Introduction
 The reign of the emperor Claudius, saw a radicalism in the governance of Rome and her provinces that had not been seen since the time of Augustus. On the surface there seems to be many parallels between the attitude and political agenda of Claudius and that of Augustus, indeed Claudius went out of his way to develop these similarities. There are however inconsistencies that can serve to undermine this perception, not least the differing perceptions of the emperor himself by citizens in Rome and those in the provinces. Examination of the reign of Claudius uncovers a series of paradoxes and presents a number of difficulties and this difference in perception is but one. The sources available to us are limited,  and in most cases dwell on issues and events that have led to the development of a ‘stereotypical’ view of Claudius as the bumbling, dribbling fool. Included among these paradoxes is his relationship with the rest of his family, particularly with the emperors Augustus and Gaius, but perhaps the primary ‘paradox’, essential to understand and ascertain Claudius’ true position, is his relationship with the Senate, nobiles and equites. This paper will examine the reign of Claudius and establish whether Claudius’ own assertion that he was following Augustan precedents is valid, or whether his achievements are able to stand on their own merit. However before such an examination of his reign can begin, an appraisal of his early career and the manner of his accession should be taken as they are fundamental factors in understanding the shape of his rule and the direction that his government would ultimately take.

The early years
 Tiberius Claudius Nero Germanicus, spent most of his life and ‘career’ in a state of isolation from family, and therefore political, attention. He was a ‘Claudii’ never adopted into the gens Julia,  though this fact combined with his physical disability were to prove ultimately, to his advantage as he was never considered a serious enough threat to be a rival. Thereby no doubt saving his life in the inter-dynastic squabbling present during in the turbulent reigns of Tiberius and Gaius. This isolation not only gave him a chance to follow academic interests, which he valued and were considered to be notable in his own day, but gave him an important opportunity to observe the workings of the political process from the outside. It was no doubt this early period and his interest, if not love of the traditions of Rome, that gave him the opportunity and ability to formulate his political aspirations based upon what he observed. He developed a calm, considered, if wistful perception of the conditions imposed upon Rome by her history and continuity.  He realised that the gulf between the Principate and the Republic had started to become ever wider under Tiberius and wished to direct the Principate in a direction that would essentially harmonise both systems.
 
 The nature of his accession and his later behaviour as emperor, does give rise to the argument to whether or not he was an active partner in the plot that saw the assassination of his nephew. Or to whether he was, as popular history records, merely an innocent, dragged into the limelight by a Praetorian guard anxious to maintain their own position, in opposition to a Senate intent on returning the reigns of power back into its own hands. The populist view has tended to cloud the real events surrounding the accession, and the loss of Tacitus’ account of the first six years of his reign is made more acute by the literary tradition being fairly hostile to the Julio-Claudian dynasty as a whole. 

 What may be a more realistic train of events could be that; illustrious members of the nobiles were putting themselves forward for the principate, whilst the army were divided. An opposition candidate proposed by the Praetorian camp could mean civil war, no love being lost between the two components of the military. This, as the Praetorian’s realised, could have done them no good if the candidate was a mere simpleton, as the very memory of the family he belonged to was trying to be erased with the death of Gaius. Therefore it seems likely that Claudius’ nomination was not just a chance event, but one planned and executed with the candidate both chosen and fully aware of his nomination. This argument is out of the scope of this paper, but it appears highly likely that Claudius was at least fully aware of what was being intended, if not an active partner in the dissolution of Gaius’ rule. Whatever the initial machinations that brought him into power, Claudius, belying his physical disabilities, unpopularity and isolated past soon proved himself to be a both ruthless and efficient ruler.

Claudius and the Senate
 Claudius’ accession brought mixed fortunes for the members of the Senate. After the convulsions of his accession, it is clear that Claudius at least determined to try to rule well.  Augustine policy had produced an apparent ‘balance’ between Princeps and the old ruling classes, even though it was based upon tenuous, sometimes illegal precedents. This ‘balance’ distracted attention from the conflict between its two main elements of conservation and reform. Claudius’ accordingly formulated his policy on the same lines, but drew its vital inspiration from the reforming element alone. Like Augustus he wished to change the way in which Rome and its provinces were governed, and likewise he saw a place for the Senate within this new system, but not in the style or role that it had in mind. Augustus was content to allow the Senate to function as it wished as long as it had no real power, but Claudius had a more radical plan for the Senate.

 Claudius’ interpretation of Roman history seems to have led him to the notion that all members of the governing classes were to be best employed as tools of the state. This is what Augustus had put into place in part, but anxious to legitimise his rule cloaked the roles in precedents, pandering to ‘traditional roles’ so as to appease as well as neutralise the senatorial classes. Claudius on the other hand had far more expansive plans for both the Senate and the Equestrian order. He envisaged the utilisation of the members of the two orders as government officers, responsible to and working for the state. He recognised the skill and experience of the two bodies, but strove to remove the individual power that each held. 

 Claudius wished to be seen, no doubt as a direct response to Gaius’ autocracy, to be sincerely co-operating with the Senate along similar lines to Augustus. Not only did he build upon what Gaius had restored after Tiberius’ reign, namely the elections, but he made frequent use of the senatus consulta, held the consulship only four times so as not to impinge on the cursus honorum: he tried to maintain the social position of the senatorial class as a whole, developing Augustus’ provision of the best seats on the Circus for them. 

 These and other initiatives were intended to let the Senate believe that they were still a privileged class with traditional responsibilities and rights central to Rome’s infrastructure. In reality, by his approach Claudius was actively undermining their political position and forcing them closer to his model of government. This is amply illustrated by his revival of the office of censor, which he held himself in A.D. 47-8. This act was received with offence by the Senate, as one of his objectives will have been to adjust the membership of the body by the means of adlectio. Besides expelling some old members he added new ones to the rolls, these included a number of provincials, notably some Gallic chiefs. His creation of new patricians was intended also to bring new blood to the Aristocracy. 

 He began to strive for and insist upon the Senate’s efficiency, making it compulsory to attend debates, and denounced the Senate’s status as ‘yes-men’ to consuls and break the ‘tyranny of the accusers’ . This attack on the behaviour and operation of the Senate was not though merely a malicious act, it was one that reveals the growing inadequacy of the Senate as a body. To often debates would begin with a petition by the consuls or consuls-elect, proceed to a sycophantic show of voting and culminate with the statement ‘we debated’.  It was this inadequacy that led Claudius to infringe on various senatorial activities, not a desire to humiliate. Here is a possible answer to the apparent ‘paradox’ of Claudius’ relationship with the Senate. As he followed Augustus’ tried and successful precedents in reorganising and restructuring yet respecting the order, he was, at the same time, radically and ruthlessly weeding out weaker and corrupt elements thereby making its work more efficient. Unfortunately his moves alienated a body that he seems to have genuinely wished to be on good terms with, it appears he underestimated the depth of the resentment felt by the older aristocratic families about his sometimes harsh, even draconian measures. 

 The Equestrian Order to some extent benefited from Claudius’ policy toward the senate and the provinces: there were more posts for equestrian officials. On their part they treated him with deference, and chose him as their representative several times.  But although he was careful to preserve the order’s integrity and his outward relations with them was friendly, they too found him an overshadowing figure. His presence was felt even in commercial activities, and they too were finding themselves merely his agents. Their discontent was a breeding ground for conspiracies, and Claudius is reputed to have put to death over three hundred Equites.  

Centralisation Policy
 The view purported by historians such as Garzetti (1974), that Claudius pretended to follow Augustus’ work but in reality he was undermining Augustus’ compromise with the ruling classes - that they were irreplaceable and that the value of Roman tradition of which these classes were the guardians,  whilst in essence true, does miss the link between them somewhat. Claudius was following the lead of Augustus in the respect that he was reforming the fabric of Roman society. Claudius, as indicated above however, was far more radical in both aims and method. He perceived himself as the head of an international administration responsible for the smooth running of an empire that he viewed as a single entity. He may have possibly liked to see himself as a new Caesar rather than a new Augustus, a dynamic, uncompromising and revolutionary character. 

 Claudius was though, the first Princeps since Augustus that regarded the empire as a single, complete entity. However he took it far further than Augustus, prioritising the provinces in a way that again offended the traditionally minded Senate. His approach in this area was radical, he perceived the city of Rome as the administrative centre and spiritual heart of an empire that was inclusive of all its provincial areas. This was a direct opposite to the traditional perception that the empire was merely a financial resource, there to be exploited or used as a defensive measure by Rome.

 Although in theory his attitude to the Senate was respectful, showing earnest desire for its collaboration in his government. His attitude can be seen through media such as the Tablet of Lyon where he takes on the role of a ‘good schoolmaster’ respecting his pupils and allowing free discussion whilst retaining the overall control of the debate.  He deliberately bypassed senators and equites for his most confidential positions and tasks, in doing so he secured his independence from the Senate and the Equestrian Order and extended and intensified his authority in the provinces. These positions were filled by freedmen, characters such as Narcissus, Pallas, Callistus and Polyibius occupied the very heart of the new government. Their importance has often led to the assumption that the government had actually fallen into their hands. Although this may be more true of his later rule, Claudius’ personality and plans dominated the group, as it was he who had chosen and set these men into their positions.  

 A similar desire for efficiency was noticeable in Claudius’ judicial administration. Indeed, he was so interested in the process of jurisdiction that he was mocked for the amount of time he spent in the courts. In doing so however set right many of the abuses rife in the judicial system. His actions constantly display a spirit of equity that was sometimes perceived as weakness. One fault was his insistence in trying cases that his predecessors would have set in front of the Senate, the opposite of Tiberius. The major problem here was that his judgements were unpopular when it was thought that his freedmen or wives were using him as a means of ridding themselves of enemies by playing on his fear of conspiracy. Possibly this fear combined sometimes with uncertainty of himself, and perhaps a slight naïveté, may have led him to acts of cruelty.  This is however outweighed by his essential sense of justice, shown in a considerable body of minor legislation for which he was personally responsible.

 The end result of this policy of centralisation was to draw all the ‘reigns of power’ firmly to Rome, its central administration and with himself at its core. His administration extended its control throughout the provincial part of the empire by the means of agents or procurators. This approach to government brought with it rewards and failures. Whilst the most obvious advantage was to increase efficiency, particularly in the growing complexity of imperial business faced by Claudius, he did this at some cost. Unlike Augustus, his control over the reigns of power was administered through a centralised beaurocracy run by selected freedmen, this beaurocracy was made up of a number of departments that were virtually ministries in their own right, independent of the imperial civil service and its senatorial and equestrian officials. All principle areas of the government of the empire was controlled by this small, but efficient group. This group rapidly became envied, and for their own part soon gained wealth and personal power by fair means or foul, however contrary to the popular perception they remained, for the majority of the reign at least, servants of the master who appointed them. Their existence however was a constant annoyance to the old senatorial aristocracy and increased the personal power of the Princeps. Relations with the Senate became increasingly difficult even painful., in which Claudius had to bear the guilt of others, Messalina and the freedmen exploited their position within the ‘court’ profiting from Claudius’ indifference, credulity, suspicion or his hasty
decisions in anger.

Claudius and the provinces
 The area for which Claudius perhaps most deserves credit, and is at his most foresighted and politically creative was in his plans for the provinces. It was in the provinces that the title the ‘New Augustus, was coined. Not however for the ‘aping’ of any Augustan precedent or method, the provincials saw in Claudius a chance of an equality with Rome that had been unheard of prior to the reign of Augustus. Claudius, accentuating in the Princeps the image of head of the armies and the administration, became, as Augustus had, perceived as supreme protector of the empire, in other words disclosing a little more clearly the nature of his real power. However in Rome itself Claudius nowhere near attained the same status as in the provinces, particularly in the East. 

 Until the Augustan principate, the provinces had been systematically raped by Roman politics, their existence was merely to fund political aims at home. Augustus’ work, continued by Tiberius, changed that, seeing for the first time the value of an homogenous empire ruled by Rome. He disregarded Augsutus’ advice on the non-expansion of the empire and added five new provinces. For Claudius too ‘colonisation’ and municipalisation were the two sides of the work of urbanising the empire, developing it as a single entity, and it was destined to have great importance for the social and political future of the Roman state. He used colonisation, settlement through the deliberate ‘seeding’ of towns, and a generous, flexible and encouraging approach to citizenship, to Romanise the provinces and to make them feel of worth and that they were being governed fairly. This was not done out of any purely altruistic reasoning, but rather to allow the more efficient and peaceful exploitation of the particular province. He used grants of citizenship as rewards for commitment and service, it was a continuous reward and could be and was removed when he regarded them as undeserving. Settlement of veterans in colonies was vigorously resumed not only in the imperial provinces, particularly Gaul, but in Italy itself. Although the Italian re-population plan was not entirely successful it nevertheless set precedents and alleviated some of the de-population that the region had suffered. 

 Although Claudius treated the governors of senatorial provinces with the apparent deference he generally showed to members of the Senate, calling them ‘collaborators in his work of government’,  he interfered constantly in their provinces. Here again in reality he wanted them to be his officials rather than the pro-magistrates of Republican times. Indeed he changed the law allowing his legati to be elevated above the pro-consuls of senatorial provinces. He also demanded the same levels of efficiency insisted upon throughout his governmental structure, expecting the incumbent pro-consuls to take up their posts promptly, and punishing mistakes mercilessly. Through all these acts the provincials realised that a pathway was open to them to reach for the same levels as their ‘Roman’ colleagues, hence they saw Claudius as the architect of their fortune and wished to link him with the divine Augustus who had changed their lot initially. In his provincial policies a distinct move to draw the empire together through their involvement can be detected. This however met with understandable but narrow minded bigotry from both senators and contemporary commentators.

 In hand with the farsighted nature of his provincial policy, was his attitude and policy toward Religious practices. Claudius followed the precedents set by Augustus in reorganising and revitalising Roman religious practices. Although his religious policy was a relatively minor part to his reign, it was a necessary and fundamental part of his work as a ruler, a symbol of his respect for Roman tradition He restored the old state religion with the reorganisation of the haruspices, celebrating the Secular games by ‘recalculating’ their starting date, allowing them to coincide with the eight hundredth anniversary of the founding of Rome. He extended the pomerium, a privilege allowed generals who had extended the imperial frontiers. Reacting again against the excesses of Gaius he reverted to Tiberius’ approach to emperor worship, accepting it only in theory and reluctantly. However although this conservative policy was important for opinion at Rome, he extended a tolerance to ‘foreign’ religious practices that did not prove a threat to Rome’s security, stamping ruthlessly on those who did. As he was preoccupied with the search for imperial unity, Claudius did not overlook the potential advantage, if not need to accept and admit religious beliefs that were very different from the old state religion. He saw this as a political need alongside the political necessity of restoring the old state religious practices. He was however ruthless in his attitude to those practices that he perceived as a threat to Rome. He expelled astrologers from Rome and persecuted the Druidic religion which he saw as an anti-Roman influence in Britain and Gaul. The general attitude of religious tolerance would have also increased the sense of worth felt by provincials, and was a particularly successful ‘hearts and minds’ tactic to put to political use.  

 Claudius brought to the business of government the historian’s habits of disturbing curiosity and inexorable precision, together with the lack of balance characteristic and the almost inevitable “clumsiness of the scholar who leaves his study and turns to action”.  The result was that, understandably enough, this diligence was taken to be pedantry and his legal scruples for lunatic obstinacy. And this is only part of the distorted verdict of him at the time. The principal verdict derives from the internal history of the Julio-Claudian family and the court as reflected in their direct relations with the urban ‘democracy’. In the provinces however Claudius’ reputation was a different matter, they rightly saw that the rule of this much maligned figure was a positive change of direction in their favour and compared him favourably to the figure initially responsible for the move toward change.
 

Conclusion
 The title ‘New Augustus’ is perhaps a little misleading, particularly in a ‘city of Rome’ context, it implies a deliberate parallel to the rule and methods of Augustus Caesar. Whilst examples of this can be found in the rule of Claudius, it does take away some of his original and radical ideas away from him. He understood perfectly what Augustus did and the methods he used to achieve his ends but had no need to follow in his footsteps. However similarly the title fits in the respect that Claudius was innovative, reforming, radical and above all possessed of the same clearness of vision that his divine ancestor had been. Here the parallels are striking, both understanding the need to maintain, in outward appearance at least, the traditional base of Roman government which in reality was the basis of Roman culture. Both their governmental aims involved judicial, religious, governmental and provincial reform and management, showed in both men a profound understanding of Roman cultural identity and history. Although each approached the problems from slightly idiosyncratic directions, they nevertheless shared a similar view of the empire that was practically unique. However the direction that Claudius took shows the changes that his predecessor had put into action, Augustus’ methods and policies made it considerably easier for Claudius to pursue his aims. The title that would have probably been preferred by Claudius would have been the ‘New Caesar’ and not without justification. It is possible that although Caesar’s methods and policies had been thrown out in his lifetime they would not have been to dissimilar to those of Claudius, here given the chance to show their mettle by the Principate of Caesar’s adopted son.

 Claudius’ activity, as we see it today, suggests a reincarnation, in a fresh and original form of the characteristic image of the typical ‘political man’ of Roman tradition, an image that manages to be both traditionalist and innovatory, it conforms with the empirical process of conservation and bold innovation which marked the whole expansion of Rome. Augustus was like this, that is why, in his work Claudius can be compared with Augustus. However unlike Augustus Claudius had no reason or desire to cloak his maius imperium with legal and traditional precedents, he regarded himself as the ultimate authority and had a clear idea of what he wanted to achieve and how to achieve it. Taking in his footsteps the path of expansion and progressive organisation of the empire, after the phase of settlement and consolidation desired even by Augustus in the second period of his long principate and continued by Tiberius, and after the wild experiment by Gaius, which had however indicated the necessity for a renewal of dynamism begun by Caesar.

Select Bibliography
A. Garzetti, (1974 ), From Tiberius to the Antonines , (trans. J. R. Foster), Methuen

B. Levick, (1993), Claudius, Batsford, London. 

A. Mommigliano, (1934), Claudius The Emperor and his achievement. (Reprinted 1961) Translated by W. D. Hogarth, Clarendon Press

H. H. Scullard, (1982) From the Gracchi to Nero, Fifth edition, Routledge, London & New York

Suetonious, The Twelve Caesars, Translated by Robert Graves, (1989) Penguin Classics, London. 

Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, Translated by M. Grant, (1987) Penguin Classics, London.
 

© Rob Bracewell 2002
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission from the author. This is and remains the property of the author at all times. However feel free to copy and distribute any images that are not otherwise attributed. All copyrights acknowledged