UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES VOL IV. NO. 2 JUNE 1915 BOARD OF EDITORS ERNEST L. BOGART JOHN A. FAIRLIE LAURENCE M. LARSON PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL URBANA, ILLINOIS COPYRIGHT, 1915 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS The Defeat of Varus and the German Frontier Policy of Augustus WILLIAM A. OLDFATHER, Ph. D. Associate Professor of Classics, University of Illinois AND HOWARD VERNON CANTER, Ph. D. Assistant Professor of Classics, University of Illinois PREFACE The present monograph is the outcome of a certain dissatisfaction felt with the traditional view as expressed in some of the literature which appeared six years ago on the occasion of the nineteen-hundredth anniversary of the battle of the Teutoburg forest. The principal theses as here presented were jotted down at the time, and although a variety of circumstances prevented their immediate elaboration, they were not forgotten, collections of literature were made from time to time, as occasion offered, and the general course of argument outlined. In 1912 Mr. Cyrus S. Gentry, then a graduate student in this university, working under the supervision of Mr. Oldfather, prepared and submitted, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Classics, a thesis entitled: “The Effect of the Defeat of Varus upon the Imperial Policy of Rome regarding the Northern Frontier.” We desire to express our thanks to Mr. Gentry for kind permission to use some of his collections of material. The present work is, however, a wholly independent production, being much more extensive and detailed, and differing substantially in plan and scope. Active work upon the present study was begun by us in cooperation in the spring of 1914, and continued, with intermissions, to the present time. In the first part, which deals with the traditional view, we have gone into some detail in the presentation and criticism of current explanations, with the hope that, as a review of present and past opinion, it may not be without value, even if our new interpretation fail to receive general acceptance. A certain amount of repetition in the two parts of the monograph has thus been rendered unavoidable, but though this may at times prove tiresome, it contributes to the clearness of the argument, which is, after all, the chief consideration.