This is a response to the TV show that was sent in to a newspaper by a historian not long after the TV program aired. It deals with the controversial nature of Augustus’ political career, the historic persona he created and the way in which he has been viewed throughout history.
Letter to the Editor:
I recently watched the ‘this is your life’ segment which was broadcast on your station. While it was factually correct, I felt it was not sufficiently detailed in regards to Augustus and the controversial nature of his career. As such, I have included a transcript of a speech which I recently delivered as part of my thesis, regarding Augustus and his rise to power. It includes references to the sources I have used in case anyone is interested in doing some research of their own. I hope this provides readers with a deeper understanding of why Augustus is so controversial.
Augustus’ Caesar was born during a time of great political change. His position as the heir of Julius Caesar provided him with the political prestige necessary to become the most powerful man in Rome and his political manoeuvring ensured he would maintain his power and pass it on to his heirs. His controversial actions and the way they have been perceived are integral parts of understanding Augustus.
From the beginning, Augustus’ political career was marked with controversy, but it was the way in which he maintained power that was the most controversial. By the time Augustus entered into political life, the Roman Republic was imploding from a combination of corruption and failed political manoeuvring. According to Bishop, this meant “Augustus was provided with a huge opportunity to stabilise Roman politics and he chose to do so by concentrating the traditional Republican powers into his own hands.”(2008, p33) The political situation in Rome was certainly dire, but that did not necessitate or justify the concentration of power into Augustus’ hands. This political manoeuvre may have been engineered to make it appear that Augustus was acting as he did for the good of Rome. He was however, also acting out of self-interest by choosing this method of stabilising the political situation. The manner in which Augustus treated his opponents was another way in which he demonstrated his self-interest in an attempt to gain political power. After a particularly disastrous attempt to reconcile which Anthony, Encyclopaedia Britannica states that “Octavian seized Antony’s will and claimed to find in it damaging proof of Cleopatra’s power over him.”(2013) This attempt to justify his behaviour towards Antony exhibits the manner in which Augustus treated his political opponents. Indeed, blackmail was a mild revenge considering that the Triumvirate had more than 2000 political opponents killed early in their rule.
Many of Augustus’ actions were not dissimilar to those of his contemporaries, and predecessors who forcibly installed themselves in power. His actions are however controversial because there was a direct contradiction between his actions and the heroic persona he cultivated. From early on, Augustus presented himself as the saviour of Rome. He employed many of the famous artists and writers of his time and utilised their gifts to paint himself in the best possible light. One writer in his employ, Virgil, wrote about Caesar stating “And here, here is the man, the promised one you know of – Caesar Augustus, son of a god, destined to rule where Saturn ruled of old in Latium and there bring back the age of gold.” (Aneid 6) This is just one example of the type of propaganda that Augustus utilised in order to maintain his position. The insinuation of a direct link to the gods is evidently an attempt to justify his position, which was at the time, unprecedented and contrary to many of the laws of the republic. This propaganda presents a contrary idea of Augustus, he is no longer simply defending the Republic, he is the rightful ruler and the son of a god. This directly contrasts with Bradley who states “He didn’t advertise his supremacy and worked within Republican forms as much as possible.” (1990, p 71) The difference between his propaganda and his actions, demonstrates Augustus’ conflicting personality. While he had to maintain a semblance of normality and worked within the confines of the republican laws, he did so out of a desire to increase his own power, not in a misguided attempt to restore or improve the Roman Republic
Augustus’ heroic persona has directly influenced the way he has been viewed throughout time. The way in which he presented himself was, of course, contrary to many aspects of his actual persona; however these inaccurate representations of Augustus are some of the best known primary sources available because they were created by the masters of Augustus’ time. Virgil, for example, whose works were still studied in Shakespeare’ time was under Augustus’ patronage and thus, presented Augustus in a positive light. This is reflected in Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, where Augustus says the final words in the play saying “So call the field to rest; and let's away, to part the glories of this happy day.”(Act 5 Scene V) As with many of his tragedies, Shakespeare leaves the final lines, and thus any hope for the future to the character who will act as the ruler and hero in the future – Augustus. Similarly, Augustus’ heroic persona has influenced the writing and opinion of many, even today.
Augustus Caesar was a contradictory character. As the ruler of the Roman empire, he maintained vast quantities of propaganda, yet his actions were still recorded, and were often in direct contrast with his propaganda. His propaganda has however, influenced many peoples opinion of him. His actions do however indicate that far from being the hero Virgil portrayed him to be, he was a politician concerned with the maintenance of his power, a politician who ensured that the Roman Republic would never rise again.
