No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Res Gestae 34.1 and the settlement of 27 b.c.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
Augustus' account of the events of 28 and 27 b.c. is maddeningly vague. In part the problem is simply that his individual phrases are ambiguous, but a more fundamental difficulty is the very nature of the Res Gestae itself. The idea of publishing such a self-satisfied account of one's own doings is so alien to our modern sensibilities that we tend to read the Res Gestae as though Augustus were capable of saying almost anything. We have concluded too easily, therefore, that at R.G. 34.1 Augustus is telling an outrageous lie, or at least an outrageous half-truth. After saying that he ended the civil wars, and acquired supreme power, Augustus claims to have handed over the state to the senate and the people of Rome. On the traditional reading this last claim is seriously misleading; Augustus may have handed over the state, but he fails to mention that the senate handed it back.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1994
References
1 There are surveys of the literature by Chilver, G. E. F., ‘Augustus and the Roman Constitution 1939–50’, Historia 1 (1950), 408–35Google Scholar; Ramage, E. S., The Nature and Purpose of Augustus' ‘Res Gestae’ (Stuttgart, 1987) (Historia Einzelschriften, 54), pp. 154–7Google Scholar. There is a good general account in Kienast, D., Augustus: Prinzeps und Monarch (Darmstadt, 1982), pp. 67–84Google Scholar. It is not practical to document specific points of agreement and disagreement, but the general studies of the question I have found most helpful are: Béranger, J., ‘Le Refus du Pouvoir’, MH 5 (1948)Google Scholar = idem, Principatus (Geneva, 1975), pp. 165–90Google Scholar; Millar, F., ‘Triumvirate and Principate’, JRS 63 (1973), 50–67Google Scholar; Lacey, W. K., ‘Octavian in the Senate, January 27 b.c.’, JRS 64 (1974), 176–84Google Scholar; Judge, E. A., ‘“Res Publica Restituta” A Modern Illusion?’, in Evans, J. A. S. (ed.), Polis andlmperium: Studies in Honour of Edward Togo Salmon (1974), pp. 279–311Google Scholar; Cartledge, P., ‘The Second Thoughts of Augustus on the Res Publica in 28/7 b.c.’, Hermathena 119 (1975), 30–40Google Scholar; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G., ‘The Settlement of 27 b.c.’, in Deroux, C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History IV (Brussels, 1986), pp. 345–64Google Scholar. For the Latin text of the Res Gestae I have relied on the convenient edition of Brunt, P. A. and Moore, J. M., Res gestae divi Augusti (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar; for the Greek translation see Ehrenberg, V. and Jones, A. H. M., Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1955).Google Scholar
2 Gagé, J., Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Paris, 1935), p. 15Google Scholar: ‘A la fin de cette série ascendante, échelonnée suivant le procédé de l'αὔξησις recommandé par les règies de l'γκώµιον, les deux chapitres de conclusion prennent leur pleine valeur; ils isolent du cursus honorum les deux titres exceptionnels qui ont le mieux couronné la carrière du nouveau Romulus.’ See also Yavetz, Z., ‘The Res Gestae and Augustus' Public Image’, in Millar, F. and Segal, E. (edd.), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (Oxford, 1984), pp. 1–36Google Scholar, at 14, who stresses that of the two chapters it is 35 that is the real high point.
3 Contrast Ramage, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 111: ‘He was out to describe in a clear, succinct manner the new form of government, the principate, that he had established in Rome.’
4 See Millar, F., A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1964), pp. 83–102Google Scholar, with a useful outline at 98–9; Manuwald, B., Cassius Dio und Augustus (Wiesbaden, 1979), pp. 86–97Google Scholar. More generally, Gabba, E., ‘The Historians and Augustus’, in Millar and Segal, op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 61–88Google Scholar, esp. 70–75; Swan, P. M., ‘Cassius Dio on Augustus: A Poverty of Annalistic Sources?’, Phoenix 41 (1987), 272–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rich, J. W., ‘Dio on Augustus’, in Averil, Cameron (ed.), History as Text (London, 1989), pp. 86–110Google Scholar; idem, Cassius Dio: The Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53–55.9) (Warminster, 1990).Google Scholar
5 Dio 52.1.1–2: ‘These then are the things the Romans accomplished, and suffered, when ruled by the kings, by the people, and under the aristocrats; but after this they went back to a proper monarchy, even though Caesar made plans to lay down his arms and turn affairs over to the senate and the people. But he came to this decision along with Agrippa and Maecenas (for he would share all his secrets to these men), and Agrippa, speaking first, said the following.’
6 Dio 53.1.1.
7 Dio 53.2.5.
8 Dio 53.3–10.
9 Dio 53.11.4, translated and discussed below.
10 Dio 53.12.2–9.
11 Dio 53.2.5–7.
12 It seems generally accepted that the speech was composed by Dio, see Millar, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 78–83. Suetonius, , Aug. 84Google Scholar does say that Augustus normally spoke from a prepared text, but there is no reason to suppose that Dio or his source had got hold of a copy of this particular speech.
13 Dio 53.11.4–5.
14 Dio 53.12.1: Τν µν οὖν γεµοναν τοτῷ τῷ τρπῳ κα παρ τς γερουσας το τε δµου βεβαιώσατο. Note that according to Dio this formal vote occurred before the decision to give up certain provinces; contrast, e.g. Brunt, P. A., ‘Lex de Imperio Vespasiani’, JRS 67 (1977), 95–116Google Scholar, at 96, who understands Dio as talking here about the lex de provinciis.
15 See esp. Millar, op. cit. (n. 1), 50–54 for the formal legality of the Second Triumvirate.
16 For the continuation of triumviral powers after 33 b.c. see Cartledge, op. cit. (n. 1), 32; note esp. ILS n. 78, which has Augustus as triumvir as late as 28.
17 An exception is Liebeschuetz, op. cit. (n. 1), esp. p. 347: ‘It is quite clear the vote was very significant indeed. It involved not only the senate but the people as well. In fact it represented a formal confirmation of Augustus' leadership. Augustus had achieved the object for the sake of which he had staged the scene: he had obtained his spontaneous vote of confidence’.
18 Dio 53.12.1–2.
19 The same sequence of events is referred to by Strabo 17.3.25: ‘The provinces have been variously organized at different times, but at present they are as Caesar Augustus decided. For when his country bestowed on him the foremost position in government and he was established as having a lifetime authority over questions of war and peace (πειδ γρ πατρς πτρεψεν αὐτῷ τν προστασαν τς γεµονας κα πολµου κα εἰρνης κατστη κριος δι βου), he split the whole empire into two parts, and assigned one part to himself, and another to the people.’
20 See, e.g. Brunt and Moore, op. cit. (n. 1), 76: ‘The constitutional puzzle is less important than Augustus’ claim to “universal consent”. Though ex parte and exaggerated, it may not be far from the truth. He had re-established peace and order and it was probably widely believed that he had saved Rome from eastern despotism.... His munificence in 30–27 must have won him popularity. The oath taken to him in 32 surely betokened wide support, and since 32 he had acted in such a way as to win and not to forfeit men's good opinions.’
21 Instinsky, H. U., ‘Consensus Universorum’, Hermes 75 (1940), 265–78Google Scholar; Pittet, A., ‘Le mot consensus chez Sénèque’, MH 12 (1955), 35–46.Google Scholar
22 Cic. De div. 1.1: ‘omnium gentium consensus’; Cic. De not. deor. 3.7.18: ‘totius mundi consensus’; Cic. Tusc. 1.16.36 ‘consensus nationum omnium’.
23 Tac. Hist. 1.15.1: ‘deorum hominumque consensu’ (Galba called to power); Val. Max. praef.: ‘penes quern [i.e. Tiberius] hominum deorumque consensus mans ac terrae regimen esse voluit.’
24 CIL VI. 10238c lines 1ff.: ‘Quod si quis eorum partem iuris sui vendiderit aut ex consensu universorum, earn pecuniam in aerarium populi Romani inferri iubemus.’ For the use of consensus in the law of obligations see Gaius 3.135: ‘Consensu fiunt obligationes in emptionibus venditionibus, locationibus conductionibus, societatibus, mandatis.’
25 As, for example, Tac. Hist. 1.49.4: ‘omnium consensu capax imperii’.
26 On the tendency to omit references to votes in the comitia see Millar, F., ‘Imperial Ideology in the Tabula Siarensis’, in Julian, González and Javier, Arce (edd.), Estudios sobre la Tabula Siarenis (Madrid, 1988), pp. 11–19Google Scholar, esp. 12–13.
27 González, J., ‘Tabula Siarensis, Fortunales Siarenses et Municipia Ciuium Romanorum’, ZPE 55 (1984), 55–100Google Scholar, esp. II b lines 27–30; for bibliography and translation see Sherk, R. K. (ed., trans.), The Roman Empire: Augustus to Trajan (Cambridge, 1988), no. 36, pp. 63–72.Google Scholar
28 Brunt, op. cit. (n. 14), esp. 116.
29 Vel. Pat. 2.91.1: ‘quod cognomen illi iure Planci sententia consensus universi senatus populique Romani indidit’.
30 CIL XI. 1420 = ILS 139. 18–19 = Ehrenberg and Jones, op. cit. (n. 1) no. 68.9ff.: ‘Cum senatus populique Romani inter ceteros plurimos ac maximos honores L. Caesaris, Augusti Caesaris patris patriae pontificis maximi tribuniciae potestatis XXV filio, auguri consuli designato, per consensum omnium ordinum.’ CIL XI. 1421 = ILS 140.13 = Ehrenberg and Jones, op. cit. (n. 1), no. 69.51ff.: ‘placere conscriptis quae a. d. IIII nonas Apriles, quae Sex. Aelio Cato C. Sentio Saturnino cos. fuerunt, facta acta constituta sunt per consensum omnium ordinum.’ See, contra, Instinsky, op. cit. (n. 21), 269 who argues that the consensus is invoked as an authority simply because no duumvirs were in place.
31 RIC, 2nd ed. I (1984), p. 68Google Scholar, Augustus nos. 357 and 358. The inscription on the obverse of no. 358 is ‘I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) S(enatus) P(opulus)Q(ue) R(omanus) v(otum) s(usceptum) pr(o) s(alute) Imp(eratoris) Cae(saris), quod per eu(m) r(es) p(ublica) in amp(liore) atq(ue) tran(quilliore) s(tatu) est’.
32 RIC I, 2nd ed. (1984), p. 112Google Scholar, Gaius no. 56, with plate 14. Both coins have been seen as reflecting the language of R.G. 34, though I do not see how we can be certain of this; see Alföldi, A., Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser (1935), p. 45Google Scholar = Die monarchische Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche (Darmstadt, 1980), p. 162Google Scholar; Oehler, K., ‘Der Consensus omnium als Kriterium der Wahrheit in der antiken Philosophie und der Patristik’, Antike und Abendland 10 (1961), 103–39Google Scholar, esp. 112–13.
33 Tabula Siarensis II b 21–7, cf. González, op. cit. (n. 27), p . 7 6 : ‘Item senatum velle atque aequ ‹u› m censere, quo facilius pietas omnium ordinum erga domum Augustam et consensu ‹s› universorum civium memoria honoranda Germanici Caesaris appareret, uti con ‹n› s(ules) hoc s(enatus) c(onsultum) cum edicto suo proponerent iuberentque mag(istratus) et legatos municipiorum et coloniarum descriptum mittere in municipia et colonias Italiae et in eas colonias quae essent in ‹p› rovinciis, eos quoque qui in provincis praessent recte atque ordine facturos si hoc s(enatus) c(onsultum) dedissent operam ut quam celeberrumo loco figeretur.’
34 Krömer, D., ‘Textkritisches zu Augustus und Tiberius’, ZPE 28 (1978), 127–44.Google Scholar
35 Seyfarth, W., ‘Potitus rerum omnium’, Philologus 101 (1957), 305–23.Google Scholar
36 Contra, e.g. Béranger, op. cit. (n. 1), 175: ‘Le princeps ne mâche pas ses mots: potitus rerum omnium. Il ne dissimule pas la brutalité de l'acte.’
37 See Brunt and Moore, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 76: ‘It seems better, then, to suppose that Augustus is not concerned here with the legal basis of his power and is saying either that after crushing Antony he acquired absolute control de facto with all men's approval, or more probably that on the eve of the great surrender he was in complete control of the state; on the last view the participle potitus is a true perfect, misunderstood by the Greek translator.’
38 For the merits and failings of the Greek translation see the useful survey in Ramage, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 126–32.
39 Petzold, K.-E., ‘Die Bedeutung des Jahres 32 für die Entstehung des Principals’, Historia 18 (1969), 334–51, esp. 343–4Google Scholar: ‘Untersuchungen des Sprachgebrauchs, inbesondere in der Koine, lehren, dass der Aorist γκρατς γενµενος nur als Ergebnis eines Vorgangs, nicht als Zustand verstanden werden kann.’
40 For a more detailed discussion see Judge, op. cit. (above, n. 1), 280–5; in general, Donald, Earl, The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome (Ithaca, 1967), pp. 62ff.Google Scholar
41 Tac. Ann. 1.3.7: ‘quotus quisque reliquus, qui rem publicam vidisset?’
42 See especially the inscription from Augustus' triumphal arch in the Forum, from 29 b.c., ILS 81 = Ehrenberg and Jones, op. cit.(n. 1), no. 17: ‘senatus populusque Romanus imp. Caesari divi Iuli f. cos. quinct. cos. design, sext. imp. sept, re publica conservata.’
43 Vel. Pat. 2.89.3: ‘Finita vicesimo anno bella civilia, sepulta externa, revocata pax, sopitus ubique armorum furor, restituta vis legibus, iudiciis auctoritas, senatui maiestas, imperium magistratuum ad pristinum redactum modum, tantummodo octo praetoribus adlecti duo. Prisca illa et antiqua rei publicae forma revocata.’ Millar, op. cit. (n. 1), 64 regards this as a very limited claim: ‘We could reasonably paraphrase this passage as “Augustus restored the res publica”, but not as “Augustus restored the Republic”.’ But even if we accept his punctuation (‘imperium magistratuum ad pristinum redactum modum; tantum modo octo praetoribus adlecti duo prisca ilia et antiqua rei publicae forma revocata’), I do not see how we can read this other than as a claim that Augustus gave the Romans back what they had always had – with the single exception that there were now eight praetors instead of six.
44 Aulus Gellius N.A. 13.12.2: ‘ “ Sed agitabat ”, inquit [sc. Capito], “hominem [i.e. Labeo] libertas quaedam nimia atque vecors usque eo ut, divo Augusto iam principe et rempublicam obtinente, ratum tamen pensumque nihil haberet, nisi quod iussum sanctumque esse in Romanis antiquitatibus legisset”.'
45 Suet. Aug. 28: ‘de reddenda re p(ublica) bis cogitavit: primum post oppressum statim Antonium, memor obiectum sibi ab eo saepius, quasi per ipsum staret ne redderetur; ac rursus taedio diuturnae valitudinis, cum etiam magistratibus et senatu domum accitis rationarium imperil tradidit.’ See esp. Millar, op. cit. (n. 1), 65.
46 See Judge, op. cit. (n. 1), 285–7.
47 Laudatio Turiae II. 35 = Ehrenberg and Jones, op. cit. (n. 1), n. 357: ‘pacato orbe terrarum, res[titut]a re publica’; Ramage (op. cit.), 59, n. 117 suggests (I think rightly) that this is best taken as understanding a dative, presumably nobis.
48 CIL I2 p. 231 = Ehrenberg and Jones, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 45; Degrassi, A., Inscriptiones Italiae XIII.2 (1963), 112–13Google Scholar: ‘Corona querc[ea uti super ianuam domus imp. Caesaris] Augusti poner[etur senatus decrevit quod rem publicam] P. R. rest[it]u[it].’ For a very different restoration see Judge, op. cit. (n. 1), 288–98.
49 Dio 53.16.4–6.
50 Livy, Epit. 134: ‘C. Caesar rebus compositis et omnibus provinciis in certain formam redactis Augustus quoque cognominatus est; et mensis Sextilis in honorem eius appellatus est’.
51 Ovid, Fasti 1.587–90: ‘Idibus in magni castus Iovis aede sacerdos / semimaris flammis viscera libat ovis; / redditaque est omnis populo provincia nostro, / et tuus Augusto nomine dictus avus.’
52 John Crook, Chris Francese, Nicholas Horsfall and Robert Kallet-Marx made valuable comments on this paper, for which I am grateful: it should not be assumed that they agree with the argument.