce Campanian luxury to the celebration of Roman games (2.4.6); as exhibiting appropriately restrained joy at his ovatio over Lepidus (2.8.7) in a civil war; most importantly as one whose luxuries late in life ‘ei impedimento non fuerunt quo minus patriae princeps exsisteret, nomenque eius in Capitolino fastigio fulgeret, ac virtute civile bellum ingenti motu oriens sepeliret’ (6.9.5); and, lastly, for the eloquent declaration of faith in him by the Roman people (8.15.9). Velleius' abbreviated narrative is even more to the point for our purposes because it depicts Catulus explicitly as the fearless opponent of Pompey and Caesar who does not exceed the bounds of reasonable opposition. In opposing the popular Lex Gabinia to grant Pompey huge powers, he won the people's response noted by Valerius and secures praise from Velleius for his aucloritas and verecundia (2.32.1-2). His disagreements with Caesar are not minimised, but he receives no criticism for opposing the imperial predecessor: ‘contentionesque civiles cum Q. Catulo … celeberrimae, et ante praeturam victus in maximi pontificatus petitione Q. Catulus, omnium confessione senatus princeps’ (2.43.3). Velleius also interrupts his narrative to record the death of Catulus and other prominent figures of the Republic: ‘cum sine invidia in re publica floruissent eminuissentque sine periculo quieta aut certe non praecipitata fatali ante initium bellorum civilium morte functi sunt’ (2.48.6).

¹⁸ Livy, Per. 98Google Scholar, Cic, . Verr. 2.4.69Google Scholar, Phlegon of Tralles FGrH 257 F12, continuation: AE 1971 no. 61, Plut, . Crass. 13.1Google Scholar. Crassus had lent large sums to Caesar, a debt which Caesar repaid in part by supporting Crassus. Although the material in Suetonius' Divus Julius (8-9), on which the charges of a close political relationship with Crassus are based, is clearly hostile and derives from sources written after Caesar's consulship of 59 (see Strasburger, H., Caesars Eintritt in die Geschichte [Munich 1938] 108–113)Google Scholar, confirmation of Caesar's favourable attitude towards the Transpadanes can be found in his prosecution of C. Piso in 63 for mistreatment of one of them (Sall, . BC 49.2Google Scholar). Again, while the extant fragments of Cicero's de rege Alexandrine, a speech delivered in 65, can show that Crassus was not proposing annexation (contra Suet, . DJ 11Google Scholar), but was rather extorting money by threats (frr. 6 and 7 Puccioni), it is not impossible that Caesar also played some role, even if not that alleged by his traducers; cf. Gelzer, M., Caesar: Politician and Statesman (Oxford 1968) 40.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Suet, . DJ 10.1Google Scholar, Plut, . Caes. 6.1–4Google Scholar, Veil, . Pat. 2.43.3–4.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ancient sources and analysis conveniently at Carney, T.F., A Biography of C. Marius (Assen 1961) 37n. 183.Google Scholar

²¹ E.g. Plut, . Caes. 7.1–3Google Scholar.

²² Sall, . BC 49.1–4Google Scholar, Plut, .Caes. 8.1.Google Scholar

²³ Suet, . DJ 15Google Scholar. There is a natural tendency (e.g. Gelzer [n. 18] 55) to link with this the incident Cicero relates in a letter of August 59 (Att. 2.24.3Google Scholar): the praetor Caesar told Catulus to speak ex inferiore loco, ‘a sarcastic way of telling Catulus to hold his tongue’ (Shackleton-Bailey, D.R., Cicero's Letters to Atticus 1 [Cambridge 1965] 401)Google Scholar.

²⁴ Dio 43.14.6: . The best iconographic representation of Catulus' temple appears on a recently published as from the reign of Vitellius (Bastien, P., ‘Vitellius et le temple de Jupiter: un as inédit’, NAC QT 7 [1978] 181–202)Google Scholar.

²⁵ Cf. Bertrand-Écanvil (n. 1) 496. Lambrecht, U., Herrscherbild und Principatsidee in Suetons Kaiserbiographien (Bonn 1984) 105Google Scholar, recognises that Catulus was a ‘Caesar-Gegner’, but does not afford it sufficient importance. Guillaumont, F., Philosophe et augure. Recherches sur la théorie ciceronienne de la divination (Brussels 1984) 108-09Google Scholar, emphasises the connection of Catulus with the Capitol, the religious heart of Rome, but ignores the ideological aspects.

²⁶ Cf. Dio's simplified version (45.2.3). Wikenhauser, A., ‘Doppelträume’, Biblica 29 (1948) 100–111Google Scholar, has collected examples from classical and biblical texts where the divine status of a dream was established by two individuals having the same dream. Although this differs from Catulus' dream, the principle of repetition is important.

²⁷ Cf. Livy 2.36.2-4, Val. Max. 1.7.3. See the discussion at Wardle, D., Valerius Maximus. Memorable Deeds and Sayings Book I (Oxford 1998) 223–225Google Scholar, and Kragelund, P., ‘Dreams, Religion and Politics in Republican Rome’, Historia 51 (2002) 77-8.Google Scholar

²⁸ For a short but useful introduction, see Weber (n. 1) 30-49; Cicero's De Divinatione, especially 1.39-65, gives a good idea of the philosophical arguments deployed.

²⁹ The two chronological indications of the dream are imprecise: Dio merely describes Augustus , while Suetonius' post dedicatum Capitolium does not imply a date close to 69, nor one in 46 (Deonna, contra W., ‘La légende d'Octave-Auguste’, RHR 83 [1921] 187)Google Scholar, but rather specifies the setting for the dreams in the temple which had been restored by Catulus.

³⁰ See Kragelund (n. 27) 78, 80: ‘no matter how impressive, dreams needed corroboration – at least when outside the private sphere’.

³¹ See Kragelund (n. 27) 79.

³² See e.g. Borgeaud, P., ‘Du mythe à l'ideologie: la tête du Capitole’, MH 44 (1987) 86–100Google Scholar; Ogilvie, R M., A Commentary on Livy Books 1-5 (Oxford 1965) 210-212, 253-54Google Scholar; Fishwick, D., ‘On the Temple of Divus Augustus’, Phoenix 46 (1992) 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ E.g. Wardle, D., ‘Vespasian, Helvidius Priscus and the Restoration of the Capitol’, Historia 45 (1996) esp. 212–213.Google Scholar

³⁴ If Capitoline Jupiter was modelled on Phidias' Zeus at Olympia, he had a sceptre in his left hand and either a thunderbolt (Lapatin, K.D.S., Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World [Oxford 2001] 123)Google Scholar or a Nike/Victory in his right (LIMC VIII. 1 s.v. Zeus, p. 327); cf. Zadoks-Jitta, A., ‘Jupiter Capitolinus’, JRS 28 (1938) 50-6.Google Scholar

³⁵ Cf. Dio 45.2.3. It has been suggested that signum was a sceptre surmounted by an eagie which was carried also by triumphatores (Deonna [n. 29] 187), or a seal (e.g. Adams, M., C. Suetonius Tranquillus Divi Augusti Vita [London 1939] 214)Google Scholar. There was no state seal in Republican Rome (Instinsky, H.I., Die Siegel des Kaisers Augustus. Ein Kapitel zur Geschichte und Symbolik des antiken Herrschersiegels [Baden-Baden 1962] 19–20Google Scholar; Simpson, C.J., ‘Rome's “Official Imperial Seal”?’, Historia 54 [2005] 180-8)Google Scholar, although Augustus and later emperors did have signet rings. Mellor, R., θEAPωMH. The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World (Göttingen 1975) 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar, argues for a statuette; cf. Vermeule, C. A., The Goddess Roma in the Art of the Imperial World (Cambridge, Mass. 1959) 84ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ Mellor (n. 35) 205-6.

³⁷ Macrob, . Sat. 1.6.10Google Scholar. See e.g. Gabelmann, H., ‘Römische Kinder in toga praetexta’, JDAI 100 (1985) 497–541Google Scholar, and Palmer, R.E.A., ‘Bullae insignia ingenuitatis’, AJAH 14 (1989) 1–4Google Scholar. Dio 45.2.3: . Where Dio elsewhere uses the same pair of adjective and noun, principally in connection with the lusus Troiae (48.20.2, 59.7.4, 59.11.2), the children are those of the equestrian elite and of senators. The parallel dream which Plutarch records (Cic. 44.3: ), and which draws on elements of Catulus' dream (see below pp. 40-1), shows that Plutarch at least interpreted this detail as identifying children of the senatorial order.

³⁸ Ludere in Suetonius (see Howard, A.A. and Jackson, C.N., Index Suetonianus [Cambridge, Mass. 1922] 137)Google Scholar invariably means playing (a game) or performing in a public spectacle (such as the lusus Troiae); where children are involved (Cal. 25.4Google Scholar, Ner. 35.5Google Scholar), the context is always non-religious. usually means ‘make a solemn procession’, although this is its only appearance in Dio.

³⁹ Mantle, I.C., ‘The Role of Children in Roman Religion’, G&R 49 (2002) 85–106.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Deonna(n.29)188.

⁴¹ Weber (n. 1)156.

⁴² Livy 26.19.5, with other parallels (collected at Wardle [n. 27] 139). Even if the historicity of Scipio's practice is dubious, the historical tradition goes back at least to 150 B.C. (cf. Polyb. 10.5.5).

⁴³ Cic, . Rep. 2.51Google Scholar; see Michelfeit, J., ‘Der König und sein Gegenbild’, Philologus 108 (1964) 286-7Google Scholar. In the context of young children, tutor suggests an important role, at least that of the legal guardian who replaced a dead father and could exercise his authority.

⁴⁴ E.g. Vell. Pat. 2.105.3, Val. Max. 9.11 ext. 4, and Sen, . Clem. 1.4.3Google Scholar: ‘principes, regesque et quocumque alio nomine sunt tutores status publici’. See Béranger, J., Recherches sur l'aspect idéologique du principat (Basle 1953) 257-9.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ von Premerstein, A., Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats (Munich 1937) 123Google Scholar. Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G., ‘The Settlement of 27 B.C.’, in Deroux, C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 4 (Brussels 1986) esp. 348-53Google Scholar, argues for an empire-wide mandate of a supervisory role for Augustus; followed by Rich, J.W. and Williams, J.H.C., ‘Leges et iura p. R. restituit: a new aureus of Octavian and the settlement of 28-27 B.C.’, NC 159 (1999) 211-2Google Scholar, but rejected by Ferrary, J.-L., ‘A propos les pouvoirs d'Auguste’, CCG 12 (2001) 113-5Google Scholar. Strabo uses the Greek (840), which is a plausible translation of the Latin tutela.

⁴⁶ Cf. Beranger, J., ‘Le refus de pouvoir’, in Paschoud, F. and Ducrey, P. (eds), Principatus: Études de notions d'histoire politiques dans l' Antiquite gréco-romaine (Geneva 1975) 165-90.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The act of adoratio involved raising the right hand to the lips (Plin, . NH 28.25Google Scholar) and directing the kiss towards the deity; cf. Horst, J., . Zur Anbetung im Urchristentum nach ihrer religions-geschichtlichen Eigenart (Gütersloh 1932) 44–51Google Scholar. To return a kiss in this manner, however, seems to have indicated superiority; cf. Plin. Paneg. 24.2; see Kühn, W., ‘Der Kuss des Kaisers: Plinius Paneg. 24.2’, WJA 13 (1987) 263-71).Google Scholar Lorsch-Wildfang (n. 1) 51, argues that adoratio by means of a kiss to the god's statue was a traditional Roman form of worship (as opposed to Greek), but in fact this cult practice was equally prevalent in the Greek context.

⁴⁸ Pace Lorsch (n. 1) 75.

⁴⁹ Plut, . Cic. 2.1Google Scholar. Moles, J.L., Plutarch. The Life of Cicero (Warminster 1988) 195Google Scholar. There is an apparent inconsistency between Moles' view summarised above and his belief that Augustus' Autobiography was Plutarch's source for Cicero's dream (29) and that Dio and Suetonius' version of the dream is identical with that mentioned by Tertullian as coming from the Autobiography (195). Although it has been suggested that Plutarch took the dream from Suetonius' Vita Ciceronis in his De Viris Illustribus, the chronological difficulties inherent in that and the excessive variation of details within the dream make it highly unlikely: see. Theander, C., ‘Zwei Vaticinia ex eventu in römischer Volkstradition’, in Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni (Milan 1956) 148.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Useful summary in Gotoff, H.C., Cicero's Caesarian Speeches. A Stylistic Commentary (Chapel Hill 1993) xvii–xxixGoogle Scholar; Stockton, D. L., Cicero. A Political Biography (Oxford 1971) 270-5.Google Scholar For Cicero's complex reaction in the aftermath of Caesar's assassination (Att. 14.4Google Scholar); the deplorable condition of the state (Fam. 4.14.3); Caesar's pernicious effect on the state (Phil. 2.116Google Scholar: ‘attulerat iam liberae civitati partim metu partim patientia consuetudinem serviendi’); Caesar was a tyrant (Att. 14.9.2Google Scholar).

⁵¹ Shuckburgh, E.S., C. Suetoni Tranquilli Vita Divi Augusti (Cambridge 1896) 214Google Scholar; Deonna (n. 29) 188. In September 46, Augustus received militaria dona although he had not participated in the African campaign (Suet, . DA 8.1Google Scholar).

⁵² For the chronological ordering of the exempla, see p. 33. Suetonius' next exemplum (DA 94.10Google Scholar) can be dated securely to 18 October 48 (cf. CIL 10.8375Google Scholar); and Dio's terminology (45.2.5; cf. 47.6.6) for the same event underlines the fact that Cicero's dream must predate Augustus' assumption of the toga virilis.

⁵³ Cf. Weber (n. 1) 159 n. 160.

⁵⁴ Examples include a triumph (DJ 49.4Google Scholar, Tib. 20), escorting a magistrate or member of the imperial family off to his province (DJ 71, DA 97.3Google Scholar, Tib. 10.2Google Scholar, Cal. 4) and a funeral (Cal. 13); where the verb is combined with in Capitolium the context is a triumph (Tib. 2.4Google Scholar) and an annual festival (Cal. 16.4Google Scholar). Augustus regularly accompanied Caesar to temples and sacrifices from late 46 (Nic. Dam. 8), although Nicolaus may antedate this and several other honours by a year. Caesar spent very little time in Rome in 46 – from 1 January to 25 July he was campaigning in Africa and he left for Spain in early November.

⁵⁵ Plutarch (Cic. 44.3Google Scholar: …) dates his version of Cicero's dream to Pompey's lifetime. Cf. Herrmann, L., ‘L'enfant à la chaine d'or’, REA 36 (1934) 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who specifies 1 January 59, the solemn inauguration of Caesar's consulship. It is likely that Cicero was in Rome on 1 January, as he invites Atticus to dine with him there on 29 December (Att. 2.2.3Google Scholar) and the subsequent lack of correspondence indicates that both were in Rome.

⁵⁶ Nic. Dam. 4, Veil. Pat. 2.59.3. It is plausible that Augustus assumed the toga virilis relatively early. It has been argued (Radke, G., Fasti Romani. Betrachtungen zur Fruhgeschichte des romischen Kalendars [Stuttgart 1990] 83-4)Google Scholar that, allowing for the phenomenon of antecession in the civil calendar before Caesar's reforms, Augustus assumed the toga virilis on his 15th birthday. Even if Radke's arguments are questionable (cf. Barton, T., ‘Augustus and Capricorn: Astrological Polyvalency and Imperial Rhetoric’, JRS 85 [1995] 37)Google Scholar, Caesar was keen to advance his potential heir as quickly as possible. Probably Augustus could not be described as ignotus after his striking election to the priesthood formerly held by L. Domitius Ahenobarbus who died at Pharsalus in August 48 (Caes, . BC 3.99.5Google Scholar). Augustus' first known visit to Rome was to deliver his grandmother's funeral oration in 52-1.

⁵⁷ The victory at Pharsalus occurred in August 48 and Augustus assumed the toga virilis on 18 October 48; Caesar did not return to Rome until October 47 (Plut, . Cic. 39.4–5Google Scholar); Cicero returned from his ‘exile’ in Brundisium at roughly the same time – he had reached Venusia on 1 October (Fam. 15.20Google Scholar).

⁵⁸ Only here does Suetonius use liberalis in the sense rightly assumed by most commentators, i.e. ‘an appearance worthy of a free man’ (cf. Festus 108 L: ‘LIBERALES dicuntur non solum benigni, sed etiam ingenuae formae homines’); elsewhere he uses it to mean ‘generous’ (DA 71.3Google Scholar, Vesp. 17). It is unclear whether the word comes from Suetonius' source or is his own choice.

⁵⁹ E.g. Deonna (n. 29) 189-92; Hom. II. 8.19-27. For a detailed study of the motif, see Fauth, W., ‘Catena aurea. Zu den Bedeutungsvarianten eines kosmischen Sinnbildes’, AKG 56 (1974) esp. 285-8Google Scholar, and other bibliography at Weber (n. 1) 157-8 n. 152.

⁶⁰ Horn. II. 12.37, 13.812 (); cf. ll. 2.781, 15.17. See Janko, R., The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume IV (Cambridge 1992) 145.Google Scholar

⁶¹ E.g. Shuckburgh (n. 51) 165. The Lex Porcia protected citizens from punishment by the flagellum (Cic, . Rab. Perd. 12Google Scholar). While liability to a whipping is not an essential difference between slave and free, in that a father could whip his child, ‘whipping was a particularly potent form of symbolic behaviour in the Roman world’ as it involved both physical violation and humiliation. In Roman rhetoric the misuse of the whip could be represented as the loss of libertas (cf. Cic, . Rab. Perd. 12Google Scholar, Tac, . Germ. 7Google Scholar). See Sailer, R.P., ‘Corporal punishment, authority, and obedience in the Roman household’, in Rawson, B. (ed.), Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome (Oxford 1991) 144–165.Google Scholar

⁶² Augustus punished the pantomime Hylas with public flagellation (DA 45.4Google Scholar); Caligula personally whipped the tragedian Apelles when he failed to appreciate the superiority of the emperor to Jupiter (Cal. 33), his own quaestor after he had been implicated in a plot (Cal. 26.3Google Scholar), spectators who did not applaud Mnester with sufficient enthusiasm (Cal. 55.1Google Scholar) and the dozy Claudius (Cl. 8); Claudius whipped his steward who interrupted him (Cl. 38.2Google Scholar); the wild, young Otho was frequently whipped by his father (O. 2.1Google Scholar); and Titus began the punishment of delatores and liars with public flogging (Tit. 8.5Google Scholar).

⁶³ Cf. Demandt, A., ‘Die Traume der romischen Kaiser’, in Holzhausen, J. (ed), – Seele – anima. Festschrift fur K. Alt zum 7. Mai1998 (Stuttgart/Leipzig 1998)204–205.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Lorsch (n. 1) 69-70. Cf. Virg, . Aen. 6.570.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ E.g. Suet, . DJ 88Google Scholar, Cic, . Fam. 12.3.1Google Scholar, Val. Max. 1.5.7, 1.6.13.

⁶⁶ Aesch, . Ag. 642Google Scholar, Virg, . Aen. 8.703Google Scholar, Lucan 7.568 (cf. Sen, . Ira 2.35.6Google Scholar), Sil. Ital. 4.441.

⁶⁷ All references taken from Crawford, M.H., Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge 1974)Google Scholar: e.g. 197 no. 13 – Victory, 207 no. 1 – Luna, 231 no. la – Juno, 250 no. 1 – Sol, 258 no. 1 – Venus. Less prominent uses include desultores as they perform in the games (346 no. 1, 480 nos. 20-23), horse-riders (39 no. 5,408 no. la, 454 no. 5) and a gladiator (294 no. 1).

⁶⁸ E.g. Plat, . Rep. 566dGoogle Scholar, Polit. 266e; Apul, . Mun. 35Google Scholar: ‘quod est… in curru rector… hoc est in mundo deus’. The most developed treatment of the metaphor occurred in the lost sections of Cicero's De Republica Book V (cf. 5.5; see Powell, J.G.F., ‘The Rector Rei Publicae in Cicero's De Re Publico’, SCI 13 (1994) 19–29)Google Scholar.

Although it has been argued that the whip was the sun-god's emblem (Procopé-Walter, E., ‘Isis und Set (zu denfigurae magicae in den Zauberpapyri)’, ARW 30 [1933] 39Google Scholar; Pieper, M., MDAI(K) 5 [1934] 128)Google Scholar, it would be rash to import notions of a specifically Apolline symbol here. Certainly, nothing supports the over-subtle hypothesis of Sauron, G., Quis deum? L'expression plastique des idéologies politiques et religieuses à Rome à la fin de la Republique et au debut du Principal (Rome 1994) 214–215Google Scholar, that the dream represents Jupiter's surrender of his guardianship of the Roman state to Apollo, the deity with whom Augustus had close ties; the traditional hierarchy of the gods remains; cf. Vigourt (n. 1) 212-4.

⁶⁹ Weber (n. 1)157.

⁷⁰ Cf. Herrmann (n. 55) 49: ‘les rémits sont absurdes’.

⁷¹ Dio 55.1.1, Epiced. Drusi 401-4, Aug, . RG 20.1.Google Scholar

⁷² See e.g. Bellen, H., ‘Cicero und der Aufstieg Oktavians’, Gymnasium 92 (1985) 161-89Google Scholar; Ortmann, U., Cicero, Brutus und Octavian – Republikaner und Caesarianer. Ihr gegenseitiges Verhältnis im Krisenjahr 44/43 v.Chr (Bonn 1985)Google Scholar.

⁷³ Cf. Bertrand-Écanvil (n. 1)517; Lorsch (n. 1) 70. For the virtual exclusion of dreams from public divination, although in the 1st c. BC military dynasts from Sulla onwards invoked dreams to support their claims, see Kragelund (n. 27) 53-5, 77, 95. Weber (n. 1) 159 n. 159 entertains the possibility that any pronouncement by Cicero would have had increased weight.

⁷⁴ E.g. Cic, . Phil. 3.3Google Scholar, Plut, . Cic. 44.2–44.3.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Lorsch (n. 1)74, 79–82.

⁷⁶ For example, see Scott, K., ‘The Political Propaganda of 44-30 B.C.’, MAAR 11 (1933) esp. 37–49.Google Scholar Although there are many poetic associations of Augustus with Jupiter, they do not predate Actium: see Ward, M. M., ‘The Association of Augustus with Jupiter’, SMSR 9(1933) 203-13.Google Scholar The coins minted by Augustus before Actium (see Zanker, P., The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus [Ann Arbor 1988] 53–57)Google Scholar feature primarily three goddesses: Pax, Venus and Victoria.

⁷⁷ See Keppie, L.F., Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 47-14 BC (Rome 1983) 118Google Scholar, for the building of capitolia as evidence of colonial status.

⁷⁸ Alföldi, A., Die zwei Lorbeerbäume des Augustus (Bonn 1973) table 2 nos. 1-4; Hor. Carm. 3.5.1-4; Bertrand-Écanvil (n. 1) 518, drawing on Fishwick (n. 32)239-40.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Triumph: Dio 51.21.5-8; dedication of curia and temple of Divus Julius: Dio 51.22.1-2; senatorial lectio: Dio 52.42.1-4. Augustus' triumph was the probable context for his huge dedication to Capitoline Jupiter (Suet, . DA 30.2Google Scholar, Dio 51.22.3, Aug, . RG 21.2Google Scholar).

⁸⁰ See Pollini, J., ‘Man or God: Divine Assimilation and Imitation in the Late Republic and Early Principate’, in Raaflaub, K. A. and Toher, M. (eds), From Republic to Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate (Berkeley 1990) 336.Google Scholar

⁸¹ BMCRE I, 104Google Scholar no. 637, 102 nos. 628-30. See Zanker (n. 76) 55-6, who argues that Augustus was deliberately mixing his image with the god's and that a definite identification with Jupiter was meant, perhaps specifically with Jupiter Feretrius, whose temple he had recently restored; Pollini (n. 80) 348-9. For a succinct discussion of the disagreement about the dating of these coins, see Rich and Williams (n. 45) 171-172.

⁸² From a massive bibliography, see Rich, and Williams, (n. 45) and Badian, E. ‘“Crisis Theories” and the Beginning of the Principate’, in Wirth, G. (ed.), Romanitas, Christianitas: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der römischen Kaiserzeit; Johannes Straub zum siebzehnten Geburtstag am 18. Oktober 1982 gewidmet (Berlin 1982) 24-5.Google Scholar

⁸³ Fishwick (n. 32)241.

⁸⁴ See e.g. Millar, F., ‘The Impact of Monarchy’, in Millar, F. and Segal, E. (eds), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (Oxford 1983) 37–60.Google ScholarRowe, G., Princes and Political Cultures: the New Tiberian Senatorial Decrees (Ann Arbor 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, demonstrates the way in which six different “constituencies” within the Roman Empire were able to relate to the reality of an imperial dynasty against a legal, constitutional background which excluded such a concept.

⁸⁵ Gradel, I., Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford 2002) 73–103,Google Scholar demonstrates that across Italy there was direct worship of Augustus as a god, primarily as a direct result of municipal initiatives.

⁸⁶ Although Augustus established a policy for the Eastern provinces of the empire as early as 29, there was no equivalent for Italy, but individual municipalities formulated their own responses to the emperor. The earliest datable municipal temple at Beneventum has a terminus ante quem of 15 BC (CIL 9.1556Google Scholar).