Tiberius aequatus Augusto

This paper comments on the tension between constant imitatio and refused aemulatio gloriae in Tiberius’ attitude towards Augustus in Velleius Paterculus’ History. I argue that Tiberius is equalling and eventually even surpassing Augustus precisely because he refuses to compete with him, let alone surpass him. In order to do so, I focus on two hitherto neglected Augustan intertexts, which are referenced at very distinct moments of Velleius’ portrayal of Tiberius. The first is the moment when Tiberius appears on the political stage at the age of 19 (2.94.1); the second is the last mentioned event of his life before he succeeds Augustus, namely his third triumph in ad 12 (2.122.1).

The Causes of the Civil War (49–45 BC) in the Thoughts of Roman Authors (1st Century BC – 1st Century AD)

This article investigates the thoughts of Roman authors about the causes of the civil war (49-45 BC). Caesar, Cicero and Velleius Paterculus consider the passions and the immorality of the persons as the causes of this war. According to Seneca and Lucan, the political ambitions of Caesar, Pompey, their supporters, as well as the passions of the whole society caused the civil war. But Lucan paid attention also to objective conditions.

Velleius Paterculus and the Roman Senate at the Beginning of the Principate

The “Roman history” by Velleius Paterculus is the sole historiographical work written by a contemporary of Augustus and Tiberius. The paper deals with representation of the Roman Senate of Velleius’ time in his work. I argue that in his compendium the historian reflected the ambivalent position of the Senate under the first two Roman Emperors. He depicts the institution as more passive in comparison with its description in the previous period and as depending on the Princeps. At the same time this Roman author characterizes the Senate as having maiestas, the notion which was not connected with this authority under the Republic. Assigning of maiestas to the Senate by Velleius reflects a deep change in the position of the curia due to decline of the popular assemblies’ significance at the beginning of the Principate.

‘Doing Evil’ as Maiestas in John 18.30

The argument of this article is that in Jn 18.30 Jesus is accused of ‘doing evil’ to Caesar – or maiestas. Johannine critics sometimes mention maiestas, but they have neither introduced the ancient and modern literature on the topic nor applied it to the interpretation of the accusation against Jesus in John’s gospel. Horace, Velleius Paterculus, the senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre and Suetonius, as well as various treaties and edicts, demonstrate the transference of maiestas from Rome to Caesar. So instead of slandering the people, the crime of maiestas became slandering the emperor. If an author such as Josephus seems, in his own way, to intimate the crime, then so also may John. And if ‘doing evil’ means maiestas, then Jn 18.30 fits more comfortably not only with the wider first century, but also the wider Johannine narrative.