<論説>ウェレイウス『歴史』におけるアウグストゥスの歴史的位置づけ --尊厳毀損罪の裁判によるカエサルの記憶の再構成との関連から--

Abstract

一九世紀末以降、ローマの帝政への移行に関して活発な議論が行われた一方で、近年、帝政に対する同時代人の認識にも注目が集まり、ウェレイウスの『歴史』を根拠にティベリウス期では依然、現政治体制は共和政の連続として認識されていたといわれる。本稿は、この主張を再考するために、現政治体制への認識が形成・共有された場の検討を試みた。そこで、『歴史』におけるカエサルやアウグストゥスの歴史的位置づけを分析した後、ウェレイウスによる彼らの歴史的位置づけを、尊厳毀損罪の裁判の文脈に置いて考察した。その結果、この裁判によって共和政的なイデオロギーと皇帝家が相容れない関係であるという認識を元老院議員たちが共有したことで、『歴史』においてカエサルが現在の個人支配体制をはじめた人物と位置づけられたことを明らかにした。そして、ティベリウス期にはすでに現政治体制が共和政とは異なると認識されはじめていたと結論づけた。

This paper examines elite perceptions of the existing political system by analyzing the historical status of Caesar and Augustus in the Tiberian age as seen from the History of Velleius Paterculus. Since the 19th century, scholars of Roman studies have actively debated the nature of the Principate in terms of the legal authority of the Roman emperor and social ties (patron-client relation and patronage). In contrast, recent scholarship has focused on perceptions of the Principate in its own time. It is generally said that, based on Velleius' History, people in the Tiberian age considered that the Republic still functioned. Furthermore, A. M. Gowing claimed that republican values remained in place during the Tiberian age, but they had become things of the past by Neronian times. However, his study does not make clear how elites formed and shared perception of the existing political system based on historical events and sites. This paper therefore focuses on the treason trials that had a large influence on reconstructing the historical memory of Caesar and Augustus and the writing of the History while paying attention to such events and sites. In the Roman empire, crimes termed maiestas constituted treason. Many people were tried for treason in the late Augustan age, and particularly large numbers in the Tiberian age. Moreover, the historical memory of defendants who had received a guilty verdict in this kind of trial was subject to attack. For example, the person's name was deleted from inscriptions and official documents, and statutes and buildings associated with that person were destroyed. As a result, many scholars have argued that, especially in the Tiberian age, treason trials restricted and suppressed freedom of speech and writing. While the treason trials certainly showed aspects of restriction and suppression, such trials had the capacity to perpetuate the historical memory of the person so dishonored. Therefore, this paper regards the treason trials as places for reconstructing and sharing historical memory among the senators. The following sections analyze descriptions of Caesar and Augustus in the History and consider the treason trials as a background of reconstructing their historical memory in the History. Firstly, section 2 examines the status of Caesar in the History in comparison with Sulla, who was his predecessor as dictator and who was known to be cruel. In this work, Sulla is depicted as a person who was a great general in wartime, but someone who behaved cruelly afterwards. Moreover, the work emphasizes his cruelty by likening him to the Carthaginian general Hannibal. Sulla is depicted as a person who behaved in a manner unlike a virtuous Roman in this analogy. In contrast with Sulla, Velleius shows Caesar as a person who behaved like a virtuous Roman, acting with magnanimity both during and after war, and using this capacity was able to bring the civil war to an end, if only for a short time. Secondly, in section 3 this paper investigates the status of Augustus in the History through a consideration of the significance of the insertion of chapter 68 in Velleius' work. Chapter 68 is a narrative describing Caesar's magnanimity in decision making, but it is inserted in the narrative of Augustus. As a result of this investigation, I show that Velleius understood Augustus as not magnanimous by nature but that we had inherited his magnanimity from Caesar. Velleius used Caesar as a paradigm to understand Augustus. Moreover, I place Caesar and Augustus within a genealogy of magnanimous people, while situating Sulla and Antony in a genealogy of cruel people. This method was meant to detract attention from Cato the Younger, Brutus and Cassius who supported the ideology of republican liberty. Velleius avoided depicting the civil war as an ideological conflict between the imperial family and people who upheld republican liberty, that is, the monarchy or tyranny versus the republic. Thirdly, section 4 examines the background of this depiction in the treason trials, especially the trial of Cremutius Cordus who praised Brutus and Cassius as the last Romans in his Annales, and who was consequently denounced as treasonous and declared guilty by a majority vote of the Senate. This section confirms that this trial made senators aware how dangerous it was to be in opposition to the political system by supporting liberty which Brutus and Cassius advocated. Velleius would have shared such an awareness as a senator. Consequently, in his History he disregarded the link between liberty and Cato the Younger, Brutus and Cassius, and instead he described their cruelty, which became an issue in the treason trials, in opposition to the ideology of the existing political system. Velleius depicted the civil war not as an ideological conflict but as a conflict to decide the leader of the Roman empire. This paper shows that Velleius and his contemporaries began to perceive the political system that started with Caesar as one of individual control that was clearly different from that of the republic. Gowing points out that such a change in perceptions was made suddenly, but, as this examination shows, that change occurred more gradually. It is said that Tiberian age was a period that carried on the Augustan system and status, but from this examination, this paper argues that this age was still a period of transition in the establishment of the Principate.