Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T21:25:00.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Interpretation of Res Gestae Divi Augusti, 34. 1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

F. E. Adcock
F. E. Adcock
Affiliation:
King's College, Cambridge
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In consulatu sexto et septimo postquam bella civilia exstinxeram per consensum universorum [potitus rerum own]ium rem publicam ex mea potestate in senat[us populique Romani a]rbitrium transtuli.

There is very little doubt about the reading of the Latin text, except that the Greek has suggested to Schönbauer that ‘compos’ should be read for ‘potitus’. He urges that ‘compos’ has a ‘milder meaning’ than ‘potitus’ and has no connotation of the use of force. The change to ‘compos’ is worthy of consideration, but suggests that the Latin ran ‘compos factus’ if ‘compos’ was used, and the phrase ‘compos factus’, though good Augustan Latin, is perhaps too retarding in rhythm to fit this place, though to that stylistic feeling too much weight should not be assigned.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 1 , Issue 3-4 , July 1951, pp. 130 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1951

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 S.B. Akad. Wiss. in Wien, ccxxiv. 2 (1946)Google Scholar

2 Ibid., p. 45.

3 Phil. Woch., 1925, col. 1019.

4 Berl. S.B., Phil.-hist. Kl., 1925, pp. 66–87.

5 Hermes, lxxi (1936), pp. 241–53.Google Scholar

1 Phil, xci (1936), pp. 350–2.Google Scholar

2 For example, does not precisely give the meaning of the carefully chosen phrase ‘in senatus populique Romani arbitrium transtuli’; where ‘arbitrium’ is not just power or legal possession, which is what means, to judge from papyri and inscriptions.

1 Zeit. d. Sav. Stiftung, rom. Abt. lxi (1941), pp. 77–122, esp. p. 91.Google Scholar

2 Visscher, F. de, ‘Les Pouvoirs d'Octavien en, l'an 32 av. J.-C’, Bull, de l'inst. hist, his. belg de Rome, xix (1938), pp. 103–24.Google Scholar

1 Hermes, lxxv (1940), pp. 265 ff. See also von Premerstein, Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats, p. 43, n. 2 and p. 64.Google Scholar

1 This suggestion I owe to Mr. G. T. Griffith, who kindly read this paper in MS. in its original form.

2 35. 1. See the admirable discussion of Hohl, E., ‘Der Leistungsbericht des Augustus’, N. J. für antike und deutsche Bildung, 1940, pp. 136–46.Google Scholar

3 Under what constitutional forms the general will manifested itself remains conjectural. Kornemann, , Röm. Gesch. ii, pp. 120Google Scholar f., suggests a ‘Plebiszit … in Gestalt eines formlosen Konsensus aller Bürger, der noch vor Ablauf des Jahres 30 zustande gekommen sein muβ und vielleicht zu einer gesetzlichen Regelung gefuhrt hat’. Apart from the question of the date, on which this paper takes a different view, one would expect rather a S.C. perhaps confirmed by a vote of the Assembly, perhaps by some less formal expression of general approval.Grant, M., ‘The Augustan Constitution’, Greece and Rome, xviii (1949), pp. 100Google Scholar f., would make the words ‘per consensum universorum potitus rerum omnium’ refer to a blending of auctoritas and poite-stas confirmed on 1 January 29 B.C. by some form of acclamation, but this seems difficult to combine with the assertion of Agrippa's equal collegiality a year later. J. Liegle, ‘Die Münz prägung Octavians nach dem Siege von Aktium und die augusteische Kunst’, J.D.A.I, lvi (1941), pp. 91Google Scholar ff., esp. p. 116, would derive the potitio rerum omnium from the deputations that greeted Octavian at Brundisium in the winter of 30–31 B.C. as described by Dio, 51. 4. 4 ff. But apart from the apparent indication of date ‘in sexto et septimo consulatu’, it seems hard to believe that what Dio describes is more than the acknowledgement that Octavian had won a decisive victory. The coins to which Liegle refers appear to reflect this belief, especially in the Greek East, rather than any view of Octavian's constitutional position. The main argument of the present paper would be stronger, it is true, if it was possible to say precisely how the potitio rerum omnium was brought about, but Res Gestae 34 is equally reticent about the constitutional grant of powers that followed the Act of State of January 27 B.C. It can quite fairly be urged that if there happened the manifestation of the general will that is here Postulated, Dio should have mentioned it in his account of the year 28 B.C., but the silence of Dio cannot outweigh what appears to be the implication of what Augustus has said.