Princeps Vs. Emperor?

[Ursus]

I have recently read some scholarship by Galinsky, et al, that attempts to frame Augustus' role as Princeps from the standpoint of auctoritas. I have submitted a full review for the site.

 

In brief, while Augustus did concentrate various Republican offices into his persona, he preferred to rule from the standpoint of his moral/spiritual authority. The secret to the success is that the non-political classes of Italy whom he empowered more or less accepted his vision of a new Roman order, and eagerly contributed to it.

[phil25]

Caldrail, just a few comments on your post:

 

Augustus would have been keen to avoid any accusation of becoming a king...

 

I agree, and I think that a main reason for rejecting thge proposed title of "Romulus" - which had been the name of the first king of Rome. (I must admit I have often wondered whether "Romulus" was anciently a title rather than a name, as the first king also appears to have been called (and deified as) Quirinius.)

 

I notice that he kept a less fancy wardrobe than later emperors too.

 

Where do you draw this comment from? I think he was relatively spartan and keen to wear homespun; but I do not doubt that he also wore triumphal gear when appropriate. Much of the time he would have been entitled to wear the toga praetexta as Consul, anyway. But as there was no precedent (except Caesar the Dictator) to follow, he presumably would simply have followed the approach of previous Principes Senatus.

 

He certainly permitted honours to be shown above the front door of his domus, and was not modest either in his self-written epitaph, or the other public honours he accepted.

 

Did Augustus think of himself as an emperor? No I don't think he did.

 

Here I would entirely disagree with you. By assuming the honorific "imperator" into his actual name, he clearly did see himself as such. He was also "son of the god" (divi filii). Octavian - the blood-stained, inconstant, ambitious, self-conscious, machiavellian teenager, who appeared in Rome in 44BC, in no way saw himself as an ordinary joe. He was eager to claim the full ame of his adoptive father and use it - he knew its power.

 

It was only Augustus, the victor of Actium, eager to throw off his evil reputation as gangster and murderer, who had sufficient auctoritas and dignitas to practice a sort of inverse snobbery. The less i claim, the more modest i seem, the more i am acclaimed, the more power i have.

 

From first to last, Augustus was the among the most ruthless, ambitious, self-aware, focused and manipulative politicians in history. Less was more with him towards the end, but he was an actor first to last.

 

Two more modern examples. Napoleon I - note how the simple grey redingcote and unadorned black bicorne, with the relatively modest dark green coat of the undress of a mere Colonel of the Chasseurs a Cheval of the Guard, made the Emperor stand out against the gold embroidery and swans feathers of his marshals, or the overblown flamboyance of Murat.

 

Similarly, Goering's white Reichsmarschall's outfits, Himmler's black and silver SS uniform, or Ribbentrop's diplomatic gear, were an effective backdrop for the Fuehrer's simple brown party uniform, of the almost anonymous grey jacket and black trousers he war as Commander in Chief of the Wehrmacht.

 

Augustus would have been taught no lessons by them.

 

Now, if you want an example of a TRUELY simple man, consider Tiberius...

 

Phil

[caldrail]

Did Augustus think of himself as an emperor? No I don't think he did.

 

I think you misunderstood me. The word emperor denotes a dynastic ruler in the oriental fashion. It isn't the same as the the word 'imperator' which you mention above. I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just think that we need to understand that the word 'emperor' meant something a little different than it does today.

 

Augustus was ruthless? Oh yes... A 19 year old youth does not set out to rule the roman world preaching peace and love. Augustus mellowed a little as he grew older, albeit a bit more crotchety, and deep down I don't think he was ever fully secure.

 

As for the wardrobe, it goes without saying that he wore toga's on offical business. Wasn't he keen on getting senators to do the same? Off duty, he kept things down to earth. And that included his diet too. I understand he wasn't eating 'rich imperial titbits'

[phil25]

Excellent post, Caldrail, I think I understand you now.

 

And I think this is the BEST short description of Augustus I have EVER read:

 

Augustus was ruthless? Oh yes... A 19 year old youth does not set out to rule the roman world preaching peace and love. Augustus mellowed a little as he grew older, albeit a bit more crotchety, and deep down I don't think he was ever fully secure.

 

I don't know whether he set out to "rule" the Roman world, but I think he soon discovered that, with his knew name of Caesar, that was a distinct career option!!

 

Incidentally, have you ever been to the House of Livia, on the Palatine? It sums up all you say - modest (though with a distinct sense of taste and style) compared to some of the grand houses of Pompeii, you see that the imperial family lived without being over-grand. Even the set of BBC's "I CLAVDIVS" was too large and stylish. Whether he actually lived in that house or the one next door is not, I think, clear. But they must have been very similar.

 

Thanks for responding,

 

Phil