ANDREAS ALFLDI ON THE ROMAN EMPEROR

AS PATER PATRIAE
Tom Stevenson
One of Andreas Alfldis most important contributions to classical scholarship was
made in regard to (what is sometimes called) the Imperial image, a topic for which
he was well suited as a keen observer of various European cults of personality
during his lifetime. He argued in particular that the Imperial title Pater Patriae
(Father of the Fatherland), which was not taken seriously at the time, was in fact
a vital clue for understanding the fundamentally charismatic and monarchic power
of the Roman emperor. This thesis has been modified substantially by subsequent
treatments, but in certain basic respects it seems to have stood the test of time.
THE IMAGE AND POWER OF THE ROMAN EMPEROR
Modern scholarship on the Imperial image has been divided between those who see
Romes emperors as Republican magistrates in essence and those who see them as
charismatic monarchs.1 Theodor Mommsen and a succession of British historians
rank among the leading proponents of the constitutionalist school, arguing that
(after the army, indisputably) the power of the emperor derived from law and Republican precedent, specifically the legal powers voted to him by the Senate at his accession and afterwards. Adherents of the charismatic school and these are really labels of convenience that cover a wide range of individual positions tend to be influenced by Max Webers view of a charismatic ruler as one whose power depends
on the conviction of his subjects that he is personally in possession of gifts or talents
essential for their well-being, yet beyond the reach of the ordinary mortal.2
Mommsen concentrated on measures with legal consequences and tended to
describe the emperor as an extraordinary Republican magistrate rather than a monarch. The emperors power was composite rather than monolithic and it derived
from the formal vote of the Senate, which served as his partner in government.3
Such an approach, often debating closely the precise details of legal precedents, has
slipped from fashion of late, but as recently as 1996 W.K. Lacey demonstrated its
value in a collection of papers which showed repeatedly the care Augustus took
1
2
3

For the basic distinction between a constitutionalist school and others, see Wallace-Hadrill
1982, esp. 33.
Wallace-Hadrill 1981, 298. For Webers views on charisma and the sheer inertia of a bureaucratic machine, see the references cited in Wallace-Hadrill 1981, 298 n. 1, esp. Gerth-Wright
Mills 1948; Eisenstadt 1968.
Mommsen 1887, II.2.77980.

188

Tom Stevenson

over his imperium.4 Peter Brunt also insisted that the emperors relied on a senatorial vote for their legal power.5
Scholars in the charismatic tradition, by contrast, point to factors such as the
details of Imperial wardrobe and presentation, arguing for a monarchic reality that
goes well beyond the togate pose of the simple citizen, the image that fits the Republican approach best. Martin Charlesworth noticed that emperors of the late Empire suggested autocratic remoteness in ways similar to Persian kings and Hellenistic monarchs. When Constantius entered Rome in AD 357 (Amm. Marc. 16.10.9
12), for example, he observed rules for statuesque deportment and impassivity in
public ritual which could be traced back to Achaemenid Persia, so that he became
almost a statue.6 More striking was research carried out in pre- and post-war
Europe by scholars who made use of Imperial images from art and coins in support
of their views. Alfldi and Stefan Weinstock were prominent among them.7
Alfldi is now recognised as a pioneer in employing numismatic evidence for
the purposes of historical analysis. Through a compelling stream of related publications he sought to demonstrate the monarchic reality of Imperial power from the
time of Caesar and Augustus onwards.8 The Republican offices and powers were
part of an elaborate faade, designed to hide the underlying monarchic reality and
facilitate the rule of the emperors in Augustus wake. Romes emperors from an
early stage were more like Hellenistic kings and later emperors of the Dominate
than Republican magistrates. They behaved autocratically and often dressed and
presented themselves as grandly as their Hellenistic predecessors and late Roman
successors. Alfldis famous studies of Imperial regalia were informed by the ways
in which a succession of European dictators surrounded themselves with evocative
symbols and trappings of power. These symbols often appeared to express the extra-legal, charismatic basis of the dictators power. Alfldi discovered that symbols
of Republican office, like the senatorial toga and boots, the sella curulis, and lictors,
were overwhelmed by the use of (e.g.) eye paint, cheek pigment, wigs, built-up
shoes, rich garments, and symbols of divine support or status. Augustus, it turned
out, wore built-up shoes, while wigs were in evidence from the reign of Caligula.9
The regalia of the emperors was often little different from that of the grandest Hellenistic kings. In essence, therefore, the emperors must have been monarchs.

4
5
6
7
8
9

Lacey 1996.
Brunt 1977; Brunt 1979; Brunt 1984b.
Charlesworth 1947, 37.
Cf. the remarks of Yavetz 1983, 3848.
For the innovative nature of Alfldis use of numismatic evidence in support of literary sources,
see Elkins 2009, 2529.
Alfldi 1934 and 1935, repr. 1970; cf. Suet. Aug. 73 (shoes); Calig. 11 (wig), 42, 52 (Gaius
dress sense); Dio 59.26.8 (Gaius wig). On the Imperial wardrobe, see also Matthews 1970.

Andreas Alfldi on the Roman Emperoras Pater Patriae

189

THE PATER PATRIAE

It was in the context of this debate about the nature of Imperial power, and about the
monarchic designs of Caesar in particular,10 that Alfldi released a set of articles
between 1950 and 1954 on the concept of the Pater Patriae. Although anticipated
in several respects by Eiliv Skard in 1933,11 these articles represent the seminal
work on the subject and were later published together as a book in 1971.12 Alfldi
did not think of power being negotiated through discourse. His experience taught
him to think of power being imposed, through force, propaganda, deception, and
the exploitation of fanatical public opinion. He came to be commenting on his
world, just as his scholarship was influenced by it. Thus he looked upon the emperor as a charismatic leader, the manifestation of societal longing for a saviour (in
some ways Christ-like) who could deliver the citizens from internal strife and civil
war. The unique Roman name for this saviour was Pater Patriae (Father of the
Fatherland). Alfldi stressed a time of heightened religious emotion and a religious
system so weak that it did not command the faith of the citizens, who accordingly
became entranced by the idea of an external transfusion in the form of a saviour. It
was conventional at the time to think that Roman religion was open to exploitation
for political purposes. Such were the extraordinary conditions under which Romans
were ready to inject great religious fervour into the idea of the Pater Patriae. Sulla,
supposedly, had already shown how to use religious mysticism to appeal to the
masses and strengthen the leaders political power.13
Alfldi, therefore, described Pater Patriae as a fundamentally charismatic concept, which had originated earlier but which came to prominence in Ciceros time
for a number of convergent reasons: as an expression of the Ciceronian political
ideal, as camouflage for the kingship desired by Caesar, since rex was unacceptable,
and above all as the culmination of contemporary messianic longing for a saviour,
a new Romulus who would found a new golden age and deliver a desperate people
from their troubles, especially the trauma of relentless civil conflict. For Mommsen,
Pater Patriae was merely a title, with little significance beyond the honorific. For
Alfldi, it was not merely a title but a fundamental idea, which acknowledged a
brand of autocracy that placed all Romes citizens under obligation to one man as
to a father. Alfldi was very interested in the emotional underpinnings of the reigns
of Caesar and Augustus in particular, and his mind, understandably in the wake of
World War Two, was highly attuned to matters of presentation and propaganda. He
understood mass hysteria, irrational emotion, oppression, and the desperation that
war can bring. The idea of the saviour, in fact, tends to dominate his pages rather
more than the idea of the father, and he did not pursue the particular resonances
and importance of the father analogy with much determination beyond the association between Pater Patriae and symbols of the saviour, e.g. the corona ciuica or
civic crown (a wreath of oak), which appeared on many coins of the early Empire
10
11
12
13

On which see the paper by Frank Kolb in this collection.

Skard 1933.
Alfldi 1971.
Christ 2002, 205210 has reacted strongly against this particular view of Alfldi.

190

Tom Stevenson

in company with the legend OB CIVES SERVATOS (for having saved the citizens). Alfldi noted its evocation of Hellenistic saviour-kings but viewed it as part
of the Republican faade of the Principate, in view of its Roman background.14 It
becomes plain through his discussion that terms like seruator, pater, conditor, custos, and deus are associated; it is not always quite clear that they relate to the new
Romulus, or why the concept of the Pater Patriae should have achieved pre-eminence from among this group.
These features of Alfldis analysis seem to have exasperated Weinstock, who
dismissed Alfldis work in curt tone, saying that very little of it relates to the problem of the (sic) Parens Patriae.15 Nevertheless, Weinstock was sympathetic to
Alfldis general approach. He too believed in the charismatic nature of the personal
leadership (principate) of Augustus, inherited from the experience and honours of
Caesar. He proceeded to dissect these honours in encyclopaedic fashion, unfortunately at the expense of a really meaningful synthesis. Caesars honours were described in relation to charismatic categories, like the founder, the saviour, the
liberator, and the father. At the time of his assassination Caesar was working on
legal recognition as the king and the god. The idea that he would have wanted or
needed such recognition from the Senate and People is by no means inevitable, but
Weinstocks thinking was literal rather than metaphorical, so that terms meant precisely what they said and there was no room for analogy. If terms like saviour and
father and god were used, they were not analogies for a brand of absolute autocracy, or attempts to describe social distance of an immense kind; they were distinctive stations of power arranged in a hierarchy culminating in king and god.
Constitutionalist thinking more understandably, given the legal arguments
likewise tended towards literalism. Indeed, in spite of the obvious differences, there
are a number of similarities between the intellectual assumptions of all these writers. Prominent among these is the legalistic notion that the great Romans were
precise in what they said, and intellectually astute. Roman thought, like the Roman
army, was a definite, disciplined entity, so that the historians job was to recover the
single, correct answer, rather than (say) the parameters of debate.16 Contradictions
in the sources were commonly thought to denote a change in meaning over time
rather than different opinions, ambiguity, or discourse. There was also a tendency to
assign charismatic elements to Eastern rather than Western culture. Skard traced the
origins of the Pater Patriae to Ciceros works but saw the idea developing at Rome
under the influence of Greek and Hellenistic political notions.17 Alfldis interest in
the charismatic emperor seems to have been awakened by reading Vergils Fourth
14 Alfldi 1952, 231243 = 1971, 6779 (Der Brgerkranz als Requisit der republikanischen
Tarnung des Prinzipats).
15 Weinstock 1971, 200 n. 4: Alfldi, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 204ff.; 10 (1953), 103ff.; 11 (1954),
133ff. (a long and very learned discussion of Caesars honours, but, in spite of the frequent
headings, very few of the 100 or so pages really concern the problem of the parens patriae).
For Alfldis muted response, see his review of Weinstock 1971: Alfldi 1975, 166.
16 In similar vein, Goldsworthy 1996, 111, 76115 has argued that numerous misconceptions
have arisen from the robotic model of the Roman army.
17 Skard 1933.

Andreas Alfldi on the Roman Emperoras Pater Patriae

191

Eclogue,18 and the character of his study owes much more to that text than to, for
example, Chapter 35.1 of Augustus Res Gestae or Chapter 58 of Suetonius Life of
Augustus, both of which describe Augustus acclamation as Pater Patriae in 2 BC.
Weinstock, to be fair, sees both Eastern and Western influences in the character of
the monarchy that Caesar was supposedly constructing, but (as many scholars have
done) he depicts Caesar orchestrating honours for himself in megalomaniacal and
calculating fashion. Caesar supposedly aimed and schemed at both kingship and
divinity quite deliberately and intricately.19 It is highly doubtful, however, that Caesar was responsible for all the matters that Weinstock lays at his door. He had neither the time nor probably the level of interest imputed to him. The trap of the biographical fallacy has ensnared many, and continues to do so. Moreover, Alfldi
and Weinstock, among others, thought in terms of a conception of power that could
be separated into political, social, religious, and other spheres, so that it becomes
legitimate to write about political power, religious power, and so on, as though the
degree of overlap between these spheres in ancient Rome was as minimal as it is in
those modern Western societies which are characterised by a sharp division between
Church and State. As anthropologists, sociologists, and historians of other cultures
are aware, this separation is extraordinary rather than normal. Hence, when dealing
with ancient Rome it is important to embrace as far as possible a concept of power
that more generally pervades society. The emperors power had consequences in
various spheres simultaneously and it is crucial to think more metaphorically or
symbolically in describing such a figure of power. He could be many things to many
people without being one correct or definitive thing to all.
WALLACE-HADRILL AND THE IDEA OF AMBIGUITY
Alfldis ideas were challenged vigorously from the start, and indeed there are obvious problems, especially with the idea that Romes citizens permitted or were
fooled by a Republican faade. On the contrary, Republican ideas continued to hold
genuine attraction for Romans of Imperial times, who were hardly gullible, and
undoubtedly understood political developments with at least the acuteness and subtlety of modern commentators. No one was playing along with a phantom or being
fooled. Everyone knew what was at stake and what was happening. There was no
faade. The Republican dimension was part of the monarchic reality.
This is where a third approach to Imperial power that of Andrew Wallace-Hadrill is helpful. Wallace-Hadrill argued that the emperors autocratic power derived from a number of sources, both legal and charismatic in character, and that the
ambiguous interface between them was the crucial point to grasp. This ambiguity
permitted the emperors power to be constructed in varying ways to fit varying so18 See Alfldi 1930.
19 E.g. Weinstock 1971, 33 (He was involved in detailed planning of his cult), 323 ([He strove
after a] sacred kingship), 412 (Caesar was not a passive recipient. The decrees often fulfilled
his expectations); cf. Yavetz 1983, 46.

192

Tom Stevenson

cial situations, such as greeting the consuls or meeting ambassadors,20 which required a sacrifice of social distance, or a ritualised, awe-inspiring appearance, where
the details of presentation would be calculated precisely to create mammoth social
distance. Careful management of this fundamental ambiguity was required both to
demonstrate the reality of Imperial power to potential competitors but also to respect the political and social sensibilities of those upon whom the emperor relied
for help in ruling the empire. The ritual of recusatio (refusal of various offices and
titles) was a prominent mechanism for demonstrating the emperors respect for the
traditional Republican social order one of senators, equites, and ordinary citizens
who had significant ties to Rome and Italy as their credentials for privileged status
in the empire.21 For Alfldi, the ciuilitas (or citizen-like character) of the emperor was a faade, enacted for the only group who really cared about it, the Senate.22 Wallace-Hadrill takes the view that senatorial ideology was not atypical
(ideology in the sense of recurring, debatable ideas rather than a programme of
thought), for the equites and Roman People also had a stake in the emperors respect for the social order that placed them at the top of the Imperial pyramid.23 It
is true that once we move past the Augustan age, to a time when the popular assemblies had lost their electoral function, the vote of Pater Patriae naturally reverted to
the Senate and tended therefore to be discussed by our lite literary sources in terms
of the emperors relationship with that body. This should not be taken to mean that
the equites and Roman People ceased to care about the concept.24
OTHER IDEAS OF THE PATER PATRIAE
The idea of ambiguity seems helpful for incorporating what appear to be contrasting images, at least to the modern mind. Yet the Romans evidently saw togate and
naked or semi-naked images as part of the monarchic whole, and not as elements
necessarily describing contrasts or potential difficulty. Indeed, there is no ambiguity
surrounding the emperors described by scholars such as Paul Veyne and Fergus
20 Cf. Plin. Pan. 71.4, where Trajan greets the consuls with a kiss.
21 Wallace-Hadrill 1982, 3235 shows that all monarchs must adopt a modest pose at times because of their mortal reality and need to communicate personally with a variety of subjects; but
cf. 3637 for recusatio as the distinctive feature of Roman monarchic style; and 48, where
underlying reasons for Imperial deference are spelt out (the continuity with the republican
past; the dependence of the emperor on the consent of the upper orders; but above all the use of
the social structure of a city-state to organize and unify the disparate peoples of the empire).
22 Alfldi 1970, 2528 on the brgerlicheinfach style.
23 It appears that the ideology of our senatorial sources was quite typical, judging from sentiments
expressed by such commentators as Marcus Aurelius and the equestrian Suetonius (cf. WallaceHadrill 1982, 36, 41, 46). Note also M. Griffins reassessment of the relationship between plebs
and princeps which finds that, contra Yavetz, it was not popularis in origin, motivation, or
form, and that aristocratic patronage of the people continued with the emperors active support:
Griffin 1991, esp. 3239 on aristocratic largesse.
24 For preservation of the popular assemblies in the Imperial period, though increasingly for ceremonial rather than electoral reasons, see Wallace-Hadrill 1982, 38. For Titus possibly hailed
Pater Patriae at the opening of the Colosseum in AD 80, see Mart. Spect. 3.1112.

Andreas Alfldi on the Roman Emperoras Pater Patriae

193

Millar, who stress untrammelled Imperial monarchy. Veynes emperor operates as

the dominant benefactor who justifies his power through the useless extravagance
of handouts and games, especially in the city of Rome.25 Millars emperor gives
much attention to embassies, petitions, and legal disputes in conformity with upper-class Greek ideals.26 Taken together, these two images relate to ideals which
might earn the epithet father, but notions of unchallenged, absolute monarchy do
not indicate why this epithet was applied.
More recent writers have tried to answer this problem by returning to the contradictions in the Imperial image or to the particular circumstances of its development over time. Meret Strothmanns comprehensive study of Augustus as Father of
the Res Publica sees Augustus reconstruction of the Roman world as the result of
a deliberate policy based on three fundamental ideas restitutio, saeculum, and
pater patriae which respectively govern the evolution of the Augustan principate
through three phases, the final one being that in which Augustus role as Father,
stemming from the conception of him as Pater Patriae, becomes institutionalised
throughout the empire.27 The restoration of order (moral and otherwise) results in
a new golden age presided over by a ruler recognised as the universal father. Strothmann attempts to show the operation of this process in four distinct geographical
spheres: Rome itself, Italy, the Eastern provinces, and the Western provinces. The
fundamental evolutionary idea is reminiscent of that adumbrated some time ago,
and convincingly, by E.T. Salmon,28 but in this case the argument has a formulaic
air about it which is worrying, as though the often unpredictable manner in which
events unfolded was in fact subject to a grand plan that worked quite smoothly. In
addition to the formulaic unfolding of events and periods, the analysis seems to
treat the idea of the Pater Patriae as one with similar evocations throughout the
Roman world, and hence taken over readily in (e.g.) the Eastern provinces. This is
doubtful, for both the pater and the patria had special meaning for Roman citizens,
and above all for citizens of Rome who were most closely exposed to Julian family
monuments. The same applies to the res publica, and it must be pointed out that no
one was ever, as far as is known, named father of the res publica. In fact, one
reason for employing the concept of the patria was probably in order to avoid any
implication that the res publica a hallowed responsibility of the entire community
had been superseded.29 Pater Patriae, then, probably had greater resonance for
Roman citizens, especially those of Rome and Italy, whereas provincials in the
25 Veyne 1976, esp. 539791 on the emperor and the capital.
26 Millar 1977; cf. Millar 1966 for the view that constitutional conceptions of the emperor tend
to reflect senatorial and Romano-centric literary sources looking out, whereas the cultural
framework of the empire really requires the perspective of the Greek world looking in. For
monarchy under Augustus, see Millar 1973, esp. 67 (= 2002, 243270, esp. 269270); MillarSegal 1984. On Millar 1977, see Hopkins 1978.
27 Strothmann 2000.
28 Salmon 1956.
29 Takcs 2009, 3236 argues a view to the contrary, viz. that Parens Patriae suggests the initiation of a new political order by Caesar (36), but this is by no means inevitable, for it carries no
necessary implication, explicit or otherwise, that the res publica has been supplanted or otherwise diminished.

194

Tom Stevenson

Eastern and Western parts of the empire probably understood the concept in terms
of related ideas and ideals.
This doubt applies similarly to the careful argument of Clifford Ando that provincials soon caught on to promotion of the emperor as Pater Patriae and sought to
have the idea applied throughout the empire.30 Ando contributes the excellent suggestion that Pater Patriae should be seen as a role for the emperor to play, viz. that
of protector, virtuous model, and moral arbiter. This role understandably appealed
to the provincials, who consequently sought to ensure its operation in their territories. Hence they began to acknowledge and claim Augustus and his successors as
their father too. Pater Patriae consequently became merely pater (since no qualification was needed for an empire-wide concept) or pater omnium. The concern
here is that the inscriptions adduced by Ando, particularly those from the East,
probably support the view that the provincials saw something important for the
Romans rather than themselves in Pater Patriae, which is normally rendered
in Greek.31 Use of the father analogy without qualification in rhetorical and historical sources has significant precedents in Hellenistic and earlier times,
so that inhabitants of the Eastern provinces in particular were probably trying to
align the concept with age-old understandings of the ideal benefactor, whose selfless and protective behaviour could lead to praise as a father. As time passed, other
processes, such as the influence of Imperial panegyric in the wake of the younger
Pliny, and the extension of Roman citizenship, inevitably served to promote the
image of the emperor as father to an empire-wide family. This image, moreover,
was never as prominent or controversial or even fundamental as it was in the period
of transition from aristocratic to monarchic rule, when the unique form Pater Patriae served as an important element in political discourse and ritual behaviour.
Beth Severy believes that Augustus established his rule by employing the institutions and resources of the Julian family among them relatives, friends, clients,
and slaves.32 This was natural and traditional behaviour for Roman noble families
and was not originally aimed at establishing a dynasty (Principate), whatever the
effect later became. Hence Augustus role as pater in a positive cultural sense, not
as a figure endowed with patria potestas was a natural concomitant of this procedure. This thesis is attractive in general terms, but it tends to omit the complicated
and highly relevant prehistory, and it seems unlikely that Romes citizens looked
upon Augustus brand of personal leadership (principate) as no great departure from
traditional, Republican practice.
Some interpretations have been more idiosyncratic. Jean Gag, taking his cue
from a tradition about Fabius Maximus (e.g. Livy 22.29) and using the Res Gestae
to show a link between external conquest and internal patronage of the Roman People, saw the idea of the Pater Patriae as a development of the emperors triumphal
patronage of conquered peoples.33 Anton von Premerstein, who was interested in
the social aspect of the Pater Patriae concept, argued that it originated from the
30
31
32
33

Ando 2000, 398405 (The Father of the Human Race).

See Ando 2000, 403404 for the inscriptions.
Severy 2003.
Livy 22.29.1011; Plut. Fab. 13.69; Val. Max. 5.2.4; Sil. Ital. 7.732750; ILS 56; Gag 1957.

Andreas Alfldi on the Roman Emperoras Pater Patriae

195

Roman system of clientela. The clients formed part of the patrons household and
hence understandably honoured their patron as a father.34 Other scholars, implicitly privileging legal measures, have either demeaned the idea of Pater Patriae for
its lack of power or sought to invest it with legal significance. Harold Mattingly
thought that it denoted no special competence, but was the highest mark of honour
the state could confer.35 In similar vein, Mason Hammond viewed Pater Patriae
in titular terms as a token of popular esteem that added nothing to the powers of
the emperor.36 A.H.M. Jones simply dismissed it as a harmless and ornamental
title.37 Jean Branger accorded the title a routine role in Imperial accession rituals,38 whereas for Salmon, [o]ther honours were of greater importance.39 R.A.
Bauman, on the other hand, argued that the emperors status as Pater Patriae was
called into play when considering maiestas or treason offences under the Principate. Violations of the personal majesty of the Pater Patriae, he believed, were
treated as maiestas or punished under the provisions of the crime of parricide (parricidium) when maiestas was suspended.40 This theory has not been supported,
especially among those who find it hard to believe that maiestas was ever suspended as a statute,41 but it does underline the fluid identification between emperor
and state which remains a highly ambivalent area in Imperial ideology.
Such reactions show the difficulties which scholars have encountered in understanding the Pater Patriae idea, surely because of its ambivalence: a monarchical
non-monarch, a familial head of state, the family member with absolute authority in
traditional conceptions. Among the scholars so far surveyed, there is little agreement as to whether Pater Patriae was a powerful element or not, whether it was
imbued with some form of legal power or merely an honorific title of only moral
significance. Wallace-Hadrill would see its ambivalence or flexibility as a major
strength, and his approach creates new possibilities for interpretation. Indeed, Pater
Patriae seems to act as a bridge between the constitutional and the charismatic
spheres, for it appears regularly in conjunction with Republican offices and powers
on (e.g.) inscriptions and coins, though it is quite unlike them in character. This in
turn supports the view that it is a much undervalued ingredient of the Imperial ideology, even perhaps a pivotal element, as Alfldi thought.

34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

von Premerstein 1937.

BMCRE I, cxvi.
Hammond 1933, 111; Hammond 1959, 89.
Jones 1951, 117.
Branger 1953, 276278, cf. 137169 on the ritual of refusal.
Salmon 1968, 131.
Bauman 1967, 235245; Bauman 1974, esp. 1314, 7475, 215219.
Oost 1969, 206 n. 1 (purely honorary); Seager 1976, 231; Brunt 1984a; Crook 1987.

196

Tom Stevenson

MONARCHIC DISCOURSE
A way forward has been forged by applying the idea of monarchic discourse, aimed
in each instance at creating useful social meaning.42 This appears to be one way to
probe the points of ambiguity underlined by Wallace-Hadrill, at which contradictions meet and are negotiated or understood. Scholars who embrace this idea place
new importance on debate going on at the level of moral justification and point out
that paternal and familial imagery were much employed in discourse concerning
the proper conduct of social relations and the behaviour of the ideal ruler, who
should (e.g.) act like a gentle father rather than a cruel tyrant. In particular, it has
been shown how analogies, especially paternal and familial ones, were used at
times of stress to articulate and ameliorate powerful political and social tensions.
Barry Strauss and Mark Griffith, for instance, have applied this approach with success to Athens of the fifth century BC.43 Their findings seem highly applicable to
Rome too, for it is plain that the concept of the Pater Patriae was most prominent
during the late Republican and early Imperial periods, probably the most intense
time of political and social tension and change in Roman history, during which
monarchy was both imposed and negotiated in an environment that was often extremely hostile to the idea of autocratic power. Alfldi relegates a section on Greek
forerunners to a point near the end of his study.44 Certainly, he employs comparative material regularly, but his treatment of the Greek evidence makes it hard for
him to give full value to the element of political, especially monarchic discourse.
Romans seem not to have engaged in political philosophy to the same extent as the
Greeks, but this does not mean that they were reluctant or unable to engage in political debate, and they certainly undertook social debate with political overtones,
through genres such as declamation. Moreover, paternal and familial themes arise
continuously throughout Roman literature, history, and law. Such themes appear at
times to be so prominent that one could be forgiven for thinking that Roman society
was absolutely obsessed with them. Perhaps the Romans did have a unique propensity to employ paternal imagery in circumstances of problematic authority. In comparison to Greek norms, many more Roman gods appear to have acquired the epithet Pater, as indeed do many goddesses have that of Mater.45 Polybius was aware
of a remarkably powerful Roman way of measuring loyalty to the state in relation
to paternal pietas.46 Yet obsession is related to perceptions of threat, and it seems
that aristocratic authority was indeed under constant pressure. The great political
and social changes which attended Romes rise to empire presented members of the
lite with ongoing challenges and eventually resulted in civil war and the overthrow
of the aristocratic system of government. Employment of the concept of the Pater
Patriae, therefore, seems to be another example, enacted in highly difficult circumstances, of the employment of paternal imagery to frame authority in a mutually
42
43
44
45
46

Roller 2001 is a prime example of what can be achieved.

Strauss 1993; Griffith 1998.
Alfldi 1954, 140145 = 1971, 110115; cf. 1952, 213 = 1971, 49; cf. Skard 1933, 4967.
Skard 1933, 4549.
Plb. 6.54.

Andreas Alfldi on the Roman Emperoras Pater Patriae

197

acceptable manner. For Richard Saller, emperors who claimed the role of Pater
Patriae were representing themselves as non-exploitative figures of benign authority looking after the best interests of their subjects.47 Of course, acceptance of
monarchy at Rome required acceptance of the idea that monarchy was the alternative to civil war; it also required satisfaction of the material needs of the emperors
supporters, especially senators, equites, and Roman citizens. Recognition of the
basic importance of the emperors control of overwhelming force and material resources, however, does not thereby undermine the capacity for persuasive ideology
to influence behaviour and in fact be constitutive of political and social systems, as
Matthew Roller has shown.48
My own work in this field began by treating Pater Patriae as a political idea
which became an important means for negotiating and accepting personal pre-eminence and subsequently autocracy at Rome. Yet it was obvious from the beginning that the idea had significance in political, social, and religious fields, so that a
broad approach to analysing its significance was needed. Alfldi seemed to be right
about the idea relating to a brand of charismatic monarchy, but in my view both the
idea and the autocratic power on which it depended were wholly available from
Roman sources. Alfldis emphasis on the messianic nature of Pater Patriae implying an outside imposition from Eastern sources at the behest of extraordinary
popular fervour did not seem inevitable. In fact, although the degree of popular
fervour might perhaps have been considerable in the first century BC, Pater Patriae
nonetheless seems consistently to have been available from Roman sources and
institutions. This in turn helps to explain the endurance of the idea through subsequent Roman history. Of course, it had greatest resonance during the transition from
Republic to Empire and thus emerges as one outstanding product of the tensions
which accompanied the rise of monarchy and the suppression of oligarchy during
this period.49 In comparison to earlier treatments, then, my aim has always been to
describe Pater Patriae as an idea based on analogy, and to treat the evocations of
Pater Patriae more comprehensively, by studying how paternal ideas and roles
operated in Roman politics, society, and religion. I hope ultimately in a book-length
treatment to be able to describe the particular meanings of Pater Patriae more fully
than earlier treatments, many of which are admittedly schematic or generalising in
nature.
CONCLUSION
In spite of substantial developments in scholarship in this field, Alfldis influence
remains profound. His conception of the Roman emperors as monarchs rather than
Republican magistrates is probably the prevailing opinion, and certainly the Pater
Patriae continues to be understood in terms that are basically monarchic and charismatic. Certainly few now think in terms of a Republican faade, the concepts of
47 Saller 1994, 151.
48 Roller 2001, esp. 262.
49 Stevenson 1992, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2013.

198

Tom Stevenson

analogy and political discourse have become powerful, and Pater Patriae is described in less messianic and foreign terms than was once the case. There has been
both change and continuity in this field, as is the scholarly norm. The important
point is that Alfldis arguments have been modified rather than overturned or dismissed, and his work is still required reading. This marks his studies as fundamental
in the field, and as providing the foundations from which many of us continue to
proceed.

Andreas Alfldi on the Roman Emperoras Pater Patriae

199

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alfldi 1930: A. Alfldi, Der neue Weltherrscher der vierten Ekloge Vergils, Hermes 68 (1930),
369384.
Alfldi 1934: id., Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells, MDAIR 49 (1934), 1118.
Alfldi 1935: id., Insignien und Tracht der rmischen Kaiser, MDAIR 50 (1935), 3158.
Alfldi 1950: id., Die Geburt der kaiserlichen Bildsymbolik. Kleine Beitrge zu ihrer Entstehungsgeschichte. 1. Der Traum der Rea, MH 7 (1950), 113 (= Alfldi 1971, 113).
Alfldi 1951: id., Die Geburt der kaiserlichen Bildsymbolik. Kleine Beitrge zu ihrer Entstehungsgeschichte. 2. Der neue Romulus, MH 8 (1951), 190215 (= Alfldi 1971, 1439).
Alfldi 1952: id., Die Geburt der kaiserlichen Bildsymbolik. Kleine Beitrge zu ihrer Entstehungsgeschichte. 3. Parens patriae, MH 9 (1952), 204243 (= Alfldi 1971, 4079).
Alfldi 1953: id., Die Geburt der kaiserlichen Bildsymbolik. 3. Parens patriae. (I. Teil, Schlu),
MH 10 (1953), 103124 (= Alfldi 1971, 80111).
Alfldi 1954: id., Die Geburt der kaiserlichen Bildsymbolik. 3. Parens patriae. (II. Teil, Die griechischen, monarchischen und religisen Aspekte des Landesvaterbegriffes), MH 11 (1954), 133
169 (= Alfldi 1971, 112138).
Alfldi 1970: id., Die monarchische Reprsentation im rmischen Kaiserreiche, Darmstadt 1970.
Alfldi 1971: id., Der Vater des Vaterlandes im rmischen Denken, Darmstadt 1971.
Alfldi 1975: id., review of Weinstock 1971, Gnomon 47 (1975), 155179.
Ando 2000: C. Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, Berkeley 2000.
Bauman 1967: R.A. Bauman, The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate, Johannesburg 1967.
Bauman 1974: id., Impietas in Principem: A Study of Treason Against the Roman Emperor with
Special Reference to the First Century AD, Munich 1974.
Branger 1953: J. Branger, Recherches sur laspect idologique du principat, Basle 1953.
Brunt 1977: P.A. Brunt, Lex de Imperio Vespasiani, JRS 67 (1977), 95116.
Brunt 1979: id., Divine Elements in the Imperial Office, review of J.R. Fears, Princeps a Diis
Electus, JRS 69 (1979), 168175.
Brunt 1984a: id., Did Emperors Ever Suspend the Law of Maiestas?, in Sodalitas: Scritti in onore
di Antonio Guarino, Naples 1984, vol. 1, 469480.
Brunt 1984b: id., The Role of the Senate in the Augustan Regime, CQ 34 (1984), 423444.
Charlesworth 1947: M.P. Charlesworth, Imperial Deportment: Two Texts and Some Questions,
JRS 37 (1947), 3438.
Christ 2002: K. Christ, Sulla. Eine rmische Karriere, Munich 2002.
Crook 1987: J.A. Crook, Was there a Doctrine of Manifest Guilt in the Roman Criminal Law?,
PCPS 33 (1987), 3852.
Eisenstadt 1968: S.N. Eisenstadt (ed.), On Charisma and Institution Building, Chicago-London 1968.
Elkins 2009: N.T. Elkins, Coins, Contexts, and an Iconographic Approach for the 21st Century, in
H.-M. von Kaenel-F. Kemmers (eds.), Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds, Mainz 2009, 2546.
Gag 1957: J. Gag, Les Clientles triomphales de la Rpublique romaine propos dun aspect du
principat dAuguste, RH 218 (1957), 131.
Gerth-Wright Mills 1948: H.H. Gerth-C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology,
London 1948.
Goldsworthy 1996: A. Goldsworthy, The Roman Army at War, 100 BC-AD 200, Oxford 1996.
Griffin 1991: M. Griffin, Urbs Roma, Plebs and Princeps, in L. Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire
(Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 122), Sheffield 1991, 1946.
Griffith 1998: M. Griffith, The King and Eye: The Role of the Father in Greek Tragedy, PCPS 44
(1998), 2084.
Hammond 1933: M. Hammond, The Augustan Principate in Theory and Practice During the JulioClaudian Period, Cambridge, Mass. 1933.
Hammond 1959: M. Hammond, The Antonine Monarchy, Rome 1959.

200

Tom Stevenson

Hopkins 1978: K. Hopkins, review of Millar 1977, JRS 68 (1978), 178186.

Jones 1951: A.H.M. Jones, The Imperium of Augustus, JRS 41 (1951), 112119.
Lacey 1996: W.K. Lacey, Augustus and the Principate, Leeds 1996.
Matthews 1970: K.D. Matthews, The Imperial Wardrobe of Ancient Rome, Expedition 12 (1970),
213.
Millar 1966: F. Millar, The Emperor, the Senate, and the Provinces, JRS 56 (1966), 156166.
Millar 1973: id., Triumvirate and Principate, JRS 63 (1973), 5067 (= Millar 2002, 241270).
Millar 1977: id., The Emperor in the Roman World 31 BC 337 AD, London 1977.
Millar 2002: id., Rome, the Greek World, and the East, Volume 1: The Roman Republic and the Augustan Revolution, eds. H. M. Cotton-G.M. Rogers, Chapel Hill 2002.
Millar-Segal 1984: F. Millar-E. Segal (eds.), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, Oxford 1984.
Mommsen 1887: Th. Mommsen, Rmisches Staatsrecht, 3 vols., Leipzig 1887 (repr. Basle 1952).
Oost 1969: S.I. Oost, review of Bauman 1967, CP 64 (1969), 205206.
Roller 2001: M.B. Roller, Constructing Autocracy: Aristocrats and Emperors in Julio-Claudian
Rome, Princeton-Oxford 2001.
Saller 1994: R.P. Saller, Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family, Cambridge 1994.
Salmon 1956: E.T. Salmon, The Evolution of Augustus Principate, Historia 5 (1956), 456478.
Salmon 1968: id., A History of the Roman World from 30 BC to AD 138, London-New York 19686.
Seager 1976: R. Seager, review of Bauman 1974, JRS 66 (1976), 230231.
Severy 2003: B. Severy, Augustus and the Family at the Beginning of the Principate, Berkeley 2003.
Skard 1933: E. Skard, Pater Patriae: zum Ursprung einer religis-politischen Idee, Festskrift til
Halvdan Koht, Oslo 1933, 4270.
Stevenson 1992: T. Stevenson, The Ideal Benefactor and the Father Analogy in Greek and Roman
Thought, CQ 42 (1992), 421436.
Stevenson 1996: id., Social and Psychological Interpretations of Graeco-Roman Religion: Some
Thoughts on the Ideal Benefactor, Antichthon 30 (1996), 118.
Stevenson 1998: id., The Divinity of Caesar and the title Parens Patriae, in T.W. Hillard-R.A.
Kearsley-C.E.V. Nixon-A.M. Nobbs (eds.), Ancient History in a Modern University: Proceedings in Honour of Professor E.A. Judge, I, Grand Rapids-Cambridge 1998, 257268.
Stevenson 2000: id., Parens Patriae and Livys Camillus, Ramus 29 (2000), 2746.
Stevenson 2007: id., Roman Coins and Refusals of the Title Pater Patriae, NC 167 (2007), 119141.
Stevenson 2008: id., Tyrants, Kings and Fathers in the Philippics, in T.R. Stevenson-M.J. Wilson
(eds.), Ciceros Philippics: History, Rhetoric and Ideology (= Prudentia, vols. 37 and 38),
Auckland 2008, 95113.
Stevenson 2009: id., Acceptance of the Title Pater Patriae in 2 BC, in L. Watson-P. Watson (eds.),
Roman Byways: Papers from a Conference in Memory of Charles Tesoriero (= Antichthon, vol.
43), Sydney 2009, 97108.
Stevenson 2013: id., The Succession Planning of Augustus, in P. Burton (ed.), Papers for Erich
Gruen (= Antichthon, vol. 47), Sydney 2013, 118139.
Strauss 1993: B. Strauss, Fathers and Sons in Athens: Ideology and Society in the Era of the Peloponnesian War, London 1993.
Strothmann 2000: M. Stroothman, Augustus Vater der Res Publica. Zur Funktion der drei Begriffe
restitutio saeculum pater patriae im augusteischen Principat, Stuttgart 2000.
Takcs 2009: S.A. Takcs, The Construction of Authority in Ancient Rome and Byzantium, Cambridge 2009.
Veyne 1976: P. Veyne, Le pain et le cirque, Paris 1976 (reissued as Bread and Circuses, abridged
with an introduction by O. Murray, trans. B. Pearce, Harmondsworth 1990).
von Premerstein 1937: A. von Premerstein, Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats, Munich 1937.
Wallace-Hadrill 1981: A. Wallace-Hadrill, The Emperor and his Virtues, Historia 30 (1981), 298
325.
Wallace-Hadrill 1982: id., Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King, JRS 72 (1982), 3248.
Weinstock 1971: S. Weinstock, Divus Julius, Oxford 1971.
Yavetz 1983: Z. Yavetz, Julius Caesar and his Public Image, London 1983.