English
中文The Res Gestae Divi Augusti is commonly referred to simply as Augustus’ own account of his reign. However, the term Res Gestae implies far greater depth. As with the philology of many Latin terms, Res Gestae had multiple meanings that were deeply imbued with legal connotation.
In ancient Rome the phrase Res Gestae was used as a response to hearsay evidence in court. It relates to spontaneous exclamations that were without deliberation so they could not be misinterpreted or refuted. If we attach the same dynamic to Augustus’ inscription, then the Res Gestae Divi Augusti no longer appears as just a subjective account of Augustus’ life, with all its omissions and euphemisms. It becomes an exclamation itself. An instructive legal diktat documenting his political achievements.
The legal philology of Res Gestae thus sets the tone for Augustus’ account. It provides the legal context and purpose behind the Res Gestae. The whole text is suffused with references to an adherence to traditional Republican law and support for the Roman rés publica. In this manner Augustus is using his Res Gestae to provide a legal account of the events of his reign in order to legitimate and stabilise the rule of the principate, by presenting the reader with an image of continuity with the legal rés publica.
By doing so he was ensuring that this new authoritarian system of rule was embedded and enshrined in the laws and relations of the Senate and people. That it had evolved in concert with the laws of the old rés publica. In order that the absolute control of affairs centred around the leadership of the princeps was completely disassociated from monarchical dictatorship it had to be seen to be founded in republican politics. The reason being of course to provide a strong, authoritarian, but constitutional, defence against a repeat of any of the internecine conflicts that had racked Roman oligarchical politics ever since the Claudii-Scipiones factions. By stabilising and legalising this new principate, as a system ratified by the Republican rule of law and supported by the “universal consent” of the people (the sovereign body of the state), he could thus ensure the survival of the principate as a political dynasty. A rule that was founded on the absolute influence of the princeps senatus but within the constitutional framework of the Republic.
The key concept to understand is therefore how what was effectively political propaganda could legitimise this dynastic political power. This can be comprehended by examining the very nature of Roman senatorial politics that structured the rés publica. In the time-honoured, tradition-conscious world of the early rés publica, politics was conducted by the patrician ruling caste that comprised the Senate. Officially an advisory body, its power was upheld through manipulation of the nominally democratic plebian assemblies, and it effectively managed the legal capabilities of the councils and magistracies through control of public finance, political appointment and military authority.
Most significantly, however, senatorial politics, the heart of the Republican government, was based on a consensual, politics-by-precedent. This was framed not through a written constitution, but through a shared identification with tradition, and the cohesive, homogenising class loyalty of the patrician caste. Laws and policies were enacted through the debating chamber of the Senate, and substantiated through tradition and mutual identity.
The growing pains of empire forced a restructuring of Senate and State. With expanding borders in Italy providing new land, property and ‘clientage’, the homogenous identity on which the functioning of the patrician ruling caste relied became diluted and dislocated. While this would precipitate an increasingly violent dynastic and factional breakdown in senatorial politics, the traditional values of that political system remained. The realms of both law and politics were effectively oratorical as well as tradition-bound: responding to the values of gravitas (dignity, fortitude), dignitas (moral and ethical worth) and pietas (duty to the gods, family and state) that codified Roman society. In this turbulent climate, when appealing to these traits, the most effective speaker, with the most effective propaganda, and the strongest military backing, found consistent support. By rhetorically emphasising these traits in his Res Gestae, Augustus, in the Roman political imagination, is legalising his conduct and endorsing his new system of political rule.
The basis on which this new authority was endorsed was of course through the power of popular consent, which Augustus reinforces when speaking of his military imperium against Marc Anthony:
“The whole of Italy of its own accord took an oath of allegiance to me and demanded that I should be its leader in the war which I won at Actium… Of those who fought at the time under my standards, more than 700 were Senators [Res Gestae, 25].”
While late Roman Republican politics was becoming more fragmented, machiavellian, and violent, politicians such as Augustus were still bound by the codes of tradition and legality (either morally or politically) referred to above. Subsequently, this moves Augustus to write:
” In my 6th and 7th consulships [28-27 BC], after I had put an end to the civil wars, having by universal consent acquired control of all affairs, I transferred government from my own authority to the discretion of the Senate and people of Rome [Res Gestae
, 34].”
Above all his need to ally himself to the ‘universal’ consent of the Roman people is based on the legitimating power that that sovereign support gave to his absolute rule during civil conflict. This was further necessitated by the critical need to distance himself from any impression of an open dictatorial coup d’etat, which would have been disastrous for Rome. When he speaks of the act of his transferrance of power back to the Senate, Augustus is speaking truthfully. But these are only half-truths, hiding the political machinations that structured these actions. Again, this transferrance was politically manufactured. For the principate to be legally founded it had to emerge from the legal foundations of the Republican ‘constitution’. Augustus therefore had to be divorced from any involvement in this process, such was the potency of memories regarding former monarchical reign.
As such, he consistently presents himself as a champion of the principles of the rés publica. He takes great pains to be seen to be respecting tradition, honour and legality, while using them to substantiate his family’s political and legal position with the Senate and people. By articulating his position of political power as universally authenticated by the people, he hopes to safeguard this imperium, but most importantly his auctoritas too, without alienating political support.
In the Latin definition auctoritas did not refer to the simple ‘authority’ envisioned by contemporary English translation. It is a combination of the Latin augéo (to augment) and auctor (author). The term not only refers to concepts of political power, but the foundations and ownership of that power, through the traditional conservation of dynastic principles, such as pietas (duty to the gods, family and state).
It is these latter principles of auctoritas and pietas that are crucial to understanding Res Gestae, and Augustus’ appropriations of notions of ‘universal consent’. Notions of political piety can be found throughout the text and are critical in securing the desired auctoritas that would structure any dynastic succession to the principate. The true notion of Roman piety does not just correspond to religious devotion and moral sacrifice, but also duty on behalf of one’s fellow man in the public body.
This is a theme that Augustus tries to cultivate throughout. Fundamentally, this was an appeal to the traditions and virtues that bound together the Roman State, which he portrays as the determining factors of his original entry into Roman politics. Although a member of the patrician rank, Augustus was without imperium in the Senate: a political cipher vulnerable to manipulation. As such, he declares that he entered into political life out of responsibility to his adoptive father and the Roman people. Swearing revenge for Julius Caesar’s murderers, he writes that:
“on my own initiative and at my own expense, I raised an army, with which I liberated the Republic from the tyranny of a faction by which it was oppressed, and restored it to freedom [Res Gestae, 1].”
It is in supposed fidelity to this tradition that Augustus also constantly relates of his grudging acceptance of absolute power, and how he humbly receives rewards and recognition that are ‘without precedent’ in Roman politics. Again this is directed towards the Roman people, to reflect Augustus’ self-sacrifice and legitimise any (dynastic) political power. Accordingly, he represents recognition of his service as being forced upon him by the public body, for which he had ceaselessly served without any thought of reward. It is this imagery that is used to consolidate his perception as the patriarch of Rome, embodying the values of fortitude, clemency, justice and piety inscribed upon the golden shield given to him by: “populumque Romanum.”
Consequently, Augustus concludes by highlighting this elevation to the status of patriarch of the Roman people (and the absolute authority associated) by popular consent: “populusque Románus úniversus appellavit me patrem patriae [Res Gestae, 35].” And by describing how the Roman people and Senate had ‘granted him’ tribunician power for life: “sacrosanctus ut essem in perpetuum et quoad víverem, tribúnicia potestás mihí esset, per legem sanctum est [Res Gestae, 10].” This power is of particular importance, and the Latin derivation gives this process embellished meaning. The phrases ‘sancrosanctus’, ‘perpetuum’, ‘víverem’ and ‘legem sanctum’ all emphasise the sacred power for life that Augustus had been legally awarded. In receiving this, Augustus retained unto death the extensive legal powers of the tribunicia potestas (without holding that office), which, combined with his consulship, would form the constitutional base of the supreme power of the princeps.
In reality, there had been no legislative or constitutional change to traditional republican rule; the development of Caesarian rule would only gradually evolve over the years, avoiding the fatal appearance of a radical transition. Augustus was a chief magistrate with all the various political powers that his offices traditionally enjoyed. Augustus was quite correct when he wrote that: “I had no greater power than those who were my colleagues in any given magistracy [Res Gestae, 34].” He held a traditional office, as many had before him. However, he had “exceeded all men in authority [Res Gestae, 34].” It was his military authority, his immense political client base and unrivalled financial power that forced deference to his supreme status as princeps. These were the foundations of the absolute authority of the Caesars, which over time would be unified and fully consecrated by Roman law. As we can see, the reference to ‘universal consent’ was not merely political jargon but key to consolidating the legal powers of the principate, and to the consecration of the absolute authority of any of his successors.
How did the physical aspect of Rome change thanks to Augustus?
Augustus’ description of the public works and architectural initiatives made during his lifetime is similarly articulated as half-truths, omitting the political background for their development. Many of the public works carried out by Agrippa and himself were politically, not aesthetically or culturally motivated. In fact, a great deal of the works carried out by both were left out the contents of Augustus’ Res Gestae.
By professing a concern for the future welfare of the Roman populous, and improving the transport, resource and religious infrastructure of Rome, Augustus sought, during his struggle with Marc Anthony, to cultivate the reserves of home support available to him. This is why he expended vast amounts of money and territory to settle the veterans of the Roman army (at the expense of the grumbling Italians, whose enfranchisement as Roman citizens and antipathy over land settlement were of less political importance than Augustus’ military capacity against Anthony).
It is for this reason also that he remarks in Chapter 20 of the public works conducted by himself and Agrippa, where:
“I repaired the conduits of the aqueducts, which in a great many places were falling into disrepair through lapse of time: and in the case of the aqueduct known as the Marcian aqueduct, doubled its supply by diverting a new spring into it [Res Gestae, 20].”
This provided fresh water for drinking, the public baths and sewage, improving sanitation for the plebeian masses and increasing their support in the difficult campaign to come. This was especially important considering the increased taxation that would need to be enforced in order to ‘protect the freedoms and safety’ of the Roman people. This position as a reluctant but proud protector of the republic and triumvir for the settlement of public affairs is first described in Chapter 1. His role as the saviour of Rome however is recurrent throughout:
“It (the Senate) ordered me as propraetor to take steps together with the consuls to see that the Republic should come to no harm [Res Gestae, 1].”
The same political considerations dominated the settlement of grain shortages spoken of in Chapter 5. Although he neglects to mention that this new grain supply was secured by the destruction of Pompeius’ naval blockade: the ‘pirates’ referred to in Chapter 25.
Some cultural architectural programmes were also allied to this welfare policy. For example, the portico at the Circus Flaminus, the ceremonial box at the Circus Maximus, and restorations of the Capitol and the theatre of Pompey [Res Gestae, 19-20]. However, the mass of religious architectural construction and refurbishment plans carried out under Augustus were much more than elements in a domestic welfare programme. Their political uses were multi-faceted. Principally, in their construction, Augustus was again courting tradition in order to mobilise conservative, patriotic Roman support.
As part of his strategy against Marc Anthony, he illustrated his enemy as betraying Roman tradition, virtue and, above all, their gods. Usurped by Cleopatra, oriental degeneracy and the pantheons of Egypt, Marc Anthony had betrayed his country, and his culture. In this way Augustus could depict the coming conflict with Marc Anthony in terms of an international struggle with an oriental traitor, not a true Roman subject. Such a war of culture meant the strengthening and mobilisation of Roman tradition and cultural practice was critical in alienating Anthony’s support. However, this use of tradition was not restricted to attracting support for the fight against Anthony. It would also become the core to Augustus’ post-war power brokering, in developing the ‘clientage’ that would form the backbone of his auctoritas and status as princeps once the civil war had been won.
That these religious structures were so uniquely tied to Roman republican tradition explains the sheer magnitude of constructions that were carried out by Augustus. He declares triumphantly that “I repaired eighty-two temples of the gods in Rome, omitting none then in need of repair [Res Gestae, 20].” It is important to note that clearly not all were built during the period of the triumvirate. And so not all of these constructions can be reconciled with Augustus’ need to create a domestic support base for that campaign. And so, whilst some scholars have considered Augustus conscientiously religious, and although it is probable that he was as bound to Roman tradition as any of his peers, this too does not answer for the scale of public works, both before and after the victory at Actium.
The answer is that these traditions were played on to political effect. In the struggle with Marc Anthony these constructions constituted a political statement: a literally monumental act of ‘drawing a line in the sand’. Here Augustus was baiting his opponent: ‘I am for Rome, her traditions, her cultures, her people. For whom and for what do you stand?’. The temples of Saturn, Castor, Mars, Quirinus, Minerva and Jupiter [Res Gestae, 19-21] were all a physical manifestation of that political strategy. Anthony on the other hand was depicted as being aligned with Cleopatra and the East. And when it became apparent that he was willing to divorce Octavia and thus Rome for Cleopatra’s love, and was even ready to be buried with her in Egypt not Rome, a large slice of his Roman support defected, sealing his fate.
The same architectural strategy was utilised after victory over Marc Anthony. The mass of constructions that shaped the Roman cityscape was a simple but grandiose stratagem. By these constructions, Augustus introduced the power of the princeps into everyday life. Everywhere the Roman citizenry looked there was dramatic evidence of the power and protection of Augustus and his princeps. It is of particular significance then that when Augustus writes of the repair of the basilica he comments: “I commenced its rebuilding on an enlarged site in the name of my sons, and gave orders that if I did not live to complete it, my heirs should do so [Res Gestae, 20].”
By building these powerful structures the image of Augustus’ dynasty, the line of the Caesars, was to be etched indelibly onto Roman consciousness. This was to be key to Augustus gradually instilling in the Roman people the notion of the supreme authoritarian rule of the Caesars. The ultimate ambition of this architectural project begins to be realised when he declares, “the Senate, the Equestrian order, and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of his Country [Res Gestae, 35].”
His residence, situated on the mythological site where Romulus had founded Rome (clearly chosen for its symbolic dimensions), similarly distinguished him. Again, it was arranged that the Senate would present him with gifts to adorn his house, glorify his presence, and even immortalise his name. Never before bestowed, these marked him out as a superhuman figure superior to other Romans, and inextricably linked to the future security, well-being and prosperity of the rés publica:
“From this service of mine, by decree of the Senate I received the name Augustus, and the doorposts of my house were publicly decked with laurels, a civic crown was fixed above my door, and a golden shield was set up in the Julian Senate House, the inscription to which testifies that it was given to me by the Senate and people of Rome in honour of my fortitude, clemency, justice and piety [Res Gestae, 34].”
However, as instrumental as these architectural projects were in imaginatively representing the power of Augustus’ power and dynasty, they were constrained by the same official political boundaries that governed the exercise of the princeps. As dramatic a representation as they made of the future power of the Ceasars, they still had to display at least a tacit recognition of the republican traditions that structured the state, ensured the support of the Roman people, and legalised Augustus’ supreme power. The need for this restraint and adherence to republican tradition is again echoed in the Res Gestae when Augustus proclaims:
“I restored the Capitol and the theatre of Pompey, both at great expense, without any inscription of my name on them [Res Gestae, 20].”
The influence of Augustus on the architecture of Rome, and thus the political order with which it was associated, can be seen most clearly in the renovation and building works carried out around the Forum Romanum. Although, not financed personally, changes to the forum and its surroundings reflected the changes to the political order as structures emerged that were dedicated to the history, family and personalities of the Julian family. This is most prominently emphasised in the re-christening of the Senate house after its restoration: Curia Julia [Res Gestae, 19]. By this process, the character of the princeps was gradually being sculpted physically, in the marble and stone of the Senate, forums, temples and basilicas, as well as politically, in the legal offices of Republican Rome.
Why is Augustus keen to “restore many traditions of [Rome’s] ancestors” [8]?
As explored above, the integration of political strategy with tradition, and the social codes, structures and history that constructed that tradition, was key to the longevity of the evolved political system Augustus was trying to create. As we have seen, in order to gain a wide support base it was necessary to appeal to these traits to ally the patrician, equestrian and plebeian classes to this new authority.
Since the days of Gracchus, politics in the republican senate had become increasingly partisan and factionalised. Not in the modern concept of divergent political ‘wings’ based on distinct ideologies, but dynastically, into parties united by familial and kin ties. The Senate had originally developed as a council of elders comprised of the head of the greatest families in Rome (hence its ‘patrician’ membership), and the influence of competing family interests persisted in the republic of Augustus’ political life. The growth of empire loosened the class ties that had welded a common belief and action in the Senate (see above), introducing a divisive, dynastic politics. Yet those common social values and visions of the state that defined the patrician caste remained as strong as ever. These ‘traditions’ were played on furiously by Augustus to win the “universal consent” cited in Chapter 34.
Consequently, Augustus’ Res Gestae is saturated with references to Roman tradition. From the outset, Augustus appeals to the traditions of republican law and filial piety, stating that “those who murdered my father I drove into exile, avenging their crime by due process of law [Res Gestae, 2].” Similar motives determine his repeated reference to military triumphs and the traditional rewards these entailed: the curule, the laurels and the hail of imperator. While some of these actions were customary elements of Roman political and social etiquette, Augustus goes further, describing that:
“although the Senate decreed further triumphs for me, I declined them all. I deposited in the Capitol the laurel symbolizing my victorious command, having fulfilled in each of the wars the vows which I had made [Res Gestae, 4].”
Not only does Augustus emphasise the laying of laurels, he also makes a point of ‘declining’ more venal recognitions of his victories. This once more corresponds to the core Roman values of dignitas, gravitas and pietas. By dutifully, selflessly serving his people, and by requesting no more reward that which would be officially appropriate, Augustus is comporting himself with honour and dignity. These of course are attributes that he is eager to demonstrate throughout the text. This is exhibited in his military victories from Phillipi to Actium, in his political supremacy over foreign “suppliants[Res Gestae, 29]”; or even domestically, when he:
“did not refuse, at a time of severe food shortage, official responsibility for the corn supply, which [he] so administered that within a few days [he] relieved the entire city from the fear and danger in which it stood [Res Gestae, 5].”
In Chapter 6, when Augustus claims that “I declined to accept the offer of any office not in accordance with tradition and precedent,” his motives once again lean towards political security. In this instance, the suggestion that Augustus should be “sole Guardian of laws and morals with full powers [Res Gestae, 6]” provides an unnerving resemblence to the powers that Julius Caesar assumed before his murder. Once again, Augustus is keen to disengage from any impression of monarchical dictatorship, such is the violent unpopularity that surrounds it.
However, when in Chapter 8 he writes that “I restored numerous traditional ways that were falling into abeyence and I personally set numerous precedents for imitation by posterity [Res Gestae, 8],” we glimpse another aspect of his use of “tradition and precedent.” Here, he is also keen not just to use tradition for present political support, he is also keen to wed himself to political history, culture and tradition. To become part of that hallowed precedent that governed Roman political life. It is this which prompts him to initiate legislation that constitutionally marks his rule on the traditions of the Roman political system. It is this, again, that prompts his immense architectural projects that reshape Rome, with the power of the Julian family focused at the centre of political life. Augustinian politics and society are dominated by ‘precedents’ such as prayers held specifically in Augustus’ honour [Res Gestae, 4], the routinely held sacrifices for Augustus’ health [Res Gestae, 9] or the epic constructions of the Forum Julium [Res Gestae, 20]. All were designed to dramatically fuse the appearance and character of the princeps to the history and tradition of the Republican State. So that Augustus’ rule was inseparable from Rome’s historical traditions, and his dynasty would be engraved in the legal and cultural foundations of the rés publica.
Augustus, by the invoking of tradition in his architectural and political refounding of Rome, comprehensively assimilates the public and political spaces of Roman life. Through the power of imagery and experience, this familiarised the Roman people with the supreme authority of the princeps and its dynastic succession. Gradually, over time, the reality of the princeps as the sole political authority evolved from mere political imagery into an accepted fait accompli among the peoples and institutions of the rés publica. By allying himself with tradition, Augustus therefore ensured a peaceful transition to the rule of the principate. Any political change, by welding it to the structures and traditions of the republic in this way, would not be seen as radical or revolutionary, but progressive.
