Tiberius the Politician (Roman Imperial Biographies) [Paperback]

This is Prof. Levick's first imperial biography, the others being on Claudius and Vespasian. All three books are scholarly, very deeply analytical of ancient sources and evidence; they're definitely not meant to be an introduction to Roman imperial history, especially not "Tiberius the Politician".

Not being a historian myself - just a history buff - it would be a bit presumptious of me to criticise Prof. Levick's thesis too much. Basically, she sees the upheavals of Tiberius's life and career - both before and after becoming emperor - as struggles between factions with opposing views on how to approach the government of Rome from a political point of view.

Both factions recognized that the old Republican form of government had become inadequate for the vastness of Rome's armies and provinces, and that a government centred, in the last analysis, in one person - the Emperor, or, more properly at the time, Princeps (First Citizen) was needed.

However, one faction tended to see the role of the emperor as a necessary evil, preferably to be limited to controlling the legions and the provinces where their presence was needed, while leaving the machinery of the Republican constitution still running affairs in Rome, Italy and the peaceful provinces. That is, the Roman/Italian aristocracy would be supreme in Italy and the "unmilitary" provinces, with the Emperor interfering as little as possible. That vision of government, of course, left immense power to the Senate in Rome.

That vision actually corresponded to the theory of the settlement of 27 BC, when Augustus agreed to stop holding the consulship in Rome continuously and shifted the constitutional source of his authority to his provincial commands (and his tribunicial powers), so it wasn't absurt.

Another faction preferred what actually was happening under Augustus, with the Emperor exercising influence, even control, over the theoretical sphere of the Senate in Rome, Italy, and the senatorial provinces. This faction was favored by the non-senatorial plutocracy and the poor and middle classes.

So, Prof. Levick sees Tiberius as a fervorous partisan of the "senatorial" faction, while most of the imperial family of his time - his wife Julia (Augustus's daughter), Augustus's heirs Gaius and Lucius - inclining towards the "popular" faction.
According to her thesis, most of the dynastic events of Augustus's reign can be attributed to the struggle between those factions. For instance, one of the most controversial events in Tiberius's life - his voluntary exile to Rhodes - is explained as a defeated ultimatum to Augustus: stop promoting those boys, Gaius and Lucius, and let's return to a more "senatorial" form of government, or I'll retire to Rhodes.

This analysis is extended to most events in Tiberius's reign, with the "popular" faction represented by Germanicus, Agrippina, and even Sejanus (who never really managed to be seen as the leader of that faction).

I found the above analysis - which is certainly true up to a point, at least - very useful, and it leads to a better understanding of some controversial events. For instance, the debate in the Senate following Augustus's death, when Tiberius was reluctant to assume the sole government of the Empire. This has been explained as sheer hipocrisy (also by ancient authors), or as sincerity. Prof. Levick is extremely convincing when she suggests that Tiberius was actually proposing that the "senatorial" view of the imperial government should be enforced - that is, with an emperor, but also with the Senate assuming greater responsibility over its own spheres - only Tiberius failed to make himself clear enough.

Personally, I felt that this "political factions" explanation was taken a bit too far - surely sheer lust for power and personal resentments also played a role in the dynastic struggles of the Augustus-Tiberius era?

Moreover, while the book covers all aspects of Tiberius's reign, I felt that the political-struggle aspect was over-emphasized in detriment to the economic and military ones.

However, that is a hardly fair criticism, since Prof. Levick's own stated main concern was to analyse the politics behind the often puzzling events in Tiberius's life and reign. And in that she succeeds admirably.

But again, this is not a book for readers without a previous knowledge of early imperial Roman history.

As they are intrinsically linked, Augustus plays a prominent role throughout Tiberius' life and Levick's work. (As does a cavalcade of characters akin to a Hellenistic soap opera, requiring of anyone attempting to read this book a preexisting knowledge of Roman history. Not only that, Levick uses words that I'm not only unfamiliar with but that I have never even seen - case in point: "probouleutic.")

Tiberius' grooming by Augustus was to ambitious but ambiguous ends, as neither he nor any of Augustus' other adopted sons knew how high they were likely to rise in the new political structure. Besting competing factions and heirs, he served as second princeps while Augustus was still alive. Ancient sources disagree as to when he assumed command following Augustus' death, but Levick argues that it doesn't matter because his powers already equaled those of Augustus. His concern was only "legitimizing and institutionalizing the new monarchy," and a debate ensued that resulted in Tiberius' inauspicious beginnings among the senatorial class.

Just missing a series of reforms modernizing education, Tiberius studied the "classics of literature" and his resulting speech was conservative and archaic and he became a byword for obscurity. He was disliked among pleb and patrician alike and the populace "ran wild, full of ideas for disposing of the body" when he died. But Levick is less hostile than ancient peoples and sources were, and throughout the book she argues even with more modern historians as she eruditely gleans facts from ancient sources who had little concern for them.

Noting his mistakes would be inevitable and his successes met with boredom or cynicism, Tiberius, she argues, became a convenient scapegoat for those discontented with Augustus. This would of course be expected of any successor, since "it was not as clear to everyone else as it was to Cicero that the Republic had died when the First Triumvirate came into being" and it was not uncommon to believe that the Republic could continue to survive while being protected by a noble Princeps, "a senator among senators." He turned Rome "from a sham into what it purported to be," an empire, and much of his time was spent solidifying Augustus' newly established ad hoc traditions, like turning the Senate into a high court and maintaining a standing army.

Aware that individual members were dispensable while "the state went on forever," his accession to sole power made the Principate a permanency. Ultimately his impatience led to cruelty within the senate and his administering of the provinces came far behind his other responsibilities. Levick contends, however, that to the Roman people he was aware of his obligations as a noble towards his clients and throughout his princeps, even during the last 11 years during which he "retired" to the Isle of Capri, never to set foot in Rome again, he maintained his sense of duty towards them.

I came to this book in the series on Roman Emperors after reading the Rutledge bio on Caligula. That book, although a good read, was in my view a little facile in its analysis and prone to making assertions with insufficient evidence to back them up. (In the case of Caligula that may be unavoidable, given the source problem.)

Levick's book is rather better, but has its own issues. Levick's hypothesis, as pointed out in the other, excellent, Amazon review on this page, is that Tiberius's reign, so puzzling in many ways to historians, can be understood best as the story of a conservative Republican forced to take up the mantle of Emperor.

During Augustus's era, the theoretical basis of Imperial power was the ancient Tribunician power (if you've seen the series "ROME" you'll know what this is) merely giving the Emperor the power to veto legislation passed by the aristocratic Senate. The Emperor also had power over the military. In theory the Senate still governed everything else.

Through Augustus's reign, the good Emperor began to encroach more and more on the Senatorial powers. At one stage he even pretended to resign, and got the Senate to grant him consular powers. Augustus would sit physically between the two consuls and lean heavily on them to make them stay in line.

One of Tiberius's first acts was to relinquish consular power. He retained only Tribunician power (the veto), refused as many honours as he could, refused to speak at Senate meetings (for fear of injuring the legislative process) and insisting that the Senate perform its duties properly.

Levick's thesis is that Tiberius is best understood as a pro-Senatorial conservative who tried to implement Augustus's vision of the Roman Empire in what he thought its original form ought to be. Hence the seemingly hypocritical refusal of titles, the relinquishing of powers and the extreme stinginess when it came to flinging money around like a monarch.

Levick's book is well constructed. But I found it extremely dry at times. The book starts off with an excellent narrative history of the pre-reign years of Tiberius. But when Tiberius becomes emperor, Levick abandons narrative for a section-by-section analysis of what Tiberian Rome was like. This becomes tedious.

It also tends to treat the reign of Tiberius as a block. What about the dramatic events during his reign - the murder of Postumus, the seeming-murder of Germanicus. And above all the era of Sejanus, that Darth Vader of the Roman Empire who was practically emperor for several years, during the lifetime of Christ, murdering Drusus Castor the son of Tiberius and nearly overthrowing Tiberius himself, all while Tiberius was in his weird "retirement" on Capri.

What happened there? What about the sources saying the Livia pushed Tiberius into power and controlled a lot of Tiberius's policy during his early reign?

Levick's account has a good analysis backing up a well-argued thesis. But there is more to Tiberius than the politician.