The Augustan ‘Constitution’

Michael Grant

doi:10.1017/S0017383500010615

The Augustan ‘Constitution’

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009

Michael Grant

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

The Augustan constitution—if we may use this word, for which there is no ancient equivalent—is as important a subject as the large number of modern writings devoted to it would suggest, and to judge by their contradictory character, it is a difficult one. Anyone who attempts, as I am attempting to-day, yet another general statement, and that within the compass of a single paper, must hedge himself around with protestations and admissions of what he is going to leave out. I must also at once forestall the criticism, frequently launched at students of this subject, that I am the dupe of ancient propaganda, inscriptions including the Res Gestae, and the coins. I fully appreciate that their insinuating suggestions are constantly misleading; and yet they, as the principal contemporary sources, are what I chiefly propose to quote to you to-day. I must also concede that these sources show a meticulous correctness of terminology, concerning matters such as the legal nuances distinguishing various powers, which must have been lost on considerable sections of the general Roman public. But these sections of the public should not be the concern of a student of the Augustan constitution. His concern is rather with the governing class, the fabricators of this insidious publicity. They, at least, were very far from averse to constitutional niceties; and incidentally, against those who stress the ignorance of the public, these hard-headed men would never have taken so much trouble if nobody was going to be impressed by it.

But I am not plunging into the full intricacy of their efforts to-day; for the compass of one paper requires simplification, and one way in which I shall simplify is by ignoring the many nuances between different categories of power, and considering them as subdivided into two main categories only—on the one side that sort of power which was part of the legal and formal machinery of the State, a potestas, including some powers carrying imperium and some lacking it, and on the other side all those media of authority which were not based on any potestas.

Type: Research Article
Information: Greece & Rome , Volume 18 , Issue 54 , October 1949 , pp. 97 - 112

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383500010615 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1949

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

^{page 1 note 1} Paper read at the Classical Association's General Meeting at Manchester, on 22 April 1949.

^{page 1 note 2} Any more than there is for Staatsrecht or ‘constitutional law(yer)’: cf. Schönbauer, , ‘Die Res Gestae Divi Augusti in rechtsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung’, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.-hist. Kl. ccxxiv, 2, 1946, p. 84Google Scholar; Syme, , Journal of Roman Studies, 1946, p. 158.Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 3} Cf. Heichelheim, , The Economical Journal, 1947, p. 230.Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 4} Including myself; Sutherland, , Journal of Roman Studies, 1947, p. 212Google Scholar, Salmon, , Phoenix (Toronto), 1948, pp. 135Google Scholar ff.; but see my From Imperium to Auctoritas, pp. 321, 418, 443, disavowing this.

^{page 1 note 5} Not everyone found the distinctions between powers ‘vaporous’ (Sutherland, , Classical Review, 1947, p. 115Google Scholar; cf. Levi, M. A., Riv. stor, it., 1949, pp. 108Google Scholar ff.)

^{page 2 note 1} In Pisonem, 4.8 (of a consul designate): id quod nondum potestate poterat, optinuit auctoritate. Magdelain, , Auctoritas Principis (1947), pp. 114Google Scholar f., sums up his original definition of the principate of Augustus under these two headings.

^{page 2 note 2} In these notes I will confine citations of modern writings to those not earlier than 1946. I owe very much to advice from Prof. F. E. Adock.

^{page 2 note 3} Dio li. 19. 6 and 7; cf. From Imperium to Auctoritas, pp. 449 ff.

^{page 3 note 1} Tacitus, , Annals i. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 2} e.g. Horace, , Odes iv. 14. 42Google Scholar f.; Ovid, , Fasti i. 531Google Scholar; Valerius Maximus vii. 6. 6.

^{page 3 note 3} Cf. Syme, , Journal of Roman Studies, 1946, p. 154.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 4} University of Edinburgh Journal, 1949, pp. 229Google Scholar ff., especially pp. 238 ff.

^{page 3 note 5} Cambridge University Press; to which I am grateful for permission to make these and other anticipatory references.

^{page 4 note 1} Summary in Roman Anniversary Issues, p. 164 f.

^{page 4 note 2} Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, ii, p. 112, no. 527 (doubted by C. M. Kraay); p. 129, no. 596; cf. p. 200 n.

^{page 4 note 3} Roman Anniversary Issues, p. 90.

^{page 4 note 4} Tetricus: ibid. p. 138.

^{page 4 note 5} From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 421; accepted by Vallejo, , Emerita, 1946, p. 405.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 6} Res Gestae, 34. Compos is the emendation of Schönbauer, op. cit., pp. 43 ff., who discusses the whole passage carefully. One might expect compos factus. The difference in meaning is, even so, not great.

^{page 4 note 7} Cf. Schönbauer, op. cit., pp. 38 ff., quoting Cicero, , Orat. Part. 130Google Scholar, Gaius, , Inst. iii. 135Google Scholar, Digest i. 3. 32 pr. and ii, etc.

^{page 5 note 1} From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 421, cf. Schönbauer, Vallejo, II. cc. against Sutherland, , Classical Review, 1947, p. 116.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 2} It is in these years that I chiefly find the dependence of the auctoritas principis on imperium for its chief exercise, which Salmon, , Phoenix, 1948, pp. 135Google Scholar ff., sees in the whole principate of Augustus.

^{page 5 note 3} Cf. (going somewhat further) Magdelain, op. cit., pp. 13, 21, 23, 25, 36, 39.

^{page 5 note 4} In From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 442, n. 14, p. 444, n. 7, this development is ascribed to 27 B.C.

^{page 5 note 5} I do not agree with Kahrstedt, , Geschichte des griechisch-römischen Altertums, p. 373Google Scholar , that there was theoretically nothing un-Republican about his powers in 29.

^{page 5 note 6} From Imperium to Auctoritas, pp. 408, 424 ff., accepted in general by Last, , ‘Imperium Maius: a note’, Journal of Roman Studies, 1947, p. 162.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 1} From Imperium to Auctoritas, pp. 384, 424. But as Kahrstedt, loc. cit., points out, Augustus continued in practice, during 29 and 28, to act personally in various ways without legal basis.

^{page 6 note 2} On a series of coins likely to have started in 28, Nemausus showed (together on the obverse) the portraits of Augustus and Agrippa—consuls in that year. See From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 73; pace Levi, , Riv. stor, it., 1949, p. 107.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 3} Summary in Roman Anniversary Issues, Chapter VIII, section i.

^{page 6 note 4} Velleius ii. 89. 3; cf. From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 425, Syme, , Journal of Roman Studies, 1946, p. 158.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 5} Res Gestae, 34; cf. Schönbauer, op. cit., pp. 46 ff. Tacitus, , Ann. i. 2Google Scholar, deliberately refuses to see anything in the change, cf. Syme, op. cit., p. 153.

^{page 6 note 6} From Imperium to Auctoritas, pp. 424 ff., Syme, op. cit., p. 154 (cf. p. 153), Kahrstedt, loc. cit.; Vallejo, , Emerita, 1946, p. 406Google Scholar, adheres to the opposite view.

^{page 6 note 7} Though by no means all: cf. Syme, op. cit., p. 155, Kahrstedt, loc. cit. There was no need, technically speaking, to mention this new arrangement (or that of 23), since it was enough to have mentioned his imperium once in connexion with its original award: From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 418 and nn. 9, 10, Syme, loc. cit. (who adds a possible further justification).

^{page 7 note 1} Res Gestae, 34: cf. the symbolism of BMC. 656.

^{page 7 note 2} For some references see From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 444, n. 5.

^{page 7 note 3} Cf. Wagenvoort, , Roman Dynamism (1946), p. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 4} But ancient writers bear witness to the link (in sense) of auctoritas, too, with augeo, e.g. Digest, I. 11. 1. 1 and 18. 1. 1.

^{page 7 note 5} In my opinion this ancient identity of sense, which cannot (in many of its aspects) be rendered into modern languages, should eliminate doubts, notably those of Pink, , Numismatische Zeitschrift, 1947, p. 137Google Scholar, whether auctoritas can carry an ‘executive’ as well as a ‘prestige’ significance.

^{page 7 note 6} Suetonius, , Divus Augustus, 28.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 7} Magdelain, op. cit., pp. 57 ff., prefers a more technical interpretation.

^{page 7 note 8} Stressed by Magdelain, op. cit., pp. 60, 63.

^{page 7 note 9} Res Gestae, 34.

^{page 8 note 1} Sprey, Magdelain, op. cit., p. 68 f., Hohl, , Mus. Helvet., 1947, pp. 101Google Scholarff., take quoque as an adverb with mihi; though Last, , Journal of Roman Studies, 1947, p. 164Google Scholar, adds a caution which (in view of his citation of Wilcken) I suppose to be at least partly concerned with this phrase.

^{page 8 note 2} I do not agree with Magdelain, op. cit., p. 70, that he is referring wholly to later vicegerents, i.e. excluding ordinary collegiate magistracies.

^{page 8 note 3} The account of 23 B.C. given here is substantially that of From Imperium to Auctoritas, pp. 427 ff., 446 ff.

^{page 8 note 4} Dio 53. 32. 5.

^{page 8 note 5} Based on Dio 54. 10. 5; see From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 437, n. 1.

^{page 8 note 6} Res Gestae, 8.

^{page 9 note 1} From Imperium to Auctoritas, pp. 408 ff., 411 ff.

^{page 9 note 2} Ibid., pp. 424 ff., 427 ff.

^{page 9 note 3} Journal of Roman Studies, 1947, p. 163Google Scholar; Kahrstedt, , Geschichte des griechischrömischen Altertums, p. 374Google Scholar, does not seem to agree. Salmon, , Phoenix, 1948, p. 59Google Scholar, raises an objection based on the refusal of a triumph to Tiberius in 12 and 11 B.C.; but this has no bearing on the proconsular provinces (the ‘really convincing explanation’ for which he seeks is given by Boyce, Abaecherli, Classical Philology, 1942, p. 140Google Scholar). On the juridical distinction between proconsul and legatus Augusti propraetore see Syme, , Journal of Roman Studies, 1946, p. 155.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 4} This is, perhaps, the gist of the criticism of Sutherland, , Classical Review, 1947, p. 116Google Scholar, and of the légères réserves of de Laet, , L'Antiquité Classique, 1946, p. 373.Google ScholarMattingly, , Numismatic Chronicle, 1946, p. 132Google Scholar, describes my use of the term as ‘inexact and unconventional’, but my definition (op. cit., p. 412: ‘it controlled the provinciae of others, and subordinated imperia to an imperium’) only differs from his (loc. cit., n. 1: ‘it should mean that, where the imperium of two officers might compete, one was definitely placed above the other’) in that mine concentrates on the ‘active’ form—which his, incidentally, ignores. I revert to this subject in Appendix I of my forthcoming study A Step towards World-Coinage: 19 B.C.

^{page 9 note 5} Loc. cit.: ‘every student must form his own judgment for himself’: to which Hammond, , American Journal of Philology, 1948, p. 323Google Scholar, does not quite do justice.

^{page 9 note 6} On the resemblance (and indeed perhaps, sometimes, interchangeability) of consular and proconsular imperium see From Imperium to Auctoritas, pp. 419 f., 425 f., Syme, op. cit., p. 152; cf. (in part) Schönbauer, , SB. der Akademie in Wien, phil.-hist. Kl. ccxxiv. 2, 1946, pp. 82, 86, 112.Google Scholar The only stronger imperium than a consul's (and therefore perhaps than a proconsul's, too) was the dictatorial command used from 49 to 28 B.C.; cf. Dessau, , Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 212, 1.Google Scholar 28, dictaturae imperium consulari valentius. Salmon, loc. cit., asks what the relations of Augustus' imperium was to that of the consuls; I should describe them as equal, the difference being in auctoritas.

^{page 10 note 1} Cf. A Step towards World Coinage: 19 B.C., where BMC. 704 is attributed to Pergamum.

^{page 10 note 2} e.g. Lentulus, Cossus Cornelius: L'Année Épigraphique, 1940, 68Google Scholar, cf. Syme, op. cit., p. 156.

^{page 10 note 3} Aspects of the Principate of Tiberius, Chapter II, section ii, sub-section B.

^{page 10 note 4} From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 431.

^{page 10 note 5} e.g. Salmon, op. cit., 1948, pp. 135 ff. (who adds a further argument); de Laet, , L'Antiquité Classique, 1946, p. 374Google Scholar, does not agree. Magdelain, , Auctoritas Principis, p. 88Google Scholar , makes a distinction between two formulas in the ‘Edicts’ of Cyrene: ἀρἑσκ∊ı, addressed to the proconsuls (= auctoritas), and κ∊λ∊ὑω, addressed to the population (= imperium); but κ∊λ∊ὑω could likewise refer to auctoritas, and the distinction seems improbable. Last, op. cit., p. 164, discusses this aspect of the ‘Edicts’.

^{page 10 note 6} From Imperium to Auctoritas, pp. 430 ff., Magdelain, op. cit., pp. 77 ff.

^{page 11 note 1} It is here that I—as I believe others will also—feel obliged to differ considerably from the brilliant study of Magdelain, op. cit., pp. 90 ff.

^{page 11 note 2} I see this amount of plausibility (but not necessarily more) in the hazardous procedure of distinguishing between civil and military functions of imperium, criticized by Syme, op. cit., 1946, p. 157. Cf. Levi, , Riv. stor. it. 1949, p. 109.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 3} Frontinus, , De Aquaeductibus, 104Google Scholar (cf. 100): quos senatus consulto Caesar Augustus ex senatus auctoritate nominaverit.

^{page 11 note 4} From Imperium to Auctoritas, pp. 108 ff., 445 ff.

^{page 11 note 5} e.g. Bellinger, , American Journal of Archaeology, 1947, p. 339Google Scholar; Sutherland, , Journal of Roman Studies, 1947, p. 211Google Scholar; id., Classical Review, 1947, p. 115Google Scholar; Vallejo, , Emerita, 1946, p. 407.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 6} Pink, , Numismatische Zeitschrift, 1947, p. 136Google Scholar f., first questions my general attribution of these coinages—a subject on which I have now drafted a more detailed reaffirmation of my view, in The Six Main Aes Coinages of Augustus — and also questions whether auctoritas could be the basis for coinage. Mattingly, , Numismatic Chronicle, 1946, p. 132Google Scholar, does not share this doubt, but asks (p. 131) whether C(aesar) A(ugustus) is not preferable: but I feel that From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 109, nn. 8–10, disposes of this (cf. Kahrstedt, , Geschichte des griechisch-römischen Altertums, p. 374Google Scholar: ‘im Munde der Zeitgenossen wurde der Familienname Caesar zum Titel’). I likewise regard the corona navalis, which fosters a doubt of Instinsky, , Hamburger Beiträge für Numismatik, i, 1947, p. 82Google Scholar, as explained by Agrippa's presence (cf. From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 103, nn. 18, 19).

^{page 12 note 1} As Instinsky, op. cit., p. 81, suggests.

^{page 12 note 2} Dessau, , Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 4966: senatus… permisit e lege Iulia ex auctoritate Aug.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 3} Ibid. 915: auctoritate Aug. Caesaris et s.c.

^{page 12 note 4} This joint process is independently stressed by Magdelain, op. cit., pp. 63 ff., whose list of examples should put to rest the doubts of Pink, op. cit., p. 137, nn. 1 and 2, regarding the bulk of evidence available (it is true that only the two above-mentioned inscriptions are Augustan, but they would seem sufficient). Magdelain also points out (p. 98)—though this does not affect the question of the legal basis at Rome—that the auctoritas both of princeps and of senate were related to potestas in that the imperium of a magistrate or promagistrates was needed to put it into effect. Salmon, , Phoenix, 1948, pp. 135Google Scholar ff., again stresses the ‘interaction’ of imperium and auctoritas, but in more general terms.

^{page 12 note 5} From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 446 and nn. 12–14.

^{page 13 note 1} Instinsky, loc. cit., wrongly attributes ta me the interpretation of the tribunician power as an ‘Ausfluss’ of auctoritas.

^{page 13 note 2} References in From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 447. Sutherland, , Journal of Roman Studies, 1947, p. 211Google Scholar, now says that this will be ‘generally admitted’: I return to it in Roman Anniversary p. 33.

^{page 13 note 3} Kahrstedt, loc. cit., repeats that the new step consisted in the extension of the power to the whole empire, an interpretation with which I express disagreement in From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 449 f.

^{page 13 note 4} Ibid., p. 448, Schönbauer, , SB. der Akademie in Wien, phil.-hist. Kl. ccxxiv. 2, 1946, p. 97.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 1} A Step towards World Coinage: 19 B.C.

^{page 14 note 2} Res Gestae, 6. On the original text see Schönbauer, op. cit., p. 99.

^{page 14 note 3} Mattingly, , Numismatic Chronicle, 1946, p. 132Google Scholar (speaking of the proconsular provinces), wrongly ascribes to me the view that ‘Augustus interfered… only by auctoritas expressed in decrees of the senate’. But what I wrote was ‘he preferred, when convenient, to act through the senate’ (From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 445); sometimes it was more convenient to intervene direct, or through an Assembly.

^{page 14 note 4} Ibid., p. 447 and nn. 1–3 (ibid., p. 452, n. 4, 1 conjecturally ascribe the first application of this to Augustus to 23 B.C.). Schönbauer, op. cit., p. 96, while taking substantially the same view of the passage, speaks of plebiscita, i.e. of the concilium plebis rather than the comitia tributa; but the principal moral enactments of this time were apparently passed through the latter, as leges.

^{page 14 note 5} Syme, , Journal of Roman Studies, 1946, p. 149CrossRef Google Scholar, seems to accept this (‘dealings with Senate and People’).

^{page 14 note 6} Suetonius, , Divus Augustus 60Google Scholar; Dio liv. 10. 5.

^{page 15 note 1} Res Gestae, 6 (Greek text).

^{page 15 note 2} On vicegerent imperia I have stated some of the opposing arguments in Aspects of the Principate of Tiberius, Appendix 10. I date Agrippa's main eastern ‘vicegerency’—whatever its character was—to 18 B.C. (From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 428, n. 9), not 23 B.C. as Syme, op. cit., p. 156 f.

^{page 15 note 3} Res Gestae, 6.

^{page 15 note 4} Cf. Magdelain, , Auctoritas Principis, pp. 75, 115.Google Scholar On the absence of genuine collegiality cf. Schönbauer, op. cit., p. 87 and n. 213.

^{page 15 note 5} Res Gestae, 34.

^{page 15 note 6} Cf. Syme, op. cit., p. 149.

^{page 16 note 1} Tacitus, , Annals, iii. 56Google Scholar, cf. From Imperium to Auctoritas, p. 448, Syme, loc. cit.

^{page 16 note 2} I cannot accept Magdelain's view (op. cit., p. 89 f.) that auctoritas principis gained the force of law shortly before his accession (A.D. 13): for this is based on a passage (56. 28) of Dio Cassius, to which the more usual interpretation (decisions of consilium principis to have validity of senatusconsulta) is much more appropriate.

^{page 16 note 3} Mention has been made, earlier on, of the tendency for a single senatus-consultum auctore principe to cover an increasingly wide scope.

Article contents

The Augustan ‘Constitution’

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests