[148] The four sons were Seraspedes, Rhodaspedes, Vonones and Phraates, with the wives of two of them and four children. Cf. Strabo, XVI, 1, 28; VI, 4, 2; Justin, XLII, 5, 11; Vell., II, 94; Tac., _Ann._, II, 1; Oros., VI, 21, 29; Suet., _Aug._ 21, 43; Jos., _Antiq._, XVIII, 2, 4. They were sent to be out of harm’s way during troubles in Parthia, according to all but Josephus, who says they were removed so as not to hinder the succession of Phraataces, an illegitimate son. When Phraates died, Phraataces in vain asked Augustus for the return of the princes. This was c. 750. Cf. Dio, fragments, Ursin. 39. The two elder princes died in Rome. Cf. C. I. L., VI, 7799. Vonones was sent back by Augustus. Cf. c. 33, Note 149; Phraates was returned by Tiberius in 788. Cf. Tac., _Ann._, VI, 31; Dio, LVIII, 16. Probably the princes were sent to Augustus in 744. Cf. Mommsen, _R. G._, p. 141. [149] The comment of Mommsen here seems too severe. He says: “The writer magnifies his splendors beyond what is exact: for the Parthians and Medes asked Augustus, not so much to appoint kings for them, as to restore to them those to whom the kingdom had fallen by hereditary right.” Such a criticism seems to overlook the force of the word _petitos_, as applied to _reges_: they got the kings they “asked for.” Phraataces was reigning in 754. Cf. Dio, LV, 10; Vell. II, 101. He was succeeded by Orodes for a short time. Then came the choice of Vonones. Cf. Jos. _Ant._ XVIII, 2, 4; Tac. _Ann._ II, 1. Josephus gives no date. Tacitus implies 770. Augustus, however, returned Vonones, and the date must be much earlier, probably c. 760. A Parthian embassy was in Rome between 757 and 759. Cf. Suet. _Tib._, 16. Coins also show the name of Vonones in 761. Cf. Gardner, _Parthian Coinage_, p. 46. His reign was very brief. Cf. Tacitus and Josephus, ll. cc. [150] Cf. c. 27. [151] This chapter is possibly the most weighty in the whole inscription, inasmuch as it sets forth the view of his policy which Augustus wished the world to hold. How far his statements in the opening and closing sentences represent his own actual notions of his relations to the sovereign power in Rome is a matter of debate. For a full discussion Mommsen, _Röm. St._ II, p. 723, ff., may be read, and Gardthausen, _Aug._ Iᵉʳ Th. IIᵉʳ Bd., pp. 485-540 and IIᵉʳ Th., pp. 277-299. The question is: Did Augustus in any real sense restore the republic, or did he conceive of himself as monarch, but find it politic to suppress all outward marks of royalty? Was his chief concern to maintain the peace and prosperity of the Roman people, with as little alteration as possible of the old constitutional forms, or was his object the building up of power for his own sake? This is confessedly one of the riddles of history. The best that can be done is to study his actions, estimating their worth and tendency, and leaving the motives of the great statesman where he hid them,—locked in his own bosom.