It would be an understatement to say that Augustus dominated his age – this fact is reflected in both the ancient sources and modern studies on Augustus, which generally tell the story of his triumph in civil war, consolidation of power and his establishment of autocratic rule under the guise of a re-established res publica. Yet debates continue. Did he ‘restore’ the Republic in the early 20s bce, or is that rhetoric a reflection of the later reception of these actions? Was the change to triumphal awards after 19 bce a sudden policy shift or the gradual result of other factors? Were his powers total soon after Actium, or was there a slower growth of his influence? Was he perceived of as a monarch in disguise, or rather as princeps and pater patriae? And what of our sources, many of which come from decades or even centuries after his death? How do they obscure contemporary considerations of Rome's first emperor?
The bi-millennium of Augustus’ death reminded us that studies of this period remain evergreen. This volume's approach asks a provocative question: can there be an analysis of the Augustan Age without a focus on Augustus himself? The title of this book immediately evokes the possibilities and difficulties of such a tactic. One might like to look elsewhere (hence ‘Alternative’), but what would they call the period to be examined other than the ‘Augustan Age’? As the prefatory essay states, there will be new interpretations and emphases, an attempt to look beyond ‘key dates’ and to move away from an Augustus-centred narrative. As the volume is only loosely arranged by theme, I have attempted to identify overlapping ideas among the essays in the comments that follow.
An important point to make at the outset is that we must acknowledge biases in both the ancient and the modern literature. The characterisation of L. Munatius Plancus, assessed by H. Mitchell, is a case in point. Mitchell shows that the description of Plancus as ‘in service to the times’, viewed negatively especially by scholars of the mid-twentieth century, was in reality part of a moral argument for survivors of recent political upheavals. The editors rightly address this issue in the introduction, noting especially the paucity of contemporary sources. But we should acknowledge the limitation of contemporary sources and also be wary of charging Suetonius and Cassius Dio with overly flattening the narrative of how Augustus’ powers developed over time. E. Cowan's chapter is a case in point, as it examines Velleius Paterculus’ understanding of the settlement of 28–27 bce, concluding that the author, whose ill repute needs little elaboration, was able to separate the nature of the ‘first settlement’ from its later reception as a ‘restoration’ of the Republic.
Important considerations along these lines emerge throughout, as can be seen in several papers highlighting the extent of Augustus’ borrowings. Morrell focuses on Augustus’ reforms of provincial administration, ambitus and fiscal matters, showing how all relate to the precedents of Pompey (the provinces) and Cato (ambitus and the treasury). Augustus comes off like any other politician – happy to take credit for the achievements or ideas of his predecessors, while attempting to conceal their influence. In a similar vein P. Hay takes up the question of periodisation. Sulla is key here, as he promoted a new age using a belief in saecula. Augustus borrowed from or participated in this conversation, creating the idea of his own age.
What about Augustus’ relationship with the Senate? The meeting with the Senate at which the clupeus virtutis was bestowed was part of a series of actions over the years 28–27 bce meant to signal the end of the triumviral assignment. Welch rightly views these events as a negotiation, and she sees the shield as the Senate's opposition to monarchy, which attempted to transform Augustus’ piety towards Julius Caesar into piety towards Rome and its gods – hence, pietas erga deos patriamque. Similarly, A. Pettinger regards the lectio senatus of 18 bce as a negotiation between Senate and princeps. Pettinger questions whether Augustus was the one who wanted this reform, and instead understands the event as a way towards reconciliation between the senators and Augustus. The Senate was thus attempting to find its voice in changing times, in support of the princeps but ultimately with some say. A. Russell's discussion of the grant of pater patriae in 2 bce sounds a different chord. This essay explores the new corporate, passive identity of the Senate. But was this always so? Suetonius (Aug. 54) mentions episodes of protest in the Senate, and Russell makes incomplete use of Cass. Dio 55.24–5. Russell takes this passage to show a lack of interest in active participation, but the context here is important – Cassius Dio tells us that Augustus used this manoeuvre to divide senatorial opinion and get what he wanted.
As W. Eck demonstrates, Augustus did not always get what he wanted (at first). A new inscription from Moesia Inferior informs our understanding of the marriage laws of 9 ce. Originally proposed in 5 and 6 ce, they were resisted before they were forced through in 9. Augustus was not always in supreme control – but he still got what he wanted in the end. These findings are in line with B. Hopwood's chapter, which also discusses Augustus’ marriage legislation as a locus for conflict between Republican precedent and the wishes of the new princeps.
As for individual honours under Augustus, several essays explore what was permissible, what drew the ire of the princeps and what was the nature of the princeps’ role in mediating this aspect of elite Roman life. C.H. Lange's chapter on triumphs develops the argument that there was no deliberate policy on Balbus as the last non-familial triumphing general. Augustus, of course, was ‘always part of the equation’, but he did not immediately change this Republican institution for his own political needs. Two essays, by W. Havener and Osgood, examine provincial territories and the possibility for military distinction outside of the city. Havener discusses the prefecture of Egypt. Gallus’ military glory did not lead to his trial and suicide – the problem was that he continued his self-promotion back in Rome, during a period that was part of a re-negotiation of politics and social status. Subsequent prefects learned their lesson; by the time Petronius was in the position, he had learned not to compete with Augustus. Like Lange, Havener sees changes as developments over time. Similarly, Osgood views Africa as a place for fame and fortune, highlighting African triumphs by others than Augustus in 33, 28 and 22 bce, and that honours continued to be won in Africa even after 19 bce. Areas outside of Rome, such as Africa, could be ‘a realm[s] of individual glory’ (p. 161) and evidence that Augustus did not hold a monopoly on honours.
M. Roller's essay moves away from military glory, but remains focused on the dignitas of elites. Roller charts the rise of the centumviral court under Augustus and its implications for oratory between Cicero and Augustus. Basing his analysis on types of published speeches, Roller observes that Cicero left little trace of his work on civil cases, which reflects biases against these trials because they were not high profile enough. In the Augustan age, by contrast, the general curtailment of the elite's access to large public crowds led to the prominence of the centumviral court, which offered ‘large, socially elevated jury panel(s)’ and the possibility of large audiences (p. 279).
The issue of self-promotion is present in other essays. M. Goldman-Petri examines Augustus’ re-establishment of the tresviri monetales, specifically the coinage of C. Antistius Vetus, tresvir of 16 bce. Goldman-Petri argues that these coins emphasise ‘Antistius’ own religious authority’ (pp. 213–14) and that, overall, we should see space permitted for self-promotion in a manner akin to Republican forebears. While this paper rightfully argues against a very strict understanding of Augustus’ control over such matters, it should be noted that these images seem still to have been made according to the terms of Augustus, who shifted much senatorial activity towards priesthoods, especially in the period in question (20s–10s bce). Agrippa provides another such example in J. Tan's chapter. Agrippa's career advanced with and because of the princeps, and it is difficult to see the level of autonomy in crafting that career that Tan insists on here. The conclusion that Augustus’ co-existence with a man who was capax imperii meant an end of civil war is unobjectionable, but the effort to efface Augustus’ influence in building that career is difficult to swallow.
Several essays take on the relationship between culture and politics. J. Allen's chapter on Asinius Pollio explores the ways that elites could influence Augustus through cultural means. Advancing what he refers to as the ‘politics of cosmopolitanism’, which he traces to the influence of Hellenistic dynasts, Allen examines Pollio's transformation of the Atrium Libertatis and its possible effects on young Caesar, namely in his decision to develop his own libraries on the Palatine. As such, Pollio's cultural activities were not purely aesthetic, but political.
Maecenas and the poets are the subject of P. Le Doze's essay. In Le Doze's telling Maecenas’ project was to promote Latin poetry (a form of Roman domination), and his proximity to the princeps and personal auctoritas allowed poets a greater freedom of expression. The poets, in turn, convinced that they were living at a key moment, linked civic ambition to their artistic achievements and wished to use the writings to help their patria. They could express opinions on the new shape of power. One wonders, however, what these opinions were, and this absence marks a particular weakness in this paper. One manifestation might be Virgil's shield of Aeneas, as analysed by G. Herbert-Brown. This paper suggests that Virgil was a ‘Gallic sympathizer’ (p. 254) and makes a number of speculative points: that Virgil was a Romanised Gaul who suppressed his identity because of a ‘Gallo-phobic environment’. Taken in wider view, one might see this essay as advocating for poetry as a form of either messaging to the princeps (like Le Doze) or outright resistance to a re-working of the Roman past under Augustus.
The essays provide much food for thought, but a key question remains: is it possible to diminish the figure of Augustus in a fruitful way? Yes and no. The best essays in this book look to areas (physical or otherwise) where the emperor was less prominent and help us better understand, at least obliquely, the nature of Augustus’ power – that, while strong, was not all-consuming in every aspect of people's lives. They also reveal the ‘negotiation’ (a frequently used word in this volume) between princeps and his various constituencies and highlight the long-term development of many Augustan policies. Augustus’ world was not built in a day. More difficult are the parts that try to erase Augustus, where the emperor feels like the elephant in the room. Overall, the volume highlights the breadth of areas in which the princeps was more (or less) involved. While we may not be more inclined to think of the period as anything other than the ‘Augustan Age’, this volume is provocative and will spur further studies that re-think the princeps’ place in it.
