It is clear that the direct compulsion of the elite did not underpin Iberian urban monumentalisation, nor did Augustus embark upon a ‘civilizing mission.’187
Ultimately the elite accepted Roman cultural forms because they believed there was an advantage to be gained in doing so. But this only occurred initially to any great degree in areas with heavy colonial populations or strong economic links with Rome, such as the cities of the eastern coast and the valleys of the Baetis and Sigilis. The continuing presence of Iberian characteristics elsewhere, from the forums of the great towns to rich and poor houses alike, argues against the notion that the elite felt directly compelled to conform.188
Nonetheless, encouragement from the princeps cannot be entirely discounted from developments. Both Augustus and Agrippa were present in Iberia during important transformative phases in provincial, civic and fiscal organisation, not to mention the birth of the imperial cult (see Chapter 4 and the Epilogue). Perhaps then it is unsurprising that their presence further coincided with a surge in monumentalisation, given the intrinsic connection between all of these processes. We have noted the direct and dominant role of the regime in road construction and centuriation, developments that literally ‘monumentalised’ the rural hinterlands of communities even in places where little urban monumentalisation took place.
And certainly the emperor and his circle made a number of important interventions in the monumentalisation process at various communities, particularly in the three provincial capitals.189 Though few in numbers, these provided a blueprint for the Spanish elites to follow, acting, consciously or not, as an impetus to further building.190 And the sculptured image of the emperor was subject to such standardisation across the empire it seems certain
187 Fear, 1996:13-30. See also Navarro Santana, 2001. Laurence (1994:27-8; 36-7) makes similar points concerning Pompeii; here public monumentalisation was not dictated from the centre, as at Rome.
188 Fear (1996:249; 250; 253; 263; 268; 269; 274) argues for ‘Transculturation’ rather than ‘Romanisation’. 189 Keay (2006) suggested a greater involvement by Augustus in the communities of Tarraconensis and Lusitania, where he was proconsul, than in Baetica. Keay (1995:313) further noted elsewhere the abiding close associations between Tarraco, Emerita and Corduba and the imperial regime, making them obvious choices for provincial capitals.
Chapter 5
170 there was some form of official central interest in sanctioning them, though the provincials themselves must bear ultimate responsibility for disseminating them.191
This is particularly interesting, since it is clear that in many places periods of intense monumentalisation also coincided with a surge in epigraphical evidence demonstrating close ties between the communities in question and the imperial house.192 This brings to the foreground the context in which monumentalisation in Augustan Spain takes place: a new political system in which ultimate power rests in the hands of one man – Augustus - who now sat at the pinnacle of a dense patronage network. Meanwhile, he had enacted urbanisation policies and widely spread higher status to existing Spanish communities. As we have noted, this was done for pragmatic reasons. Yet once Roman socio-political forms were extended to Hispania and status and competition were framed by the same systems and values as those of the Italian aristocracy it was surely inevitable that the Iberian elite would respond to Augustan rule in like manner as their Italian counterparts?
After all, the ultimate goal of the majority of the elite must have been to obtain or sustain a position within society and politics, whether locally or at Rome itself. They therefore bound themselves to certain, but not all, ‘Roman’ principles.193
However intentionally, Augustus’ administrative policies then directly encouraged the monumental transformation of Spain. He created the socio-political conditions that provided the spur to monumentalisation with the introduction of municipal systems, stimulating competition amongst the elite and, indeed, between communities. He also implemented the cadastration processes and accompanying reform of land ownership that empowered the local elite, contributing to an economic surge that provided the aristocracy with the means to engage in widespread euergetism. Once such policies were enacted intrusive interventions by the
princeps, forms of compulsion, would be unnecessary. This is especially pertinent at the provincial capitals, a focus of the elite, though even towns elevated to stipendiary status display such processes.194 In this sense to abrogate responsibility from Augustus for Spanish
191 Price, 1984:172-4. Roddaz (2002:211) highlights the role of the emperor’s lieutenants in disseminating his image.
192
Keay, 2006:232.
193 Woolf (1998:239) refers to a ‘strategic use of Roman culture’ to gain status. See also Curchin, 2004:135. Fishwick (1987:217) argues for an initial impetus from the centre before competition for status naturally took over to encourage monumentalisation.
194
Curchin (2004:92) describes the elite competition that was inherent in the socio-political forms spread by Augustus in Spain as a ‘powerful incentive’ to the urbanisation and monumentalisation processes. Fishwick (1987:1204-9) and Mierse (1999:122) both state that Augustus need not push imperial ideology heavy handedly
171 monumentalisation when his policies have acted as a direct catalyst for this seems illogical. If nothing else, the elite’s consensual immersion in imperial iconography certainly reflects the stress of the imperial regime on consensus under Augustan rule.195
Meanwhile, MacMullen is correct to state that Augustus followed Republican and Hellenistic traditions of self-promotion in constructing monuments, and that these differ ideologically from the propagandistic monuments of modern despots. Likewise, the Roman and indigenous patrons who pursued monumentalisation in Spain indeed did so as a form of self-aggrandisement, as we have noted.196 Yet can we really say, as MacMullen, that such monuments do not amount to the promotion of an ideology, however unconscious this may be?197 Fashion and taste, of course, must be acknowledged; beyond architecture, the adoption of Roman culture extended to everything from hairstyles to home furnishings, and one can hardly imagine Augustus cared about such things.198 Yet we can go further. Under Augustus Roman cultural forms expanded across the west as never before, from architecture, to civic organisation and cult. This could not be a mere reaction to conquest; by the beginning of the Principate Rome had controlled parts of Iberia for almost two centuries.199 Rather, it seems more likely that, as above, Roman culture itself had until now lacked homogenization and strong distinguishing features.200 It was Augustus’ ascendancy and the political requirements of his regime to sustain his rule that fundamentally changed this. We find a harnessing of tradition, with the adoption of both Hellenistic and Republican Roman practices of self- representation inverted to focus glory entirely onto a single individual and his line.
It is impossible to underplay the dominant emphasis within the monumental developments at Spanish communities in this era on the quasi-divine and providential rule of Augustus, and its cosmocratic nature. That the building programmes and the values that inspired them were steeped in tradition need not negate an ideological framework when said ideology explicitly drew on the precedents of the past. And whilst fashion must have played a crucial role, a simple taste for the contemporary art forms of Rome amongst the provincial elite, such inspirational art forms overwhelmingly conveyed messages concerning the rule of in urbanised Hispania, since the elite themselves were only too willing to immerse themselves in such power structures.
195
Laurence, 1994:27-8.
196 Josephus, (AJ., 15.8.1; 15.9.5; 16.5.3) for example, described Herod’s monuments as designed to show his prestige and to flatter the imperial family. The Balbi may provide a convenient Spanish comparison.
197 MacMullen, 2000:23; 68-70. See also Veyne, 1990:259. 198
MacMullen, 2000:113-4.
199 Woolf (1998:97-8) makes just such a point for Narbonensis.
Chapter 5
172 Augustus.201 This was not an occasional bow ‘from time to time’ by the elite, as MacMullen claimed, to the man who had confirmed their social positions.202 The presence of Augustus dominated Spanish monumental architecture from at least the middle years of his reign; it was utterly pervasive, and inseparable from the burgeoning imperial cult that rapidly expanded across the peninsula, as we shall see.203 The acceptance of such ‘fashions’ by the elite was an acceptance of Augustus and his regime itself.
As with other forms of euergetism, the provincial elite may have aimed for nothing more than the traditional pursuit of prestige by embracing monumental forms glorifying the
princeps.204 Yet from the very foundation of the Principate such prestige was only obtained by way of association with this central focus on the emperor, as Zanker states, through a visual language ‘based almost entirely on forms paying homage to the imperial house.’205
This seems to me to be crucial. Pompeius and Caesar may have toyed with cosmocratic imagery, and monarchical and divine pretentions. But the consistent and emphatic portrayal of the imperial family alone upon these monuments as the guarantors of peace, glory and the favour of the gods, the sheer scale and number of the building programmes stressing such themes, the homogenization of their forms and the uniformity of the messages they conveyed, both across Spain and across the empire, all of these things were striking compared to anything that had come before. There was now an inescapable and unassailable hierarchy of status. Despite continuing diversity and native artistic tastes, the foremost position of the
princeps was to be declared in every forum, in towns and cities of every status, with the local aristocracy in a resolutely secondary role.206 Given such inescapable links then with the position of the princeps, both secular and divine, and the elite acceptance of this through their artistic choices, we can indeed refer to what must fairly be called an imperial ideology imbued within the monumentalisation process.207
201 Note Fishwick (2004:219), who states that the very existence of such visual imagery underscores the intention of the centre to glorify the state.
202
MacMullen, 2000:70.
203 Note Keay (1995:309) on Tarraco, a city whose first distinguishable phase of Roman influence is linked to the emergence of imperial ideology, which in turn was articulated in the context of the nascent municipal cult to Augustus.
204
Though Zanker (1988:306) maintains there is every reason to believe the sincerity of monuments embracing Augustus, given the peace he instituted following ruinous civil wars.
205 See Zanker (1988:330), who further highlights the manner in which competition was directed through dedications to the emperor, with only secondary thought given to what the communities actually needed (Ibid., 306).
206 Zanker, 1988:327. See Revell (2009) on the uniformity of ideology in the empire. 207 See Zanker, 1988:297-333.
173 Thus monumentalisation may be seen as a natural progression from the urbanisation policies, reform of land ownership and promotion of legal status described in Chapter 4. The transformation of land ownership and the economic stimulus this created allowed the accruing of disposable wealth by the aristocracy that could be employed in acts of euergetism. Meanwhile, Augustan policy directly ensured that elite competition was now framed by Roman style magisterial systems and an immersion in patronage networks, both local and imperial, at the head of which sat the emperor himself. Within this, monumentalisation formed an essential tool of advancement, with the crucial point of reference for such euergetism the distinct, and pervasive visual language of Augustan imperial iconography, now transposed to the provinces. We must now discuss the upwardly mobile Spanish elite whose participation in such processes helped them advance through Spanish society all the way to Rome itself.
174