V

NERVA AND TRAJAN

II.

TRAJAN: PRINCEPS AND SENATUS

 

The news of his accession reached Trajan at Cologne after a race of messengers, won by his cousin and future successor P. Aelius Hadrianus. The Emperor, however, despite popular appeal, did not return to Rome at once. The removal of Aelianus and the leaders of the praetorian outbreak was a sufficient assurance of peace at home and there was work to be completed on the German frontier. The months since his adoption had given Trajan time to think out an imperial policy, of which the leading idea, shaped in part perhaps by the financial needs of the Empire, was a rehandling of the Dacian problem. But even to re-assert Roman prestige effectively on the middle and lower Danube demanded careful preparation, and in particular an organization of the Rhine and upper Danube provinces which should enable reinforcements to be sent, if needed, for a Dacian campaign; and this, owing to the progress made on these frontiers under the Flavians, it was now possible to achieve. Trajan, therefore, contented himself with letters of goodwill to the Senate, which included an oath to abstain from tyranny, and a refusal of the title of pater patriae, and remained in the north until 99. In the spring of that year he set out for Rome, and after a journey which was in deliberate contrast to Domitian's exigent progressions, he entered the city on foot amid enthusiastic demonstrations from all classes of the citizens.

The difficulties which beset any attempt to summarize and appraise the events of Trajan's reign are, in the main, of two kinds. The first and greatest is the inadequacy of the literary sources. It is the historian deprived of their help who is least contemptuous of the value of Suetonius and the Historia Augusta, as he bitterly recalls the famous lament of Gibbon (who himself did not attempt the task) that he must “collect the actions of Trajan from the glimmerings of an abridgement or the doubtful light of a panegyric”. The sixty-eighth book of Cassius Dio's history, as preserved mainly in the eleventh-century epitome of Xiphilinus, is indeed the corner-stone of any reconstruction of the reign; but it is not of a material which any prudent builder would choose. The Panegyric of Pliny, delivered during his consulship in 1oo, is a tolerable authority for events down to that date, and facts of importance can be gleaned from his letters, and especially from the official correspondence which he conducted with Trajan as governor of Bithynia in 111—113. For the rest the historian must be content with a sentence of Trajan's own commentaries on the Dacian war, a fable of the Emperor Julian, and a number of scattered references, most of them of doubtful value, and of a later age. He has, however, one advantage denied to Gibbon. The epigraphical evidence for the reign is comparatively abundant, and with the help of the coins makes a fairly full chronological reconstruction possible. The second difficulty is one of judgment. Unlike Domitian, Trajan was popular with the class from which contemporary writers were drawn, and, unlike him, he was succeeded by one who, though in many ways the antithesis of himself, was favorable to his memory. The tradition is therefore almost wholly laudatory. The example of Domitian and his own temperament preserved Trajan from the grosser forms of adulation; but flatterers soon found a way to please him too, and there are passages in the Panegyric of Pliny with which a Martial or a Statius would have been proud to charm Domitian's palate. Dio merely echoes the verdict of the contemporary tradition, and is, for example, at pains to gloss over even Trajan's private vices. The praise of Trajan was the corollary of the vilification of Domitian, and there is no doubt that the pendulum swung too far. But a modern critic must be on his guard lest in redressing the balance he make the contrary error. Trajan was popular in his lifetime and his memory remained green, and that in an age which, like Tacitus' own, is infensa virtutibus is hard to forgive; for him, as for Agricola, his laudators have proved a pessimum genus inimicorum.

Early in September of the year 100, the younger Pliny, newly elected consul, rose in the Senate to render public thanks for his election. It was a great opportunity. The recent consulship of Trajan, the first since becoming emperor, had shed a brighter lustre on his successors in his year; and no doubt a splendid contribution was expected from an orator of Pliny's standing. The new consul apologized for his inadequacy, but he did not scamp his theme. For several hours the Senate listened while Pliny expounded the virtues of the reigning prince, the misdeeds of Domitian, and his ideals of the imperial government. The spirits of the reader, far removed from the circumstances of the time, may flag beneath the reiterations of his panegyric, but of his sincerity there can be no doubt; and for many of his facts there is evidence more concrete than his own polished phrases. At about the same time the philosopher Dio Chrysostom delivered before Trajan the first of his sermons upon kingship, in striking accord with the tone of Pliny's speech, and from a comparison of the two the ideals of the new regime emerge in sharp outline. Both paint the princeps as the first servant of the State, but neither is under any illusion as to the supremacy of his position over all other parties to the government. The difference between dominatio and principatus, stressed by both Dio and Pliny, lay in the distinction between a master and a leader. The spearhead of the hatred against Domitian had been not his power, but his misuse of it. It was the capacity for leadership which Trajan possessed and which Domitian so conspicuously lacked which enabled him to carry through many of Domitian's political aims with the approval and even at the request of the senators themselves.

The career of Trajan as a privatus had indeed simplified his task. His own choice of a soldier's life was no doubt responsible for the length of his service as a tribunus militum; from his father's son no more than the statutory minimum would have been required. He thus learnt the frontiers and the conditions of military service as a subordinate, and even later, though he had personal knowledge of the tyranny in Rome, much of his time had been spent abroad. Naturally easy of access, he had already firmly planted his hold on the legions, and at the same time his years of absence had set him a little apart from the gossip and intrigue of senatorial circles at Rome: in Pliny's speech and early letters, if one makes all allowances for the circumstances of their composition, there is something of a stranger's tone. But any doubts in Rome of his deportment were quickly resolved on his arrival. He made no claims to divine honors and showed himself as reluctant as the senators to participate in the ceremonies of royalty. The swaying palanquin, with its imperious outriders, the embracing of the emperor's feet, the kissing of his hand, and all the degrading symbols of an Oriental monarchy, remained only as the memory of an evil dream. The palace, over which Nerva had inscribed the words “publicae aedes”, was so in fact, in contrast to that “specus” in which an “inmanissima belua” had licked the blood of his kinsmen and meditated the slaughter of the chief men in the State. The chilly receptions at which Domitian had disdained even to eat with his compulsory guests were replaced by friendly informal gatherings at which a man might say what he liked and could attend or not as he pleased.

Trajan himself was far from greedy of worldly honors: the fame he coveted was above trifles. The celebrated epigram of the Emperor Constantine which described Trajan as a herba parietaria has been used to convey a false impression since the days of Ammianus Marcellinus, who first interpreted it to mean that Trajan deliberately suppressed the memorials of earlier builders; in the original phrase there is no more than a humorous reference to the extent of his public works in Rome. On the other hand, in at least one case we have epigraphical evidence that he conformed to ordinary standards; and his existing inscriptions show an attitude the reverse of vainglorious. He had refused to hold the consulship in absence in 99; his tenure in Poo, attended with a strict adherence to traditional forms habitually flouted by his predecessors, was a natural corollary of his return, and he signalized it by elevating in the same year two others to a like number of consulships with himself. In 101 he was persuaded, according to Pliny for this reason among others, to hold a fourth: but he added only two more, in 103 after the first Dacian war and lastly in 112, the year of the inauguration of his forum. Thirteen salutations make a modest showing for a martial emperor beside the twenty-two of Domitian or the twenty-seven of Claudius, and as for the name of Optimus, already in public use by 100, he did not permit its inclusion among his official titles for nearly fifteen years: the titles of censor and praefectus morum he refused outright.

Trajan was wise. By his openheartedness and natural manners he won the love of the two most influential classes in the State: the soldiers and the Senate. His soldiers he knew to their nick­names and he commanded their unquestioning loyalty: to Pliny he was “one of us”, and by a scrupulous observance of senatorial customs he bound their affection still more closely. He was thus enabled on the one hand to tighten the discipline of the army and on the other to pursue his political ends without serious discontent. The Senate indeed recognized its incapacity to govern. Vastly changed in personnel since Julio-Claudian days, it now contained few of a type not ready to follow the imperial lead, content with the position of superior civil servant, and under Domitian it had still further lost its power of initiative. His reign left behind it a rising generation of senators unversed in the arts of government and unfitted for responsibility. Time was needed for their recovery to a sense of their own dignity, before they could rise to high ideals of public service. Watched by Domitian, the provincial governors had behaved particularly well; to afford him just excuse for severity was simple suicide. But the indulgent policy of Nerva brought a quick reaction in a crop of provincial scandals. If the Senate had learnt anything from recent experience, it was a sense of solidarity. Menaced together and forced to pass sentence on each other against their judgment, they were in no mood for fresh convictions now, even if the offence were plainly proved; and weak or rapacious governors were not slow to take advantage of this expectation of leniency.

During the next five years the services of Pliny as advocate were retained in at least four trials for provincial misgovernment. In the first three the chief offenders had all received their nominations under Nerva; all were guilty of corruption and two at least, Marius Priscus (a Spaniard) in Africa and Caecilius Classicus (an African) in Spain, of callous brutality as well, while the iniquities of Julius Bassus in Bithynia are less clearly known since Pliny himself was for the defense on this occasion. The results were not reassuring. Under Trajan's personal presidency in 100 the Senate did pass the harsher of the two sentences proposed on Priscus, but in other cases they were as complaisant as they dared. Classicus died before his trial, but in the subsequent proceedings against his subordinates senatorial defendants received marked favor, and Bassus though found guilty retained his full rights on the mere repayment of damages. The fourth case, also from Bithynia, ended in confusion and a promise from Trajan to investigate conditions in the province, a promise which ultimately matured in the special appointment of Pliny as an imperial governor. The criticism of these decisions even within the Senate aided Trajan's efforts to secure more capable administration without impairing senatorial prestige. Bithynia at least had been not only corruptly but inefficiently governed by men whose annual terms of office were inadequate for a proper understanding of its problems. The impunity of a few guilty proconsuls was a small matter if the Senate should voluntarily acquiesce in a closer imperial control of their provinces.

But it was not here alone that senatorial shortcomings were manifest. Their conduct of elections showed a like sacrifice of public interests to personal friendships and advantage, while some were even too worthless to discharge their duty with dignity. This was the upshot of depriving an assembly with still considerable legal rights and administrative duties of all actual responsibility. Their present unfitness and necessary dependence Pliny sadly admits, while he is not ashamed to appreciate the crumbs of government which Trajan let fall to the Senate. Trajan's power, in fact, was no less complete than had been that of Domitian; only the spirit of its exercise was different. Not only had he renounced divine honors; he had admitted the supremacy of the laws over the emperor's wills. He counted senators his friends and recognized the influence of their prestige; and by consulting them on imperial issues even while retaining the decision in his own hands aimed at reconciling them to a position in some ways parallel to that of his judicial consilium. His firm control of the army banished fears of a military tyranny. Life and property were safe. In short he had given the upper classes of the Roman world a new deal: and they were prepared to follow his lead.

 

III. PUBLIC WORKS, FINANCE, SOCIAL POLICY