The Pomerial Extension of Augustus

Author(s): M. T. Boatwright
Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 35, No. 1 (1st Qtr., 1986), pp. 13-27
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435947 .
Accessed: 25/03/2011 22:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org
 THE POMERIAL EXTENSION OF AUGUSTUS

Most aspects of Rome's pomerium, the sacred boundary of the city, are
meagerly documented and open to controversy; this is particularly true of the
pomerial extension attributed to Augustus by Tacitus, Cassius Dio and.the vita
Aureliani of the Historia Augusta, and dated by Dio to 8 B. C. The silence of
all other possible sources including Augustus' Res gestae, the lex de imperio
Vespasiani, and literary works such as Suetonius' biography of Augustus, had
led most scholars to reject the positive testimonies for Augustus' act and to
conclude that Augustus never extended the pomerium.' Although this
conclusion is probably correct, the alleged pomerial extension deserves further
investigation for the questions it raises concerning the origin of the erroneous
tradition about it and for the meaning of the pomerium in the Principate.
At first sight the sources attesting Augustus' extension seem trustworthy.
Tacitus' general credibility is matched by the facts that Dio is our most prolific
source on the pomerium, and that much of the latter's detailed information is
corroborated elsewhere.2 The vita Aureliani of the HA has been recently
' Those who deny an Augustan extension include: T. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht
(Leipzig 1887) I1 1035 note 2, 1072; C. Hulsen, in CIL VI, p. 3106; H. Jordan, "Das Pomerium
der Stadt," Hermes 2 (1867) 410; D. Detlefsen, "Das Pomerium Roms und die Grenzen Italiens,"
Hermes 21 (1886) 516-17; M. Labrousse, "Le Pomerium de la Rome imperiale," MEFR 54 (1937)
167-68 (with other earlier bibliography); A. von Blumenthal, s. v. Pomerium, RE 21 1 (1952)
1873-74; and P. A. Brunt, "Lex de Imperio Vespasiani,"JRS 67 (1977) 104 n. 47. G. Lugli, Fontes
ad Topographiam Veteris Urbis Romae Pertinentes I (Rome 1952) 127, doubts it seriously, and the
main champion of an Augustan pomerium, J. H. Oliver in "The Augustan Pomerium," MAAR 10
(1932) 145-82, is unconvincing on archaeological criteria. Nevertheless, some scholars accept
unquestioningly the pomerial extension of Augustus: see n. 19 below. The lack of good
archaeological or epigraphical evidence for the pomerium throughout its history makes the
topographical determination of it almost impossible: see, e. g., S. B. Platner and T. Ashby, A
Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford 1929) s. v. Pomerium, 392-96; Labrousse,
passim; and for a more recent attempt, F. Coarelli, "La porta trionfale e la via dei trionfi,"
DiwlArch2 (1968) 66-68. The topography of the various pomerial lines will not be discussed in this
paper. Throughout this paper I cite Tacitus' Annals in the third Teubner edition of E. Koestermann
(Leipzig 1971); Cassius Dio from the Loeb edition by E. W. Cary (London and New York
1914-1927); and the Scriptores HistoYiae Augustae (henceforth HA) in the Teubner edition of
E. Hohl (corrected by C. Samberger and W. Seyfarth) (Leipzig 1971). H. Mattingly, Coins of the
Roman Empire in the British Museum ... (London 1923 ..... ) is hereafter abbreviated as BMC,
Emp.
2 The sources for the pomerium are collected most conveniently in Lugli (above, n. 1) 115-31;

and are also found in von Blumenthal (above, n. 1) 1867-76, although this latter is inaccurate in
details (e. g., he dates Dio 55.6.6 to 7, not 8, B. C.). Labrousse's thorough discussion, (above, n. 1),
reaches the untenable conclusion that the pomerium functioned as a custom border during the
principate.

Historia, Band XXXV/1 (1986) ?) Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart
14 M. T. BOATWRIGHT

shown to be relatively reliable.3 The information concerning Augustus'

pomerial extension, therefore, should not be unthinkingly dismissed. Further-
more, Rome's pomerium was undoubtedly important during the Principate.
Tacitus cites Augustus' act as precedent for Claudius' pomerial extension of 47/
48, which inscribed pomerial cippi and other evidence independently docu-
ment. Inscriptions also reveal a pomerial extension by Vespasian and Titus in
75, and a restoration of their pomerium by Hadrian in 121. Aurelian's
biographer claims that this third-century princeps also extended the pomerium.
Yet according to Dio, the Augustan constitutional settlement made obsolete
the pomerium's traditional meaning. The full significance of the various
rearrangements of the pomerium during the Principate is as yet poorly
understood.
As we shall see below, evaluation of the literary and documentary testimony
suggests that Claudius himself was responsible both for the tradition
concerning Augustus' pomerial extension, and for a perhaps new but decidedly
emphatic association of pomerial extensions with the expansion of Roman
territory. This erudite antiquarian played up both elements of the pomerium's
"history" in his political program, and they thus passed into the historical
tradition about Rome's sacred boundary. Vespasian and Titus later stressed the
pomerium's association with Roman territorial expansion as they sought to
legitimize the Flavian rule; Hadrian's unparalleled pomerial restoration
evoked Rome's origins and religious traditions. All three "post-Augustan"
alterations of the pomerium took place, moreover, within two years of
censuses or in conjunction with a physical change in the city, a coincidence
that will be seen to explain Dio's reference to an Augustan pomerial extension.
In the fourth century Claudius' two-fold emphasis was reaffirmed when
Aurelian's biographer recounts an otherwise unknown pomerial extension by
Aurelian in an obvious comparison of Aurelian to the glorious principes of
Roman history.
Most of the physical and many of the other aspects of Rome's pomerium
were poorly known and apparently insignificant even in antiquity. Although it
was generally agreed that Romulus established the first pomerium with rituals
originally Etruscan, the trace of his city boundary was as uncertain as the lines
of subsequent extensions, and a supposedly original correspondence of
pomerium and city wall was early overlooked or forgotten.4 The discrepancy

' T. D. Barnes, The Sourcesof the "Historia Augusta" (Collection Latomus 155; Brussels 1978)
30 and 96.
' Plut. Rom. 11.2-4: Gell. NA 13.14.1-2; Varro. Ling. 5.143; Dion. Hal. 1.88; Livy 1.44.4-5;
Suet. frag. P. 313 R. To my knowledge only A. 0. Citarella, "Cursus Triumphalis and Sulcus
Primigenius," ParPass 195 (1980) 402 n. 4, disagrees with an Etruscan origin for the pomerium.
H. B. Evans, "The Romulean Gates of the Palatine," AJA 84 (1980) 96, convincingly argues that
the Romulean pomerium had nothing to do with any fortifications or defensive walls constructed
 The Pomerial Extension of Augustus 15

between the inhabited city and the much smaller area under urban auspices was
equally obscure (Gell. NA 13.14), as indeed much of the pomerium's line may
have been. No inscribed pomerial markers have been found predating those of
Claudius, despite Varro's statement that in his day cippi marked the city's
boundary (Ling. 5.143).' Although supervision of the pomerium fell to the
augurs, there seems to have been no public record of who was responsible for
the enlargements of Rome's pomerium or at what times, and such enlargements
themselves may have been of little consequence.6 Even the etymology of the
word pomerium was variously interpreted,7 though this and other such
questions seem to have been of interest only to the antiquarians of Rome.
In contrast, the religious, political and juridical functions of the pomerium
were extremely important in the Republic. The pomerium was the sacred and
ritually defined boundary separating the area under urban auspices from all
land outside the city.8 Magistrates had to retake their auspices when they
crossed the pomerium, and the demarcation of tribunician power and
imperium was associated with it.9 As grants and usurpations of extraordinary

for Rome's community before the erection of the "Servian" wall. For the distinction of pomerium
and murus, see (e. g.) Jordan (above, n. 1) 409; and T. Mommsen, Romische Forschungen II (Berlin
1879) 26-27.
Tacitus speaks of cippi when he describes the course of the original pomerium (a foro boario
certis spatiis interiecti lapidesper ima montis Palaticn>i . .., Ann. 12.24). Oliver (above, n. 1)
175, considers this note anachronistic, apparently because he is thinking only of inscribed cippi.
6 Cicero, an augur, expressly denies that the Etruscans had a special claim to pomerial law:
Div. 2.35.75. For the association of the college of augurs and the pomerium, see von Blumenthal
(above, n. 1) 1873, and A. Magdelain, "L'Inauguration de l'urbs et l'imperium," MEFR 89 (1977)
11-29. Tacitus' brief comment about pomerial extensions after the very earliest line, mox pro
fortuna pomerium a<u>ctum (Ann. 12.24.2) may reflect a general indifference about the matter;
indeed, only the following are said to have extended the pomerium before the imperial period:
Titus Tatius? (Tac. Ann. 12.24); Servius Tullius (Livy 1.44.3; Dion. Hal. 4.13.3; Gell. NA 13.14.4);
Sulla (Sen. Brev. Vit. 13.8; Tac. Ann. 12.23.2; Gell. NA 13.14.4; Dio 43.50.1); and Caesar (Dio
43.50.1 ; 44.49.1 ; Gell. NA 13.14.4; cf. Cic. ad Att. 13.20.1 ; 13.33.4; 13.35.1). Caesar's pomerial
extension is rejected by Mommsen, Rom. Staatsr. 738; as also by Oliver, (above, n. 1) 148, 178-79,
although most commentators accept it: e. g., M. T. Griffin, "De Brevitate Vitae," JRS 52 (1962)
109-10; Labrousse (above, n. 1) 168; and Jordan (above, n. 1) 410. The act corresponds well with
Caesar's self-portrayal as Romulus, a new founder of the city, a role Sulla also assumed. See
S. Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford 1971) 175-79.
' R. Antaya, "The Etymology of Pomerium," AJP 101 (1980) 184-89, summarizes the ancient
and modern views, to conclude that the Romans writing about the pomerium had only "the
foggiest idea" of their subject, and that the word is of Indo-European origin.
8 Varro, Ling. 5.143; Livy 1.44.4-5; cf. Cic. Div. 2.35.75 and Livy 1.26.6 and 11; Gell. NA

13.14.
9 Cic. Nat. D. 2.4.11; Div. 1.17.33; Livy 42.49.1-3; Dion. Hal. 7.87.6-7; Livy 3.20.6-7; cf.
Cic. Leg. 2.23.58; Tac. Ann. 3.19; Gell. NA 15.27.4-5; App. BCiv. 2.31.123; Dio 51.19.6. For the
relationship of imperium and pomerium (i. e., the limitation of urban auspices), see the excellent
remarks by A. Magdelain, Recherches sur I"'irmperium",la loi curiate et les auspices d'investiture
(Paris 1968) 58-72. There is some dispute over exactly where the tribunes' power ended, for Dio
16 M. T. BOATWRIGHT

powers became alarmingly frequent in the last century of the Republic, these
functions came into greater prominence. The restrictions were used to curtail
individuals' power (such as that of the tribune Curio in 50 B. C.: App. BCiv.
2.31.123), and were explained in detail in new types of priestly literature.
M. Valerius Messala (Rufus, cos. 53), for example, an augur for fifty years,
wrote books on the pomerium and auspices.'?
The constitutional settlements of Augustus, however, eradicated the vital
role the pomerium had assumed in the preceding century. According to Dio,
who may here turn to specialized literature like that noted above, the
extraordinary powers and honors voted the first princeps enabled Augustus to
exercise his tribunician rights outside the city, and his imperium within the
pomerium. (This information will be discussed below.) Although no other
source attests these changes, the traditional functions of Rome's pomerium
henceforth fade into insignificance. Only three times later does the sacred
boundary seem to resume its religious and political functions. Tiberius in 7
B. C., Drusus in A. D. 17, and Vespasian and Titus in 71, all retook their
auspices before entering the city in ovations and triumphs. Tradition and
anachronism, however, were the hallmarks of such celebrations."1
Paradoxically, the very anachronism of the pomerium helps explain the
emphasis on Rome's sacred boundary in the Principate. In A. D. 49 Claudius
extended the pomerium, an act evidenced not only by inscribed pomerial cippi
but also by other varied sources. Tacitus notes the extension as he records
Senatorial business of that year, and he appends to the note a digression
mentioning as Claudius' precedents Sulla and Augustus and discussing the
meaning and Romulean history of Rome's sacred boundary (Ann.
12. 3.2- 4. 12

(51.19.6) says that it normally ended at the pomerium, and Livy (3.20.6-7), one mile beyond. See
R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy, Books 1-5 (Oxford 1965) ad loc., p. 432; and below, n. 36.
0 W. S. Teuffel, History of Roman Literature 1, rev. L. Schwabe, Eng. trans., G. C. Warr

(London 1891) 347-49; M. Schanz and C. Hosius, Geschichte der rom. Literatur 1, 4th ed.
(Munich 1927) 598-600. For more information on the man, see R. Hanslik, s. v. M. Valerius
Messala Rufus, RE 8 Al (1955) no. 268, cots. 166-69; and for his work on the pomerium and
auspices, see Gell. NA 13.14.5, 13.15.3; and Fest. pp. 476, 22; 154, 2 L. A few others later wrote
similar works: for example, L. Antistius Vetus the augur: L. Herrmann, 'L. Antistius Vetus et le
pomerium," REL 26 (1948) 225-27.
" Tiberius: Dio 51.19.6; Drusus: Tac. Ann. 3.19; Vespasian and Titus: Jos. BJ 7.123. See too
R. Syme, "Imperator Caesar. A Study in Nomenclature," Historia 7 (1958) 172-88; Mommsen,
Rom. Staatsr. 659-62; and W. Ehlers, s. v. Triumphus, RE 7 Al (1939) 493-511.
12 et pomerium urbis auxit Caesar, more prisco, quo uis,qui protulere imperium etiam terminos

urbis propagare datur. nec tamen duces Romani, quamquam magnis nationibus subactis,
usurpaverant nisi L. Sulla et divus Augustus. regum in eo ambitio vel gloria varne vulgata. sed
initium condendi, et quodpomerium Romulusposuerit, noscerebaud absurdum reor.... (Hereupon
Tacitus describes the course of Romulus' pomerium.) ... forumque Romanum et Capitolium non a
 The PomerialExtensionof Augustus 17

Although Tacitus expressly refers us in 12.24 to the otherwise unidentified

acta publica for details about Claudius' pomerial line, it is commonly and
justifiably assumed that Claudius himself was Tacitus' ultimate source for this
excursus of two chapters on the pomerium. E. Hahn, R. Syme, E. Koester-
mann and others believe that Tacitus draws upon Claudius' speech to the
Senate on the pomerial extension, preserved either in the acta senatus or by
another historian. Since these scholars assume the historical veracity of Tacitus,
but consider Tacitus' report of Augustus' extension erroneous (primarily ex
silentio), they imputethe presumed mistake to Claudius.13
Despite the apparent authority of Claudius, their conclusions must be valid.
At first sight the earliest of the three references to an Augustan pomerial
extension seems credible. Claudius had been an augur for most of his life, and
the augurate was the priestly office particularly associated with the pomerium
(cf. e. g., Gell. NA 13.14,5-6); the act which he was citing as precedent was in
the recent past, and he was famous for both his exhaustive historical research
and his admiration of Augustus."4 On the other hand, it is well known that
Claudius was not above manipulating historical knowledge in order to tie
himself more closely with the first princeps.
As censor in 47/48 and emphasizing his predecessor Augustus, Claudius
celebrated the Secular Games that Augustus had held only 64 years earlier. He
publicly announced that Augustus had anticipated the regular interval (of 100
years), and in his historical works he exonerated his exemplar from any
miscalculation (Suet. Cl. 21.2; cf. Tac. Ann. 11.11) The attempt to put himself
in direct line with Augustus, an endeavor noticeable in other areas such as his

Romulo, sed a Tito Tatio additum urbi credidere. mox pro fortuna pomerium auctum. et quos tum
Claudius terminos posuerit, facile cognitu et publicis actis perscriptum (Ann. 12.23.2-24).
13 E. Hahn, Die Exkurse in den Annalen des Tacitus (Diss. Munich 1933) 95, 56; R. Syme,

Tacitus (Oxford 1958) 703-10, 316; and E. Koestermann, Tacitus Annalen, Kommentar III
(Heidelberg 1967) 146-47, all postulate Claudius as Tacitus' ultimate source (via the acta senatus),
although the latter scholar admits hesitation about 12.23.2. G. B. Townend, "Claudius and the
Digressions in Tacitus," RhM 105 (1962) 358-68, arguing against Syme, has as Tacitus' sources the
earlier annalists Aufidius Bassus and Pliny, but suggests they used Claudius. C. Questa, Studi sulle
fonti degli "Annales" di Tacito, 2nd ed. (Rome 1963) 230-31, suggests that Tacitus went to
Claudius' writings. Only A. Momigliano, in his review of Syme's Tacitus (Gnomon 33 [1961]
55-56), rejects Claudius as the ultimate source, and he does so precisely because he doubts the
Augustan extension but feels that Claudius would not have made such a mistake. He attributes the
error to Tacitus.
" For Claudius' adherence to Augustan precedents, see (e. g.) A. Momigliano,
Claudius. The
Emperor and his Achievement (Oxford 1934) 24-26; and A. Garzetti, From Tiberius to the
Antonines, Eng. trans., J. R. Foster (London 1974) 108, 110. B. M. Levick, "Antiquarian or
Revolutionary? Claudius Caesar's Conception of his Principate,"AJP99 (1978) 79-105, especially
102-103, argues that Claudius also turned to Caesar as a model, but did not promote this image
publicly as he did that of Augustus. Thus it is not surprising that he did not mention Caesar's
pomerial extension.
18 M. T. BOATWRIGHT

coinage, here led Claudius to misuse his erudition and fudge the historical
record.'5
The case of Claudius' pomerial extension in 49 is similar in that we again see
a revival of an ancient tradition and of Augustus' memory. With the extension
of the pomerium, however, Claudius linked himself more explicitly with the
past. Before digressing on Romulus' pomerium in his speech to the Senate,
Claudius apparently justified his own extension as the continuation of a
Roman tradition (mos priscus) according to which those who had extended
Rome's power (imperium) could extend the city's sacred boundary. He then
cited the names of Sulla and Augustus, thus presenting himself as a new
founder of the city and the perpetuator of Rome's traditional expansionism at
the same time as he allied himself with the more recent past and his revered
predecessor.
The imperialistic association of Claudius' pomerial extension is stressed
elsewhere, and must have been a primary motivation behind the princeps' act.
The pomerial cippi marking Claudius' boundary proudly proclaim: Ti.
Claudius / Drusi f. Caisar / Aug. Germanicus / pont(ifex) max(imus),
trib(unicia) pot(estate) / VIIII, imp. XVI, cos. IIII / censor, p(ater) p(atriae), /
auctis populi Romani Ifinibus, pomerium / ampliavit terminavitq(ue) (CIL VI
1231 a).'6 The increases of Rome's territory Claudius heralded with his
pomerial extension were primarily in Britain.'" This connection was made even
more manifest a few years later (51/52) by the erection of a triumphal arch over
the Via Flaminia that E. Rodriguez-Almeida has persuasively suggested
marked the new pomerial line.'8 Here the inscription reads: Ti. Clau[dio Drusi
f. Cai]sari / Augu/sto Germani'co / pontificti maximo, trib. potes/tat. XI, cos.
V, im[p. XX . .. patri pa]triai, senatus po[pulusq(ue)/ Ro/manus, q]uod reges /
Brit[anniai] XI [devictos sine] / ulla iactur[a in deditionem acceperiti /
gentesque b[arbaras trans Oceanum] / primus in dici/onem populi Romani
redegerit] (ILS 216). The fanfare accompanying Claudius' pomerium, which
included for the first time the densely populated Aventine within the urban
auspices (Gell. NA 13.14.7), clearly demonstrated in Rome Claudius' prowess

15Cf. Syme, Tacitus (above, n. 13) 295, citing Tac. Ann. 12.11.1 and 12.22.2.
16Information on the ten cippi thus far known (CIL VI 1231 a = 31537 d; 31537 a = ILS 213;
CIL 1231 b = 31537 b; 37023; NSc 1913, p. 68 [cf. BullComm 1913, p. 67]; CIL 1231 c = 31537 c;
37024; 37022 a; 37022 ,3 = ILS 213; NSc 1912, p. 197 [cf. BullComm 1912, pp. 259-60]), is
conveniently collected by Lugli, (above, n. 1) 128-29. See also J. Poe, in Classical Antiquity
(forthcoming).
17
Levick (above, n. 14) 99-100.
18 E. Rodriguez-Almeida, Forma Urbis marmorea: aggiornamento generale, 1980 (Rome 1981)

124, 126. For an earlier triumphal arch that also commemorated Claudius' British victories, see the
aureus of 46-47 that depicts a triumphal arch surmounted by an equestrian statue between two
trophies, with DE BRITANN(is) on the architrave (BMC, Emp. I, p. 168, no. 29).
 The Pomerial Extension of Augustus 19

as an Imperator.In this he definitely modelledhimself on Augustus,whose

militarysuccesshad been stressedin Rome throughouthis rule.'9
In emphasizingthe dependenceof a pomerialextensionon the enlargement
of Rome's imperiumand territory, Claudius may have stretchedthe truth
much as he had done in his revivalof the SaecularGames.In Brev. Vit. 13.8,
Senecasatirizesa long-windedpedantwho had found proof that Sullawas the
last Roman to enlarge the pomerium. According to the pedant, pomerial
extensionscould be maderightlyonly when the landaddedto Romanterritory
was in Italy. AlthoughClaudiusis nevermentioned,these remarksare almost
certainly to be connected within the princeps' notorious fondness for
antiquarianlore and his enlargementof the pomeriumin A. D. 49.20 Such
technical cavils against Claudius' pomerial extension seem to have been
overlooked,however, when Claudius'extension served as precedentfor the
one of Vespasianand Titus in 75.
Claudius'act was matterfor discussionand ridicule,as muchelse in his rule,
but it broughtthepomeriumbackinto prominencein Rome. In A. D. 70 in the
lex de imperio Vespasianithe Senate and Roman people expressly granted
Vespasianthe rightto extendRome'ssacredboundary.2'This clauseof the law,
incidentally,providesalmost certainproof that an Augustanextensionnever
took place, since the only precedenthere cited is that of Claudius,whereasin
the other provisionsAugustusis adducedas precedentwheneverpossible.22
Vespasian, together with his son and co-censor Titus, extended the
pomeriumin 75. This extension is known from inscribedpomerialcippi on
which the wording echoes that on Claudius' markers.We find the same
emphasison the increaseof Roman territory:[I]mp. Cae[sar]/ Vepasianu[s]
(sic)/ Aug., pont(ifex)ma[x(imu3)],/ trib(unicia)pot(estate)VI, imp. XI[V] I,
p(ater) p(atriae), censor, / cos. VI, desig(natus)VII, T. Caesar Aug. ff] /

'9 J. Ober, "Tiberius and the Political Testament of Augustus," Historia 31 (1982) 306-28, has

most recently maintained this, surely correct, view of Augustus' principate, and indeed assumes,
pp. 317-19, that Augustus actually did extend the pomerium. For Augustus' emphasis on his
military prowess, see, e. g., P. A. Brunt, JRS 53 (1963) 170-76; idem, JRS 51 (1961) 235; and
R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 440-75.
20 Herrmann (above, n. 10) 222-28 (although he implausibly dates the work to 62 and accepts a

Neronian pomerial extension; see n. 41 below); and Griffin (above, n. 6) 109-10 (who dates the
work to 55). The arguments of P. Grimal, "La Date du de Brevitate Vitae," REL 25 (1947)
164-77, that the work was written before Claudius' extension, are not convincing: he does not
understand Seneca's irony. We should note that all references associating pomerial extensions with
territorial expansion are from or after the time of Claudius: Sen. Brev. Vit. 13.8; Tac. Ann. 12.23;
Gell. NA 13.14.3; HA, vitAur 12.10; and the cippi of Claudius and Vespasian.
21 CIL VI 930 = ILS 244, lines 14-16; see too M. A. Levi, "I Flavi," ANRW 11.2 (1975) 189.

Detlefsen, (above, n. 1) 516-17, associates the new law with the fact that Claudius' territorial gains
were outside of Italy, but see n. 20 above.
22 Brunt, "Lex" (above, n. 1) 104 n. 47.
20 M. T. BOATWRIGHT

Vespasianus,imp. VI, / pont(ifex), trib(unicia) pot(estate) IV, / censor, cos. IV,

desig(natus) V, auctis p(opuli) R(omani) finibus, / pomerium ampliaverunt
terminaveruntque (NSc 1933, p. 241).23
The imperialistic aspect, which Claudius had underscored, occasioned
Vespasian's and Titus' interest in the pomerium. The Flavians continually
promoted the military basis of their rule. In 71, after ritually spending the
night outside the pomerium, Vespasian and Titus had jointly held their triumph
over the Jews. The triumph was especially glorious, for (as Josephus says) the
city of Rome was celebrating three events: the victory in the campaign against
her enemies, the cessation of her civil wars, and the beginnings of her hopes for
prosperity (BJ 7.157). The strong emphasis on external war, a palliation of the
memory of civil strife, continued after the triumph and was evident in such
monuments as Titus' triumphal arch at the Circus Maximus (ILS 264) and the
Temple of Peace, dedicated in 75 and displaying the spoils of the Jewish War
Jos. BJ 7.158; Dio 66.15). In 76 Vespasian received three, perhaps four,
salutations as Imperator, at least a sixth of his total of twenty.24 The pomerial
extension in 75 further marked the Flavians' success in foreign military
endeavors.
Vespasian and Titus' pomerial extension may also have been a way for the
new dynasty to assert its claims to be refounding Rome: as Claudius and
others emphasized, Romulus had established the original pomerium when he
founded the city. An aureus of 69-70 (BMC, Emp. II, p. 87, no. 425) carries on
its reverse the legend ROMA RESURGENS and depicts Vespasian, togate,
helping to raise a kneeling representation of Roma. The resurrection of Rome
was more than propaganda, since the Flavians had to restore the Capitolium,
the Temple of Vesta, and other monuments damaged during the fighting in the
city in 69. Simultaneously the Flavians undertook additional urban renewal
such as the repaving of streets and the shoring up of the banks of the Tiber.
Rome of the early Flavian period must have seemed like a new city.25
Vespasian and Titus' pomerial extension fits this context in a practical sense
as well, for as censors in 73/74 Vespasian and Titus were responsible for a
thorough census of Rome. Pliny summarizes the censorship by defining the

23 For information on the other three cippi found (CIL VI 31538 a, c, b [= 1232 = ILS 248]),

see Lugli (above, n. 1) 130.

24 Garzetti (above, n. 14) 253-57, 227.
25
Garzetti, (above, n. 14) 244, makes this point about the work in Rome, noting ILS 252, an
inscription of 78 that hails Vespasian as the conservator caerimoniarium publicarum et restitutor
aedium sacrum. More detail on the early Flavian building program in Rome is furnished by
F. C. Bourne, The Public Works of the Julio-Claudians and Flavians (Princeton 1946) 54-63. In
general for this type of propaganda, see J. Beaujeu, La Religion romaine a l'apogee de l'empire I
(Paris 1955) 144-48; and Weinstock, Divus Julius (above, n. 6) 175-79.
 The Pomerial Extension of Augustus 21

city by the limit of urban construction (P1. NH. 3.5.66-67).26 The coincidence
of Vespasian and Titus' physical evaluation of Rome with their extension of its
sacred limits is striking when we remember that Claudius' pomerial extension,
which included the densely populated Aventine, similarly occurred within two
years of his censorship. The two events - census and pomerial extension -
relate naturally although not necessarily causally, to judge from the confusion
between the inhabited city and the city ritually defined (cf. Gell. NA 13.14.4).
We shall see below that this coincidence of census and pomerial extension helps
explain Dio's reference to an Augustan extension.
Practical considerations are even more apparent in the next rearrangementof
Rome's pomerium, its reinstatement in 121. Four pomerial cippi, one found in
situ, reveal an otherwise undocumented and unparalleled event: on the
prompting of Hadrian and according to a senatus consultum, the augural
college oversaw a restoration of the pomerium in 121 27 The cippusdiscovered
in situ in the northern Campus Martius (NSc 1933, p. 241) reveals one cause for
the restoration, for the titulus originally rose from a level almost three meters
directly above the level from which rose a pomerial cippus of Vespasian and
Titus. On the left sides the Flavian cippus is marked CLVIII, the Hadrianic
CLIIX.28 Hadrian had the Flavian course of pomerium restored on a higher
level after a natural or artificial elevation of the ground in the Campus Martius
had obliterated Vespasian and Titus' line.29
The imperialistic associations of the city's sacred boundary are absent in the
Hadrianic rearrangement: as Hadrian had withdrawn Trajan'seastern frontier
upon his predecessor's death he could scarcely claim to have increased the

26 R. E. A. Palmer, "Customs on Market Goods Imported into the City of Rome," in The
Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome: Studies in Archaeology and History, eds. J. H. D'Arms and
E. C. Kopff (MAAR 36; Rome 1980) 217, suggests that one very likely outcome of the Flavian
censorship "was the design, or redesign, of the plan of the city, painted or carved in stone, and
posted in ... temple of Peace. In part, this hypothetical plan served as an official record of the
city's sacred boundary (pomerium) and fiscal frontier...."
27 For more information on the four cippi (this one, and CIL VI 1233 a = 31539 a; 31539 b [=

ILS 31 1]; CIL 1233 b = 31539 c), see Lugli (above, n. 1) 130-31. See text below. Hadrian normally
used the title of proconsul only when he was outside of Italy, which may indicate that the pomerial
extension actually took place after 21 April 121 (when he inaugurated the Parilia): see W. Weber,
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus (Leipzig 1907) 98-99, 104; and note 37
below.
28 P. Romanelli, NSc 1933, pp. 240-44. E. Rodriguez-Almeida, "II Campo Marzio setten-
trionale: Solarium e Pomerium," RendPontAcc 51-52 (1978-79, 1979-80) [1982] 197 n. 9, notes
that the Vespasianic cippus also carries on its right side an (incomplete) inscription noting the
distance inter cippos.
29 To my knowledge, the one scholar who has noted this elevation with more than a passing

note is F. Coarelli, "II Campo Marzio occidentale," MEFR 89 (1977) 844, who hypothesizes that a
disastrous fire struck the Campus Martius around 110. I hope to argue elsewhere that the elevation
was planned during the Hadrianic period as a method of flood control.
22 M. T. BOAATWRIGHT

territory of the Roman people. Thus, differing noticeably from the formula on
earlier pomerial markers, Hadrian's cippi read: [Ex s(enatus)] c(onsulto),
co/Ilegium / au)gurum, auctore / imp.] Caesare divi / Tjraiani Parthici f., /
d/ivi Nervae nepote, / T]raiano Hadriano / Aug. pont(ifice) max(imo),
trib(unicia) / pot(estate) V, cos. III, procos., / terminos pomerii restituendos
curavit (NSc 1933, p. 241). Yet the inscription on the Hadrianic cippi,
considered in the context of Hadrian's early rule, gives the restoration added
significance that compensates for the deviation from the Claudian and Flavian
models.
The involvement of both the Senate and the college of augurs in the
restoration is explicitly noted; on earlier pomerial cippi the emperors appear
alone. The sole mention of Claudius and of Vespasian and Titus on their cippi
is certainly warranted, for, as we have seen, a pomerial extension was
considered a special political right of the princeps, and the religiousjurisdiction
of the pomerium must ultimately have been the business of the pontifex
maximus. In contrast, the Hadrianic cippi demonstrate a collaboration of
Hadrian with the Senate and with the priestly college traditionally associated
with the pomerium. From the beginning of his rule Hadrian had striven to
please the suspicious and resentful Senators in Rome;30 the restoration of the
pomeriumz manifestly undertaken with ancestral rituals and with Senatorial
cooperation, marks the success of his efforts.
That the college of augurs undertook the actual restoration also illuminates
Hadrian's religious policy in Rome. His assiduous care of Roman rituals (cf.
HA, vitHad 22.10) revived and glorified many Roman traditions, and in 121 he
transformed the rustic Parilia into a great annual celebration of the founding of
Rome.3' According to legends as far back as Ennius, Romulus had founded the
city augusto augurio at the time of the original pomerium (apud Varro Rust.
3.1.2, and cf. Enn. apud Cic. Rep. 1.64). The restoration of the pomerium by
the college of augurs in 121, therefore, evoked Rome's legendary history,
connecting Hadrian to Romulus and associating him with a new founding of
the city. This identification was made more explicit later by Hadrianic aurei,
denarii, and medallions bearing the legend ROMULUS CONDITOR.32

" For the inauspicious beginnings of Hadrian's rule, see (e. g.) Garzetti (above, n. 14) 382-86.
31Macrob. 8.361 F; for an aureus commemorating the institution of the festival, see BMC,
Emp. III, p. 282, no. 333; and P. V. Hill, The Dating and Arrangement of the Undated Coins of
Rome, A. D. 98-148 (London 1970) 54.
32 In 136 Hadrian restored an Auguratorium in Rome: CIL VI 976. The coins are: BMC, Emp.

III, p. 306, no. 528; pp. 329-30, nos. 709-14; p. 442, no. 1362 t; and p. 443, no. 1362At. The date
is uncertain, but surely in the latter part of his rule: BMC, Emp. III, cxli. Beaujeu (above, n. 25)
159-60, treats Hadrian's personal role in the Golden Age he was evoking through coinage and
building; on pp. 145, 151, he discusses the theme of Romulus Conditor. For the medallions, see
J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Medallions (New York 1944) 143. In this religious context we should
 The Pomerial Extension of Augustus 23

Thus the Hadrianic restoration of the pomerium denotes more than a

response to the physical problem caused by an elevation of the Campus
Martius some three meters. Yet the coincidence of practical and ideological
considerations, noteworthy as well when Claudius and later Vespasian and
Titus extended the pomerium near the time of their censorships, seem to
account for Dio's erroneous reference to an Augustan extension.
In 55.6 Dio reports various honors and powers accorded Augustus in 8
B. C. at the conclusion of his second decade of power. Many of these honors,
such as Augustus' acclamation as Imperator, are connected with the success of
a short military campaign in Germany; in addition, the princeps accepted
permanent commemoration of his birthday at the Circus, extended the
pomerium, and allowed the name of the month called Sextilis to be changed to
Augustus. Although epigraphical and literary sources corroborate the date of
the games and the month's new name, and the reliability of the preceding part
of the chapter is equally well established,33C. Hulsen and others have rejected
Dio's testimony for Augustus' pomerial extension on arguments ex silentio.
These scholars impute Dio's reference to confusion of a pomerial extension
with Augustus' administrative reorganization of Rome in 7 B. C. into regiones
and vici, which he reports shortly after this passage (in 55.8.6-7; cf. Suet. Aug.
30).34 The city-wide census accompanying Augustus' urban reorganization in 7
B. C. (Suet. Aug. 40.2) gives their theory greater plausibility.
This explanation of Dio's reference to an Augustan pomerial extension must
be correct, despite the repeated citations of the pomerium Dio makes
throughout his narrativeof the period from 55 to 7 B. C. His notes range from
remarks about the exclusion from the pomerium of Egyptian deities and of
C. Pomptinus before he was allowed to hold his triumph over the Gauls in 55,

also note that Trajan'sunprecedented and unique burial within the pomerium (cf. P. Zanker, "Das
Trajansforum in Rom," AA [1970] 552-54) occurred some five years before Hadrian's pomerial
restoration.
3 W. F. Snyder, "Public Anniversaries in the Roman Empire: The Epigraphical Evidence for

their Observance during the First Three Centuries," YCS 7 (1940) 227-30, conveniently collects
the literary and documentary evidence for the Natalis divi Augusti celebrated on 23-24 September
during Augustus' reign and the first century A. C., and on only 23 September after that; and see
R. 0. Fink, A. S. Hoey, and W. F. Snyder, "The Feriale Duranum," YCS 7 (1940) 158-59. Two
preserved calendars of very different dates mark the circus games on 23 September: the Fasti
Maffeiani (after 8 B. C.), and the Calendar of A. D. 354 (Inscr. It. XIII. 2, pp. 81 and 255). For
more information about the successful military movements and their celebration, see T. D. Barnes,
"The Victories of Augustus," JRS 64 (1974) 22, with his notes.
3 See note 1 above; and for the administrative reorganization, see J. Bleicken, s. v. Vici

Magister, RE 8 A2 (1958) 2480-83. A. Degrassi, Doxa 2 (1949) 84-85, citing a new inscription
attesting Augustus' purchase of public land in 8 B. C. in various parts of the city's periphery (AE,
1941, p. 61 = BullComm, 1939, 13ff, identical to CIL VI 874 = 31189), considers that these cippi
marking the demarcation of public land in the city, rather than the administrative reorganization
into regiones and vici, are responsible for the confused tradition of an Augustan pomerium.
24 M. T. BOATWRIGHT

to accounts concerning the pomerium as it delineated imperium and tribunician

powers.5 In this latter category should be classed his notices of the changed
meaning of the pomerium under the constitutional settlements of Augustus: in
30 B. C. the Senate voted Octavian a tribunician power transcending its
normal geographical restriction to within the pomerium (51.19.6);36 by the
titles of consul, proconsul, and Imperator, which Augustus received in 27 and
passed to his successors, Roman emperors could put to death knights and
Senators even within the pomerium (53.17.5-6);37 and Augustus' grant of a
proconsulship for life in 23 meant that he did not have to lay down the office
upon entering the pomerium, nor have it renewed again [when he left the
sacred boundary] (53.32.5).38 Although all the notices mentioning the
pomerium may have come from one source, a specialized work of the late
Republic like that of Messalla mentioned above, Dio's problematic use of his
sources makes such a conclusion difficult to maintain.39All we can say is that
Dio was interested in the pomerium during the late Republic.
3 Egyptian deities: 40.47.3-4 and 53.2.4; Pomptinus: 39.65.1; delineating imperium and
tribunician powers: 51.19.6; 39.39.6-7; 53.13.3-4; 53.17.4; 39.65.1; 39.63.4; 40.50.2; 41.3.3-4;
41.15.2; 41.16.1; 49.15.3; 55.2.2; and 55.8.1. The other references arc: 44.7.1; 54.25.3; and those
noted in the text. Dio refers only one other time to the pomerium, when he reports that in A. D.
211 two wolves chased from the Capitoline were killed, one in the Forum and the other outside the
pomerium, just as would happen with Caracalla and Geta (77.1.6). Although the exclusion from
the pomerium of foreign deities is now part of the canonical definition of the sacred boundary,
only Dio's references noted here can be cited as evidence for the theory, and objectively viewed,
they seem to be of political rather than religious motivation. For a general discussion of this
religious aspect of the pomerium, see G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Romer, 2nd ed.
(Munich 1912) 44-45, 352-56. Magdelain, "Inauguration" (above, n. 6) 25, considers the
prohibition to have held only in archaic times.
36 Although his specification that Octavian's new tribunician powers extended outside the

pomerium as far as the eighth half-stade (i. e., a mile) is confused, he is correct in general lines, for
the emperor's tribunician power after this time seems to have had no geographical restrictions. See
J. M. Kelly, Princeps ludex (Weimar 1957) 16; and P. A. Brunt andJ. M. Moore, eds., Res Gestae
divi Augusti (Oxford 1967) 12.
37 In 53.17.4 he also says that whenever an emperor is outside the pomerium he is always styled

proconsul; but this development occurred first under Trajan: H. A. Andersen, Cassius Dio und die
Begrundung des Principates (Berlin 1938) 61 and n. 166. See also note 27 above.
38 A. H. M.Jones, Studies in Roman Government and Law (New York 1960) 3-17, anid
P. A. Brunt, in his review of Jones in CR 12 (1962) 70-73, discuss the essence of the change of
Augustus' proconsular power to maius imperium in 23 B.C. P.Sattler investigates Dio's atten-
tion to Octavian/Augustus' constitutional position, in Augustus und der Senat (Gottingen
1960).
3 For a general discussion of Dio's souLrcesthroughout his work, see F. Millar, A Study of
Cassius Dio (Oxford 1964) 34-38; and particularly for the Augustan books, B. Manuwald, Cassius
Dio und Augustus: Philologische Untersuchungen zu den Buchern 45-56 (Wiesbaden 1979), who
discerns two main sources joining at 52.19, some subsidiary sources of a biographical or
specialized nature, and Dio's own anachronistic perceptions of the Augustan "settlement." See too
S. Jameson, "22 or 23?" Historia 18 (1969) 228-29, for the year 23; and Andersen (above, n. 37)
19-23.
 The Pomerial Extension of Augustus 25

Dio's history of Claudius' rule after 46 and of all of the Flavians' rules is
missing, so we do not know how he recorded their pomerial extensions and
whether, like Tacitus, he had Claudius' speech available to him. As we have
seen, however, other sources clearly reveal that the Claudian and Flavian
extensions both roughly coincided with censuses and were strongly associated
with imperial expansion. In his narrative of the years 11-8 B. C., when
Augustus was showered with military honors, Dio may have assumed that
Augustus further enhanced his status by extending Rome's pomerium about
the time of his city-wide census that radically changed the administration of
Rome. o
The associations of the pomerium's extension with practical considerations
and with imperialism are responsible for the third and final reference to
Augustus' enlargement of the pomerium. In the vita Aureliani, the fourth-
century author of the Historia Augusta appends to the report that Aurelian
built new walls for Rome in 271 the following notice:
nec tamen pomerio addidit eo tempore, sed postea. pomerio autem
neminem principum licet addere nisi eum, qui agri barbarici aliqua parte
Romanam rem p. locupletaverit. addidit autem Augustus, addidit
Traianus, addidit Nero, sub quo Pontus Polem<o>niacus et Alpes
Cottiae Romano nomini sunt tributae. (HA, vitAur 21.9-11)
The conflation of a pomerial extension with a physical reassessment of the city
is obvious in the author's explicit correlation of Aurelian's new walls and the
enlargement of the city's sacred boundary.
Much of the information on the pomerium in the vitAur is discounted.
Nero's, Trajan'sand Aurelian's pomerial extensions are not attested elsewhere,
and the first two are particularly suspect in light of the relatively abundant
documentation for the early Principate.4' Furthermore, Claudius and Vespa-
sian (together with Titus), the only two emperors unequivocally known to
have extended the pomerium, are not mentioned at all. In this context it is

" See, e. g., for the military movements and their celebration: Barnes, "Victories" (above,
n. 33) 22. At this time the Ara Pacis, commemorating peace won through war, was dedicated,
contemporaneously with the erection of the Gnomon of Augustus' Horologium that
memorialized the subjugation of Egypt. See S. Weinstock, "Pax and the 'Ara Pacis,"'JRS 50 (1960)
47-48; Brunt and Moore, Res Gestae (above, n. 36) 54-55; E. Buchner, "Solarium Augusti und
Ara Pacis," RomMitt 83 (1976) 322. Grimal (above, n. 20) 168-70, stresses that the traditional
definition of urban land as ager effatus was obsolete by the Augustan age, when special legislation
of 11 and 9 B. C. assimilated for administrative and juridical purposes the city buildings and the
buildings contiguous to the city (cf. Front. de aque. 104, 127, 129).
41 W. H. Fisher, "The Augustan Vita Aureliani,"JRS 19 (1929) 142, 133, notes the passage as
"worthless", also that the Vita incorrectly gives the length of the wall as 50 miles. (It is in fact ca.
12 mi.) Lugli, (above, n. 1) 129-31, doubts Nero's, Trajan's, but not Aurelian's pomerial
extensions. Coarelli, "Porta trionfale" (above, n. 1) 66, accepts only Aurelian's extension out of
these three; as does (e. g.) Labrousse (above, n. 1) 170.
26 M. T. BOATWRIGHT

prima facie hard to find the notice of Augustus' pomerial extension credible,
despite T. D. Barnes' recent contention that "it is never . .. permissible to
argue that the context of any statement [in the HA] outweighs countervailing
external evidence."42
The vita Aureliani may indeed be one of the more accurately factual lives of
the last and most unveracious group of biographies in the HA,43 but it is much
easier to maintain that its reference to Augustus' extension is wrong than to
assume that it is right. W. H. Fisher showed in 1929 that the author of the
vitAur wrote in part to demonstrate that a worthy emperor must be a capable
and successful general; he also noted that some of the passages in the vita that
cannot be tracedto earlier sources are explanations.4 The extended note to
Aurelian's pomerial extension has all the appearances of a laudatory and
fictitious explanation of the act. The author unchronologically juxtaposes
Augustus and Trajan,the two exemplary principespar excellence (cf. Eutropius
8.5.3), in an attempt tO substantiate his portrayal of Aurelian as a great military
leader and the restorer of Rome's traditions.
If the reference to an Aurelian pomerial extension is valid, then Rome's
pomerium may have coincided with the walls of Rome. This is not made clear,
however: the technical aspect of the pomerium was far less important to
Aurelian's biographer than the associations of the pomerium with Roman
military leaders and might. Probably unconsciously, in his explanation of
Aurelian's pomerial extension the biographer echoes Claudius' formulation of
the meaning of an enlargement of Rome's pomerium. This final notice of the
pomerium emphasizes the pomerium's symbolic meaning at the expense of its
physical aspects, a characteristic of all our information concerning the city's
sacred boundary.
The investigation of Augustus' alleged pomerial extension is illuminating
both because it sheds light on the creation and perpetuation of a historical
tradition, and because it clarifies the symbolic meanings of the pomerium. The
history of the pomerium in the Principate underscorces the continuing
importance of tradition; almost paradoxically, the principes who exploited the
pomerium's associations with Rome's traditions were those responsible for
some of Rome's most radical innovations. This certainly is true of Augustus as
well. Furthermore, Claudius, Vespasian and Hadrian all ostensibly modeled

Barnes, Sources (above, n. 3) 124.

42

Barnes, Sources (above, n. 3) 30, 96, who cites for further discussion of the biography's
43

sources: A. Lippold, "Der Einfall des Radagais im Jahre 405/406 und die Vita Aureliani der
Historia Augusta," BHAC 1970 (1972) 149-65 (on vitAur 18.21). For the controversial
identification of the sources for this life, see, e. g., J. Schwartz, "Sur le mode de composition de la
vita Aureliani," BHAC 1968/1969 (1970) 239-46.
" Fisher (above, n. 41) 145-49.
 The Pomerial Extension of Augustus 27

themselves on Augustus. Claudius' fabrication of an Augustan pomerial

extension, therefore, is easily comprehensible, as is the survival of his fiction.45

Duke University, Durham NC M. T. Boatwright

45 I thank K. J. Rigsby, A. K. Michels, and P. J. Feldblum for advice on this article; whatever

errors of interpretation there may be are, of course, my own. R. Syme's article "The Pomerium in
the Historia Augusta" (Historia Augusta Papers [Oxford 1983] 131-45 = BHAC 1975/76 [1978]
217ff), in which the notice of the vitAur about the pomerium serves to prove Aurelius Victor as
one source of the HA, came to my attention too late for inclusion in this paper. We concur,
however, that Augustus did not extend the pomerium, and that Claudius is the source of Tacitus'
information.