Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
HISTORY
RELATED
The Emperor Augustus and Roman Representations
Statesmen, general and warlord, Augustus rose to power in the late 1st Century BC and forever changed Rome.
By Will Street
Jul. 25, 2019, 11:30 AM
Introduction
The emperor Augustus seized control of Rome and its empire after the defeat of Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. By 27 BC, after an agreed settlement with The Senate, he was affirmed as the “princeps” (first-man) of Rome, thereby effectively establishing him as sole ruler.
It was period of history that marked the end of Rome as a “republic” and the beginning of an “empire”. From henceforth, Rome and its empire were ultimately ruled by an emperor, whose position was most commonly chosen by bloodline. It also marked the end of the Roman “Civil Wars” that had lasted over the preceding 50 years, instituting what was known as the “pax Romana”.
But how? And in what ways, was the ruler, Augustus imagined in Roman society? With such a calamitous change of events, how was he perceived in this new regime? Can we assess the remaining artworks and literature to assess the character and nature of this ruler? And to determine, also, the relationship between ruler and society? Those and others are the questions I seek to explore in the analysis below. As such, read on as I take a swan-dive into the remembrance of the emperor Augustus.
Early Life
Before the man became “Augustus”, he was known to the Romans as “Gaius Octavius” (a name which has later been anglicized to “Octavian”). He was born on 23 September 63 BC. On his paternal side, Octavian had ancestors from the town of Velitrae (near Rome) who were members of the knights or “equites". His father, in fact, had been the first in family to reach a position of some eminence, entering the senate in Rome.
However, Octavian’s father passed away when he was a young boy at the age of 4. Subsequently, it was Octavian’s maternal ancestors who came to the forefront in the direction of the young boy’s life. His mother, in fact, was of far greater nobility. She was the daughter of Julia who was the sister of Gaius Julius Caesar. Thus, through his mother (“Atia”), Octavian had a direct connection to The Julii.
The Julii were one of the great patrician families of Rome. They had also become even more at the forefront of Roman society after the exploits of Julius Caesar. It was Julius Caesar who (from the age when Augustus was a small child, until Caesar’s death in 44 BC) who had consolidated his power gradually within Rome, to such an extent that he eventually achieved quasi monarchical status as “dictator perpetuus” (dictator in perpetuity) during the brutal era of the civil wars.
However, success and fortune would not fall upon his feet without blemish. Whilst studying and undergoing military training in Apollonia, Illyrian (which was outside of Italy in the Balkan peninsula), he received the news that Julius Caesar had been assassinated by a group of senators on the 15th March 44 BC.
Military Inauguration
However, it is at this point that we first see Octavian’s demonstrative military ambition. The student that he was at the time immediately returned to Rome. Not only that, but he gathered a group of Caesar’s loyal troops as support and immediately proclaimed himself the leader of the Caesarian faction.
He even claimed that he would avenge Julius Caesar’s death. He would also, he proclaimed, look after the faction’s interests and attend to various alliances. These commitments are encapsulated lucidly in his later autobiography, the “Res Gestae”. Here, he proclaimed, “Aged nineteen, by my own decision and at my own expense, I raised an army with which I freed the Republic oppressed by the tyranny of one faction.” (“Res Gestae Divi Augusti, 1).
On the 6th May 44 BC – that year – he arrived in Rome and formally accepted the leadership of the Julii clan. From henceforth Octavian would also be known as “Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus”.
However, the Caesarian faction was not unified at this point. Rather, Octavian had one prominent rival in the form of Marc Antony (83-30 BC). The Roman general was a powerful character and talented public speaker. Nonetheless, Octavian managed to reap in some popularity immediately. This was as a result of the will of Julius Caesar, which Octavian was tasked with executing. The perished statesmen had left a will detailing a cash gift for every member of the urban plebs and lavish games.
During these games a comet was sighted. This was immediately believed as a sign that Caesar had become a god. As such, Octavian henceforth used the comet as a potent sign in his own iconography. Yet further, he also henceforth adopted the name “Imperator Caesar Divi Filius” (“son of the deified”).
The Civil Wars
At the end of 44 BC, the senate admitted the nineteen-year-old into its ranks. The senate proscribed Octavian with an official military command against Marc Anthony on 7th January 43 BC. Mark Anthony, at this point, was openly rebellious, disloyal and treacherous.
Indeed, in the senate’s efforts to curtail Marc Anthony, their forces defeated the dissident general in a major battle at Mutina in northern Italy. Despite this, however, the senate’s forces suffered the death of both consuls, who died in the fighting.
To replace them, Octavian assumed control of the legions. The general showed yet further boldness when he marched to Rome accompanied with these battalions. He had travelled there to seek the senate and persuade them to appoint him as consul. He arrived at Rome and the event of his questioning of the senate took place on 19th August 43 BC.
But do not mistake the potential threats that surrounded Octavian even at this time. The senate equally recognized Caesar’s leading assassins. These were Marcus Iunius Brutus (85-42 BC) and Gaius Cassius (85-42 BC). These two had seized the provinces of Macedonia and Syria. It was such a threat that it required the dissident Caesarians to resolve their differences.
Indeed, at this point, Octavian, Marc Antony and Lepidus (85-42 BC) formed an alliance. It was alliance that revolved around their popular support and respected the call for conservative constitutional legitimacy. As such, it was called the “tresviri rei publici constituendae” (“triumvirs to set the Republic in order”). The focus was to uphold constitutional legitimacy and they relied upon popular support. Today it is often called “The Second Triumvirate” by modern scholars. It was made official by the Senate on 27th November 43 BC and legalised by law by the plebs at a later date.
Thereupon followed a brutal crackdown by these triumvirs on their republican enemies. The governors reintroduced the system of proscriptions. This enabled them to declare their opponents enemies of the state and subsequently confiscate their property. It was such a crackdown that entire families of the old Republican elite were wiped out – to be replaced henceforth by the triumvirs’ supporters.
At the Battle of Philippi in Macedon in October 42 BC, the last chapter of the old Republican elite was there before them. They were decisively defeated by the Caesarians. In the subsequent environment, their lands divided between their conquerors.
The Battle of Actium
Under the Second Triumvirate, Octavian was honoured as sole ruler of the West. This attribution took place in 36 BC, after several further battles. The events leading up to 36 BC also included the dissolution of power from Lepidus, leaving Octavian and Marc Antony as the only two supreme leaders.
His colleague, Marc Antony, however, did not experience the same success. The general suffered a serious defeat to the Parthians. The Parthians had been a longstanding great rival to Rome in the East, and such a defeat left his command shattered and humiliated.
The older of Octavian, as he was at the time, Marc Antony thereupon turned to Cleopatra (Queen of Egypt) for military support, becoming her lover at the same time. Yet, this association was not received well by the Roman senate. In refutation, the senate declared war on Cleopatra, perceiving the alliance she had struck with Marc Antony as a threat to the Roman Republic. In fact, the senate was so disapproving of Marc Antony that the inhabitants of Italy and the Western provinces swore their loyalty to Octavian, a man who was now acclaimed to act by “universal consensus.”
Coming to a head, the two triumvirs met in 31 BC. They confronted each other in September 31 BC, where each opponent’s naval forces met at the Battle of Actium in north-western Greece. In the ensuing battle, Octavian was victorious and Marc Antony fled with the Cleopatra to Egypt.
The Aftermath of Actium
In the following aftermath of the Battle of Actium, to many sectors of the Roman population Octavian’s victory rose to mythological status. It was perceived as a victory of the West over the East – a victory over the East, which had been perceived as the Romans’ enemy for some time.
Octavian’s popularity consequently flourished. He went further in the pursuit of Marc Antony. He pursued the shattered general to Egypt where again he defeated the dissident man in battle near Alexandria in August 30 BC. Indeed, after the defeat Cleopatra and Marc Antony committed suicide. There no were no opponents left, and Octavian was the most saluted roman general of all time.
Come with the victory, come the pageantry. What had previously been an independent Hellenistic kingdom, became a Roman province. Egypt’s introduction into the Roman Empire brought enormous booty and a continuous revenue of riches. The fiscal amelioration allowed Octavian to hold an enormous celebration, which heralded the wonders of his triple triumph in 29 BC.
What he now directed his attention to was the restoration and the maintenance of peace. He officially closed the doors of the Temple of Janus – this was a symbolic act that symbolised whether Rome was at war or not. The doors were open during a time of war and closed at peace.
It was critical, for him, to avoid the appearance of a “monarchy”. An envisagement of Roman rule in that way had been central to Julius Caesar’s failure a generation before. The senators and senate of that time had vehemently refuted it. So too did it look like Octavian’s senators would as well.
The solution that Octavian opted for was something that would appease the senators, equites and rest of the population. This was a nominal return to the institutions of the Roman Republic. Indeed, it was a return to the Old Republic in all the trappings and appearances. Yet, as for Augustus, he would consolidate his status through the accumulation of traditional offices and legal competencies.
Augustus and Roman Governance
Bearing most similarity to a today’s computer system, in which a virus has seized all mechanism of a previous pre-existing constitution, Octavian’s mechanism of control and dominance is most lucidly envisaged as a dominance fulfilled in a constitution. In January 27 BC, Octavian formally returned supreme power to the senate and people of Rome. Thereupon, however, he remained in office as consul and maintained personal control of key border provinces. It was in these provinces that most of the army was concentrated.
It was precisely what Octavian was so concerned about. The legions in border states gradually turned into a professional military that was loyal to him as “princeps”. Attached to these were Octavian’s enormous financial resources and loyal supporters. Against an adamant senate, therefore, he could agree to make exchanges knowing the fundamental military backing he nonetheless had behind him. That alone, would be enough to maintain his position, status and rule.
And, it was, in return for Octavian’s exchanges with the senate and restoration of the Republic, that the senate voted new honours for Octavian. He was awarded with a golden shield – inscribed with his four cardinal virtues (valour, clemency, justice and piety) that was set up and took centre view in the senate house. He was also presented with a civic crown for what they claimed as his salvation of the Roman citizens. As his reign developed, both these symbols (crown and shield) became central to his personal iconography.
Octavian was also now honoured with the name, “Augustus”. The title meant “illustrious” in Latin. He would now refer to himself “Imperator Caesar Augustus”. The addition of “Augustus” was an emotive title to all citizens and those who served under him – not only was it unique, but it also carried a ride range of meanings and felt quasi-religious as if Augustus was Rome’s spiritual saviour. The title “Imperator Caesar Augustus” was now the central appellation and continued that way throughout the rest of his life and reign.
Transformation of Rome
With his power secured, Augustus set about transforming Rome and its empire. Firstly, he paid homage to Julius Caesar. Augustus constructed a temple in Rome’s Forum in honour of the deified Caesar. The Basilica Julia (a large public building housing law courts, offices and shops) was also completed in Rome. This had been initiated by Julius Caesar and was now completed by Augustus.
What is also noticeable about this time is Augustus’ placating of civil strife in a contemporary urban Roman environment. In 17 BC, he officially celebrated the “ludi saeculares” (secular games). Accompanied by Horace’s “Carmen Saeculare” (Song of the Ages), which was recited at the event, the whole occasion was traditionally meant to inaugurate a new era and ritually renew the community.
Opposite the Basilica Julia, Augustus built some of his most imposing buildings. He built the Curia Julia, which created a hive of commerce stretching towards the Forum of Caesar. Next to this, he even created his own immense forum. Having been funded by his spoils of war, Augustus’ forum was dominated by a temple to Mars Ultor (“The Avenger”). This was constructed by Augustus to commemorate his previous vow to avenge the death of Julius Caesar before the Battle of Phillipi.
Within the forum, further, artists adorned the walls with paintings of great Roman leaders from the past. Stemming as far back as Aeneas and Romulus – including later Julian clansmen as well – the theme was about promoting the wonder of Augustus as he came to serve their nation.
Roman Statues
Throughout the Roman Empire, statues of Augustus were erected. Whether it be in stone, marble or bronze, their purpose most commonly was to ensure the loyalty citizens throughout the provinces. They did this by reminding them of Augustus’ might and power.
But how was Augustus envisaged on these artworks? On sculptures or in other mediums such as painting, how was Augustus idealized and depicted? An understanding of such entities can provide us with an insight into how Augustus was perceived both by his advisors and supporters, but equally by those who feared and disliked him on the other side.
Firstly, let us underscore what a statue does and why they were commissioned. Preoccupied in the mind of ancient civilians was the constant struggle for prestige. The struggle for prestige had a long history. Ever since the early age of Greek civilisation, through the age of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and later époques, statues had been erected depicting various statesmen. It was, in essence, an opportunity for them to cement their renown and superiority.
The style of sculptures developed and evolved over time. During the early stages of Greek civilization, exact representations in portraiture were extremely uncommon. Instead, they were highly idealized. The individuality or subject matter was only conveyed by the inscription on the base.
However, this phenomenon shifted over the course of different centuries within the Grecian kingdoms. During the period of the 5th and 4th Centuries BC, portraiture developed to depict humans in accordance with what the Grecian ideals were at the time. This was transferred to the monarchy and captured what the essence of Hellenistic kingship was. This resulted in statues stressing the god-like heroic qualities and dynamic power of the subject.
In its development, the new style emerged from the autocratic rules in Greece, in particular the kings of Macedon, whose proximity to the East could ensure an incorporation of novel traditions.
As for the Romans? They had their own portraiture tradition, which alternatively valued different aspects, in particular a natural-looking face. To a Roman, they were influenced by a long-standing tradition of their own amongst the noble families that kept wax masks of their ancestors for display in their houses. These masks were even used in funeral processions, as the Greek writer Polybius reports, where the masks were situated in-order to express the progression of the family tree.
Thus, the style of “Realism” and the evidence of maturity and age became the hallmarks of Roman portraiture. However, when Grecian and Roman portraiture syncretised, an emergence of totally new designs emerged. Naturalism did exist in the sculptures of Hellenistic Greece, however they were not so much used for portrait sculptures rather than commonly depicting genre figures and low-life characters.
It was this style that was initially prominent in the Roman commission of Greek-made sculptures. What happened in this new style was the combination of idealized Greek bodies with naturalistic Roman heads. It created, in effect, a form of hybrid. However, as time went on, Roman sculptures grew closer to their Hellenistic counterparts. The Romans began to discard the legacy of their Republican ancestors and prefer more autocratic images… autocratic images such as the Hellenistic tyrants.
A sculpture was created in accordance with a particular visual language. Beyond the head, which usually abided to naturalist portraiture, the body could be draped in an appropriate civic or military costume or occasionally nude. It was also usually a full-length body. Below, on the decorative base, would have been a dedicatory inscription carved into the stone, while the base also raised the statue into an imposing height.
The inscription would also inform of the name of the person being honoured, their achievements, important positions held, the reason for the dedication and an identification of the bestowers.
From thenceforth, the nature of the sculpture could proclaim any form of vested prestige. By deploying certain visual markers, the artists could utilise a visual language that was understood at the time to bestow as much honour as they would like. Most statues depicted the subject standing upright. Alternatively, a seated position conveyed a higher rank, while the ultimate prestige was a subject seated on horseback. Bestowing even greater prestige, in later ages statues of triumphal chariots emerged.
Material choices were also imprinted in a contemporary visual language. The bulk of statues displayed in public squares were made out of bronze. Alternatively, there were plentiful others constructed out of marble, yet these were considered slightly less prestigious and reserved more commonly for architectural contexts. Finally, there were a contingent of statues made out of gold, silver or gilded and silvered bronze, that were naturally renowned for their opulence.
Finding a location for their wonders, the commissioners were equally concerned with the location of their statue. There was legislation concerning commissioning a statue in a public area. The dedication had to be approved by civic authorities who also informed the commissioners where in the public sphere the statue could be positioned. Yet, by finding the right spot, the commissioners could ensure their beloved statue was admired by the public and themselves in equal measure.
Representations of Augustus
Statues were an intrinsic feature of the reign of Emperor Augustus. Octavian was someone who from an early age understood the necessity of expressing his superiority through the medium of sculptures. His family tree provided him with legitimacy, and it was important to blazon this and himself via portraiture. During Octavian’s early life, Marc Antony himself had described Octavian as “a boy who owed everything to his name.”
From the outset, therefore, it was important to provide images of this exceedingly noble gentleman. It was important, equally, to provide a pictorial focus to this newfound leader of the Julii clan.
From an archaeological point of view, more statues have been found of Augustus than any other Roman emperor. In total roughly 210 have been discovered. There are some immediate reasons we can pontificate that might have caused this. Firstly, Augustus lived and reigned for a long time. Secondly, he established a dynasty, which therefore might have resulted in later sculptures of him that were created during the reigns of later emperors to express dynastic strength. Aside from that, we can theorize that the transformation of government and newfound regime warranted an exceeding amount of statues to express loyalty.
The dissemination of Augustan statues across the empire began with his imperial artisans. The statues had been used as propogandist tools and as a means to manipulate public perception during the civil wars. Once the strife had come to an end, the prototypes of these sculptures were spread across the empire enabling citizens to recreate the statues to express their loyalty and devotion. Artistically, it set in motion a trend that would be continued by later emperors for centuries to come. This was the dissemination of centrally designed portrait types across the empire, where they would be copied mechanically in local workshops.
Sculptures of Augustus are therefore catalogued in accordance with “portrait type”. Although none of the original models through which these replicas were made have survived, the models can be partially reconstructed via a comparison of the appearances and styles that the replica share. To determine each prototype and the subsequent replicas, the stylistic character is assessed, and the technical characteristics examined. There is also external evidence that can support this, such as inscribed coins. On top of this, an assessment can be made regarding the occasion for which the sculpture was dedicated, such as important political events, anniversaries or succession arrangements for instance. The date and occasion might be specific for each type of prototype.
An analysis of the various sculpture prototypes has thus resulted in the following catalogue. It is a catalogue of three main types. These are:
Type 1 “Alcudia” – This was created for Augustus’ initial publicity and images. It was the central portrait of Augustus during the civil wars and was used throughout the period of the triumvirate. It was an adaptation of standard iconographic vocabularic akin the Grecian kingdoms of the East. To Romans, it was the traditional language of power.
In this way, it was accessible to the common Roman. It appeared modern, individual and easily recognizable to passers-by in the street. Within this category, variations such as the emphatic turn of the head denoted power, dynamism and leadership. Alternatively, the artists could illustrate contracted brows and a furrowed forehead alongside similarly a heavy head of hair to accentuate the feelings of prowess and power.
Commonly other features did intertwine. A long neck and a lean, bony face contrasted with the furrowed brow. The high, sharp cheekbones along with a small mouth and thin lips develop an impression of intense ascetism, focusing the attention of the viewer on the statue’s eyes. Ultimately the portrayal is one of a charismatic and earnest young man. The discovery of Roman coins has shown us that this type of image was used in the 30s BC. This is essentially the main design of “Type 1”, although two other closely similar versions may have also existed of which there remains only a few replicas.
Type 2 “Forbes” – Although relatively close to Type 1 in appearance, for instance in the same youthful visage and similar self-effacing cheek bones for instance, Type 2 differed from Type 1 in a number of facets. The statues posed with a more simple and retracted arrangement of hair, curtailing it greatly from atop the forehead. Instead, the small quantity appears delicately brushed to the right. The face is also far smoother and proportionately thinner around the mouth, evoking a far greater sense of harmony.
This design was used on one of Augustus’ most important of civic monuments. This was the “Ara Pacis” (Altar of Peace). The monument was voted in 13 BC and completed in 9 BC. Aside from that, there is doubt over whether the Type 2 design was created to mark the end of the civil wars.
Type 3 “Prima Porta” – This was by far the most famous of all of Augustus’ statues. At last the artists broke away from the subdued and individualistic designs from the past and returned to the haute-couture of Classical Greece. In the pronounced and evocative design the statues showed the influence of iconic masterpieces of Greek art such as the Doryphoros by the celebrated sculptor Polycleitus.
It was so much more popular that roughly 70% of the total number of Augustan statues found today appear as a Type 3 depiction. It was as such a “Classical”, a “timeless” depiction rather than the imbedded individualism and “realism”. The face now appeared with simple yet virulent locks of hair above the forehead. The physiognomy had become classical. The smile more ethereal.
What was surrounding Augustus at the time and what reasons might have existed for him to prompt the shift most conclusively come down to the events of 27 BC when the Augustus accepted the title of “Augustus” (The Illustrious). The style of portraiture – Type 3 – continued to be used for the remainder of Augustus’ life and, in fact, was never altered or updated throughout this time. For a man who had so strenuously sought to present the appearance of a Republic as his government, it is fitting that he would now be portrayed as an icon of democracy with this reference to Classical Greece.
Conclusion
Augustus, or Octavian as he was previously known, swarmed through the years of the civil wars to become the first Emperor of Rome. With an illustrious record in battle and in war, becoming “princeps” afterwards he would settle down to stabilising his new position, and, in effect, stabilising Rome as an Empire. Throughout his life, he was depicted on monuments or coins. Illustrated amongst these decorations we can see the different public image he wanted to present. Ultimately the most enduring image was him as a Classical hero, who had come to save Rome.