Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T09:18:09.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. Politics and The Constitution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

The political traditions of Rome were hostile to monarchy, or to the domination of the state by one man, whatever title he bore. The last of the line of kings of early Rome was driven into exile, and the first and only perpetual dictator, Julius Caesar, was assassinated, both in the name of liberty.

The constitution of the early Principate was created by Augustus and basically retained the shape he gave it; his actions and motives receive special attention here. The Augustan constitution was a disguised monarchy. Augustus, with the malum exemplum of his adoptive father Caesar before him, shaped a constitution that looked like that of the old Republic, and apparently let it be known to Romans that they were witnessing the return of the old Republic. Velleius Paterculus, propagandist and spokesman for the Augustan regime and its successor, said of the events of 28-27 B.C.: ‘the pristine form of the republic was recalled as of old’ (2.89). Augustus’ own claim in the Res Gestae is less extravagant but conveys the same message: ‘I transferred the republic from my power to the dominion of the senate and the people of Rome’ (34.1).

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 15: The Early Principate: Augustus to Trajan , 1982 , pp. 1 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. For Augustus as politician see Syme (1939), and, in general, Jones, A. H. M., Augustus (London, 1970)Google Scholar. On the Augustan constitution see Jones (1960), reviewed by Brunt, , CR 12 (1962), 70 Google Scholar ff.; Brunt, and Moore, , eds., Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar; Brunt (1977). For a good introduction to the early Principate, see Millar (1967).

2. This is disputed by, e.g., Millar, F., ‘Triumvirate and Principate’, JRS 63 (1973), 50–67 Google Scholar; Judge, E. A., ‘ “Res Publica Restituta”: A Modern Illusion?’ in Evans, J. A. S. ed., Polis and Imperium: Studies in Honour of E. T. Salmon (Toronto, 1974), pp. 279-311Google Scholar.

3. Crook (1955).

4. Dio (51.19, under 30 B.C.) suggests that in Augustus’ case the tribunician power to help the oppressed (ius auxilii) was specifically extended beyond its traditional limits, the city of Rome. Dio also appears to place in that year a grant of tribunician power for life.

5. See Jones and Brunt (n. 1); Brunt, , ‘C. Fabricius Tuscus and an Augustan Dilectus’, ZPE 13 (1974), 161-85Google Scholar, esp. 162-73. The source is Dio 54.10.5.

6. The epigram is Millar’s. For the thesis in embryo, Millar, , ‘Emperors at Work’, JRS 57 (1967), 9–19 Google Scholar; and in elaborated form, Millar (1977).

7. On this enactment see Brunt (1977); cf. Last, CAH XI, pp. 404 ff.

8. On the succession to Augustus, see Syme (1939), chh. 27-28; Levick, B. M., Tiberius the Politician (London, 1976), chh. 3–4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and in general Parsi, B., Désignation et investiture de l’empereur romain (Paris, 1963)Google Scholar.

9. Levick (1967).

10. For Tiberius, see Seager, R., Tiberius (London, 1972)Google Scholar; Levick (n. 8).

11. For Nero, Warmington, B. H., Nero: Reality and Legend (London, 1969)Google Scholar; Griffin (1976).

12. Pliny Ep. 8.14.8; Pan. 54; cf. Ep. 5.4; 4.12; 3.20.12.

13. Syme (1958), chh. 6-8. See also Tacitus’ ideal senator of Agricola 42.4.

14. Garnsey (1970), pp. 44 ff. On maiestas see Bauman (1974).

15. Brunt (1975).

16. Vestinus the consul was left out, it was rumoured, lest he call for the restoration of the Republic (or champion another).

17. The identity of Murena and the chronology of 23-22 B.C. are vigorously debated. See Nisbet, R. G. M., Hubbard, M., A Commentary on Horace: Odes Book II (Oxford, 1978), pp. 151-8Google Scholar. On opposition to Augustus, Wiedemann, T., ‘The Political background to Ovid’s Tristia 2’, CQ 25 (1975), 264-71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and in general Wirszubski (1950).

18. Dio 51.24.4, 25.2; Livy 4.20.5-7.