G.’s new book is another in a long line of introductory studies to the age of Augustus. In eight brief chapters it provides a general introduction to various topics, in the main following the life of Augustus chronologically. Oddly, a ‘Note on Major Ancient Sources’ precedes the preface. The preface emphasises the profound impact of Augustus on the Empire and its culture. It rightly highlights the extensive scholarly debate on virtually all the issues raised in the book. One possible quibble might be that the profound impact of the age is not, sadly, judged in terms of the transformation of Roman society during the Late Republican period.
Chapter 1 focuses on the early life of Octavian, down to the death of Caesar. One strength of this and later chapters is that the private life of the man is not forgotten, including the impact of his mother Atia. Chapter 2 sums up the period of the civil war, including a discussion of Augustus’ character (pp. 37–9). The battle of Actium is at the centre of attention. G. accepts J. Kromayer's (albeit unacknowledged) outdated theory on the battle, attempting at the same time the somewhat fruitless task of trying to reconcile different and clearly contradictory ancient traditions (contra C.H. Lange. ‘The Battle of Actium: a Reconsideration’, CQ 61 [2011], 608–23). Chapter 3 turns to the Principate, demonstrating the profound changes to the notion of the res publica. This chapter, like the book as a whole, provides helpful insights into the terminology and ideology of the new regime. G. presents a nuanced view, without falling into the old trap of uncritically accepting the notion that Augustus claimed to have restored the res publica. Chapter 4 on the Pax Augusta underlines that in Rome peace was born out of victories (RG 13: parta victoriis pax). Augustus had ended the civil wars and brought peace to the frontiers of the Empire. Chapter 5 concentrates on friends and family, thus helping us to understand the princeps in his context and milieu.
In Chapter 6, ‘Cultural Vitality’, G. readdresses the issue of ‘ideology’ or ‘ideologies’ (G., 1996), commenting, ‘There was nothing monolithic about Augustan Culture’. It is difficult to disagree, and I am not sure many do. Astonishingly, G. fails to mention the Victory Monument at Nicopolis/Actium. The monument was built by Octavian as an on-site commemoration and is thus a highly conspicuous civil war commemoration, as well as a precursor of the ideology of Augustus and of the Ara Pacis Augustae. Chapter 7 describes the Augustan Empire and the rapid spread of imperial ideals throughout the Empire. The final chapter turns to the last days of Augustus and an assessment of him and his reign, concluding that his impact on world history was monumental.
Discussing the period after the murder of Caesar, G. suggests that Octavian decided on a position between two possible extremes: reject his position as heir of Caesar, or take a private army to Rome and kill the assassins (pp. 15–16). It was no doubt his duty to avenge his father, but ideology should not be confused with politics. This reflects the ever present question as to how we approach the nature and role of civil strife and civil war in Roman society. The liberators according to G. had no programme of gaining popular support and Antonius failed to use his power and position (pp. 21–2). The amnesty of 17th March was about preventing bloodshed, but hardly because Antonius was stunned, as claimed by G. Opposing groups will aim to side with the winner, as long as they have a trustworthy guarantee that they will not be stripped of their power after victory is secured. But changing sides may mean surviving longer (F. Christia, Alliance Formation in Civil War [2012]). Antonius hoped to make an alliance with the murderers of Caesar, who themselves were only trying to survive.
In Res Gestae 1 Augustus tells the story of his early political experiences: his change of sides is passed over in silence. G.’s suggestion that Augustus does not mention a coup is mistaken (p. 31): ‘Aged nineteen years old I mustered an army at my personal decision and at my personal expense, and with it liberated the state, which had been oppressed by a despotic faction’. It does not happen often that politicians accept the wrongs of the past, even though in his own words he did what he had to do for the sake of the res publica. At Mutina Caesar's murderers and Octavian were on the same side, opposing Antonius: it was not just a stalemate as G. suggests (p. 30) and Caesar's veterans fought on opposing sides. This was a civil war, part of what G. calls the bloody years and made even more absurd by the fact that Decimus Brutus, a murderer of Caesar, was awarded a triumph (Octavian was not). Crucially, the focus had shifted towards a mutual enemy, an alliance against the strongest faction: Antonius. Refusal to fight fellow Romans was left to Brundisium.
In the end Antonius and Octavian came together and formed the triumvirate. This also ended in civil war, brought to a close after Actium and its sequel Alexandria. Alliance formation is tactical, trying to ensure victory and maximising wartime returns. There is a huge difference between power and shared identity. Antonius and Octavian were counterbalancing each other, whereas the murderers of Caesar were trying to survive. The result of the civil wars and alternating alliance-formations was one winner: Augustus.
A second issue relates to the tendency to disconnect the triumviral period and the Principate (esp. pp. 32, 66, 182). G. does concede that Augustus ‘consented to a limit of ten years for this command’ in 27 b.c. (p. 66). The provinces were only accepted for a limited period, but then prolonged, as the assignment was still not accomplished. Thus in 18 b.c. Augustus accepted a five-year renewal, soon extended to ten, and then again for ten years in 8 b.c., a.d. 3 and a.d. 13. Fixed-term tasks thus became the standard way for Augustus to justify monarchy, as it had been the means to justify the triumvirate before. According to G. the settlement of 28–27 b.c. was a compromise (p. 66), but it seems much more likely that for Augustus this was a subtle way to avoid defining his own position within the Roman state. The greatest difference between the triumvirate and the Principate is, of course, the absence of civil war during the Empire. This is the reason why the ending of the civil wars is so prominently mentioned in the Res Gestae (esp. 34.1; cf. 3.1), focusing on the positive outcome.
The focus here has naturally been on disagreement. This does not change the fact that this is a well-balanced introduction to Augustus. Its strength lies in part in its use of excerpts of ancient evidence. It also has the great merit of trying to use all the evidence we possess in providing us with a comprehensive overview of the period and of Augustan culture. It should prove to be of great value in undergraduate teaching. Even though this reviewer disagrees on aspects of the political narrative, especially on the impact of the civil war period and the continuation from triumvirate to Principate, G.’s openness towards social history and cultural history is to be commended, albeit at the expense of the historical narrative. The book demonstrates the importance of both the man and the period.
