“WE BRING PEACE AND FREEDOM TO THE WORLD”: Caesar Augustus’ “Acts of the Divine Augustus”

Part IV

D. Imperial System of Peace and Freedom in the “Acts of the Divine Augustus”

 AA is a dominant story of the Roman imperial power. Understandably the content of the document is highly selective. The document contains things that were consistent with the picture that Augustus wanted to draw and omits things that were inconsistent with that picture. So what is included and excluded in the content of the document would indicate “the way in which the author wished to ‘slant’ his narrative.”[1] AA was not intended as a complete record of Augustus’ reign. It is often as informative in its omissions as in the language of its presentation.

The imperial peace and freedom achieved by Augustus is emphasized in AA. Imperial peace and the notion of freedom are very much synonymous. AA defines peace as the peace secured by victory (AA 13). Military victories achieved peace on land and sea. Peace means not only pacification but also extension of Roman power to other regions. That is why Augustus laid much emphasis in AA on his military achievements that not only brought civil wars to an end, but also extended the Roman power. The connection between peace, freedom and victory is well illustrated by the image on the coin issued to commemorate the victory of Augustus:

In the case of the coin, while the restorer of libertas is celebrated on the obverse, the message of the reverse is more important for Augustus’ purposes. Here Peace appears holding a caduceus in her right hand and standing on a sword. A cista mystica with a snake emerging from it appears to her left and the whole is surrounded by a laurel wreath. With the obverse, then, the emperor may be announcing himself as the restorer of libertas, but on the reverse he suggests how this was done and points to its ramifications. He has achieved his goal through Victoria (laurel wreath) and this has brought peace (pax) and prosperity (caduceus).[2]   

AA 34.1 confirms the restoration of peace. This peace through military victory is connected to the temple of Janus (AA 13). 

 In AA the Roman emperor Augustus primarily addressed the people of Rome and described how the republic was restored through his acts: “I successfully championed the liberty of the republic when it was oppressed by the tyranny of a faction” (AA 1.1).[3] Augustus’ claim that his acts restored the republic implies that his opponents were enemies of the republic. Augustus deliberately avoided mentioning the names of these enemies. This was done not to evoke vengeance among the supporters of these enemies. Otherwise it would lead to a spiral of violence. The emperor portrayed the murderers of Julius Caesar as making “war on the republic” (AA 2). However, Brutus and Cassius considered that they killed Julius Caesar to liberate Rome from a tyrant. In their view, Augustus, being an adopted son and heir of Julius Caesar, was also a threat to the republic. In 42 BCE Brutus and Cassius sought to free Rome from the domination of the triumvirate. Intentionally Augustus did not portray the War of Philippi as an act of revenge against the murderers of his adopted father, Julius Caesar. To avoid a new wave of vengeance and to unite people against Brutus and Cassius, he described this war as a lawful battle against the enemies of the republic. By portraying Brutus and Cassius as the enemies of the republic, Augustus not only prevented violence of “all against all”, but also united the people of Rome against the killers of Julius Caesar. Although Augustus was careful in the dominant story of AA not to characterize his war against Brutus and Cassius as vengeance, his treatment of the dead body of Brutus did not conceal his vengeance. He had the head of Brutus chopped off and sent it to Rome to be thrown at the feet of a statue of Julius Caesar. Augustus’ brutality was well recorded by Suetonius. About Augustus’ treatment of the prisoners of war during the Perusian war, Suetonius wrote:

(Octavian) took vengeance on crowds of prisoners and returned the same answer to all who sued for pardon or tried to explain their presence among the rebels. It was simply: “You must die!” According to some historians, he chose 300 prisoners of equestrian or senatorial rank, and offered them on the Ides of March at the altar of the god Julius, as human sacrifices.

Similarly, the triumvirs, Augustus, Antony and Lepidus, marked down their political enemies as public enemies. In order to liquidate their opponents and amass large sums of money from their confiscated estates to fund their future wars, they followed an official mechanism called proscription, which is not mentioned in AA. This was first employed by Lucius Cornelius Sulla in 81 BCE. Everyone, whose name was found in the proscription decree, “automatically forfeited his citizenship and protection from the law.”[4] Informers about proscribed men were rewarded. Anyone who killed a proscribed man was entitled to keep a share of his wealth and the remainder was taken by the state. Describing the resultant violence Appian wrote:

Many people were murdered in all kinds of ways, and decapitated to furnish evidence for the reward. They fled in undignified fashion and abandoned their former conspicuous dress for strange disguises. Some went down wells, some descended into the filth of the sewers, and others climbed up into smoky rafters or sat in total silence under close-packed roofs. To some, just as terrifying as the executioners were wives or children with whom they were not in good terms, or ex-slaves and slaves, or creditors, or neighboring landowners who coveted their estates.       

Thus, the proscription brought a widespread cruelty. About three hundred senators, including Cicero, and about two thousand equestrians were killed. Both the proscription and the War of Philippi largely liquidated the republican opposition in Italy. Even though Augustus in AA claimed that his acts had restored the liberty of the republic, the proscription and the War of Philippi suggest that it was not his intension. Everitt comments:

(H)is (Augustus) lies and killings were always for a carefully planned purpose. He had learned his politics from Caesar, and from the outset he aimed to reestablish an autocracy, not only out of personal ambition but also from a conviction that the Republic was incompetent and needed to be replaced.[5]

The characterization of Augustus’ personal enemies as the Roman public enemies continued also in the case of Sextus Pompey. Although Augustus’ claim in AA 25.1 that he “made the sea peaceful and freed it of pirates” should not be restricted to his victory over Sextus Pompey in 36 BCE, there is an allusion to this. From the maritime vantage point, Sextus, being in Sicily, controlled the grain supply to Rome from Egypt, Africa, and Sicily. This resulted in endemic famine in Rome. By depicting Sextus as a pirate, Augustus was portraying him as an enemy of the Roman people and their welfare. This was mere propaganda of Augustus as Sextus enjoyed the support of many eminent republicans.[6] Moreover, Sextus provided shelter to proscribed men and escaped slaves from all over Italy. As Appian reported, “His small boats and merchant vessels met any who came by sea; his warships patrolled the shores, made signals to help the lost, and picked up anyone they encountered. He came in person to meet the new arrivals.” What is not mentioned in AA is that Sextus was a power contender. By depicting him as the public enemy, Augustus not only averted a spiral of violence due to vengeance, but also united the public against Sextus. The Senate celebrated Augustus’ victory over Sextus Pompey with a monument. Appian wrote, “(T)he inscription would say that he has restored the peace on land and sea which had for so long been rent with discord” (Appian 5.130).

Augustus’ efforts to bring peace through military victory continued with his war against his arch rival and power contender, Antony. By portraying his rival “a faction” that had “oppressed” the republic, Augustus made Antony an enemy of the republic (AA 2.1), and himself a savior of the republic. His boasting about the voluntary allegiance of the “whole of Italy” and their “demand” to be their leader in the War of Actium (AA 26.2) conceals his evil designs. Augustus arose suspicion towards Antony by drawing public attention to some of the acts of Antony that the latter was “going native”.

After his victory over Armenia in 34 BCE, Antony celebrated it in Egypt like a triumphal procession. Riding on a chariot preceded by Armenian prisoners of war, he made his way to central square where Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt, was waiting for him. This was used by Augustus against Antony. It was offensive for a Roman general to arrange triumphal celebration outside of Rome. Moreover, during the same time Antony issued a coin, on one side his bare head and behind it the royal tiara of Armenia, with a message “Antony, after the conquest of Armenia”, and on the other the head of Cleopatra, diademed and with jewels in her hair, and an inscription “To, Cleopatra, queen of kings and of her sons who are kings.” When he divorced Octavia in 32 BCE, Roman public viewed it that he had not only behaved cruelly towards his loving wife, but also done this in favor of a foreign woman, Cleopatra. The last nail to Antony’s public image was Augustus’ reading of Antony’s will, which was lodged with the Vestal Virgins, to the Senate. Augustus mainly drew attention of the Senate to his opponent’s wish to be buried in Alexandria, legacies he left for his children by Cleopatra and reasserting that Caesarion (officially Ptolemy XV Caesar) was Julius Caesar’s child through Cleopatra. All these evidences added up to the Roman public suspicion that “Antony was going native”. The portrayal of Antony as the Roman state and public enemy was also carried out by the pro-Augustus writers such as Virgil:

On one side Caesar Augustus leading the Italians to battle, with senate and people, the gods of household and state…on the other Antony with his barbarian wealth and motley panoply, victorious from the peoples of the dawn and the shore of the Red sea, brings with him Egypt and the might of the East and the remote Bactrians; in his train, a sinful sight, his Egyptian paramour (Aenoid VIII, 678ff).

Deliberately Augustus and his supporters identified Antony with Egypt and so, an enemy of Rome and its gods: “Italy versus the Orient with its luxuria, against Egypt with its animal-headed gods and its decadence.”[7] By doing this, the War of Actium was portrayed as a war against Egypt. Blaming Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt, Horace wrote:

Plotting destruction to our Capitol, and ruin to the Empire with her squalid pack of diseased half-men-mad, wishful grandeur, tipsy with sweet good luck! But all her fleet burnt, scarcely one ship saved – that tamed her rage; and Caesar, when his galleys chased her from Italy, soon brought her, dreaming and drugged with native wine, back to the hard realities of fear.  

However, this was a false propaganda by the pro-Augustus poet. Cleopatra was not plotting destruction of Rome or Roman empire; all her fleet was not burnt; she was not chased from Italy; and she was not drunk. The false propaganda by Augustus and his supporters was done not only to avoid evoking vengeance among Antony’s supporters, which would lead to a cycle of violence, but also to unite Roman people for the War of Actium. Therefore, Augustus’ victory in the War was a victory against the “Eastern barbarians”. However, Augustus could not conceal his vengeance against his enemy. He made Antony’s name removed from the Fasti, the state registers of official events. This was done to erase Antony’s memory.

It was the mimetic rivalry between Augustus and Antony that resulted in the former’s murderous violence against the latter. They imitated each other’s desire for power and became murderously competitive. The social cohesion became pitifully unstable. It was a war of “all against all”. Spontaneously the antidote did appear. Antony was marked as a scapegoat victim on whom the violence of all was focused. Thus, the war of “all against all” became the war of “all against one”. Augustus drew the Senate and people into his mimetic rivalry against his enemy. The crucial thing is that the blood of Antony and other victims was mute. Their voice had been silenced.

Augustus celebrated his triumph over Egypt in 29 BCE (AA 4.1). Roman triumphal celebration was a public display of Roman victory over its enemy. Before the victorious general crossed the pomerium – the sacred boundary that defined the city of Rome as a sacred space – trumpeters sounded “a fearsome call to battle.”[8] After the oxen destined for sacrifice were paraded, prisoners of war followed. In the Augustus triumphal procession the spoils of Egypt, an effigy of the dead Cleopatra lying on a couch, and her surviving children, Alexander Helios, Cleopatra Selene and Ptolemy Philadelphus were displayed. Usually the victorious general followed the holders of offices of state and the Senate. However, on this occasion, in a clear demonstration of his political predominance, Augustus went first on a chariot drawn by four horses, wearing a gold embroidered toga, a flowered tunic and on his head a laurel wreath signifying victory. The procession concluded at the base of the Capitoline. The prisoners of war were led to be executed, while the triumphator ascended the hill.

The celebration of triumph contained “acts of external military violence within the form of civic and religious ritual….”[9] In a way triumphal procession through the city streets allowed the Roman public to partake mimetically not only in the military violence (with the trumpeters call for battle), but also in the victory over enemy, thus in bringing peace. The execution of prisoners of war at the base of the Capitoline signified killing of enemy soldiers on the battlefield as sacrificial victims. The primary focus of the triumphal celebration was the victory over public enemy(s). It was through military victory that Augustus claimed to have brought peace not only in Rome, but also throughout the empire. Romans believed that peace could be achieved through war and victory.

Victory is nothing but a decisive act of violence. As Girard says, “Desire…is attracted to violence triumphant and strives desperately to incarnate this “irresistible” force. Desire clings to violence and stalks it like a shadow because violence is the signifier of cherished being, the signifier of divinity.”[10] People pursue victory as an absolute, a kind of divinity. Then, war becomes a contest between two opposing power contenders or two nations for the prize of divinity. Victory as a decisive act of violence gives the victor a “semidivine prestige”, or “mystical election attained by military victory”.[11] God, through superior violence, becomes a personification of victory. Since god is a personification of victory, victory signifies God’s presence with the victor. Romans believed that military victory resulted due to special relationship between gods, and emperor and the nation: “You rule, Roman, because you hold yourself inferior to the gods; from them all things begin; to them ascribe every outcome” (Horace, Carm. 3.6.5-6; Sallust, Cat. 12.4-5; Livy, 5.51-52). In the triumphal procession the face of victorious general was painted red, more like a divinity (at least momentarily) than a Roman citizen or a soldier.[12] Victorious general was displayed as a caricature of extraordinary power and might. Thus, he was superior “Other”. As Stroup notes, “the triumphator functions as a kind of divinely mandated human receptacle for the divinely mandated martial force of Rome.”[13]

Augustus’ divinely mandated task of bringing imperial peace continued even after bringing the civil wars to an end. He embarked on a program of world conquest. There were campaigns in Gaul during 27-25 BCE, in Syria 27-19 BCE, and in Germany 12-6 BCE (AA 26.2). Pacification of the Alpine tribes was achieved in a series of campaigns from 35 to 7/6 BCE (AA 26.3). The imperial peace that Augustus brought in the Alps was subjugation of the Alpine tribes (AA 26.1). A monument that was set up to Augustus in commemoration of the Alpine victory read: “Because under his leadership and auspices all the Alpine tribes from the upper to the lower sea had been brought under the rule of the Roman people.”[14] Augustus claimed that he did not wage “an unjust war on any people” (AA 26.3). This claim finds support in Suetonius: “He (Augustus) made no war on any people without just and necessary reasons” (Augustus 21). However, Brunt and Moore comment, “That had always been the Roman way by their own account, but they made themselves judges in their own cause.”[15] Most people of Salassi, an Alpine tribe, were sold into slavery after being subjugated by Augustus (Dio, LIII, 25,4). When Alpine people levied tolls on travelers over the pass they controlled, Romans called this brigandage (Strabo IV, 205). After subjugating the Alpine tribes, Romans collected tolls from the travelers in the Alpine passes!!!

Also, in AA 26.5 Augustus mentioned his expedition to Ethiopia in 24-22 BCE and Arabia in 25-24 BCE. He described these people as enemies. The reason for such depiction was because they were not under the control of the Roman government. There was also an economic dimension to Augustus’ expedition to Arabia. It was noted, “Augustus desired to lay hands himself on the large revenues accruing from the heavy tolls charged by the Sabaeans on the spice trade, or to reduce the heavy loss of gold and silver which the trade entailed for the empire” (Pliny, Natural History VI, 162; XII, 84; Strabo, XVI, 780). Also Augustus made Egypt into a Roman province (Velleius, II, 39). However, it was administered as “a private appanage of the emperor.” Senators were not allowed to enter Egypt without Augustus’ consent. The reason for this prohibition is not clear. However, Brunt and Moore conjecture:

It seems possible that the main reason why Augustus excluded from Egypt all senators, the class in whom the Republican tradition was most alive, was the fact that in Egypt he had to rule in the ancient style, with the attributes of the Hellenistic dynasty of the Ptolemies, or of the Pharaohs.[16]

Augustus blamed Antony for “going native”, and thus portrayed him as an enemy of Rome.[17] Augustus’ own position now was much the same, for he was regarded by Egyptians as Pharaoh.

Augustus also boasted about how he controlled the political affairs in Armenia. By making it a client kingdom, he ruled it by installing kings loyal to Rome (AA 27.2). Colonies were established not only for settlement of the Roman veterans, but also for pacification of the turbulent areas. For Romans subjugating Parthians was regarded as one of the prerequisites for the beginning of the Golden Age of peace. Because without the restoration of standards and eagles, and prisoners that were lost by Crassus to the Parthians in 53 BCE “the restoration of the state itself would be incomplete. A passage was even found in the Sibylline Books, hinting that the Golden Age would dawn only after the conquest of the Parthian.”[18] As a result of the diplomatic settlement in 20 BCE between Augustus and Phraates, the Parthian king, the latter returned the standards. Later the Parthian king sent a few of his wives and children to Rome as hostages, thus recognizing Rome’s supremacy (AA 29.2, 32.1-2). In AA Augustus referred Parthians as “suppliants”, which means “vassals”. As an acknowledgment of Parthians’ subjugation by Augustus, the Senate erected an arch with three portals and the triumphal chariot of the victor (Dio 54.8). On the arch were depicted the defeated Parthians, either as retreating archers or handing over the signa to victor. Large issues of denarii had a kneeling Parthian handing over the standards. Horace described Phraates “on his knees accepting the right and rule of Caesar” (Epodes 1.12.27). This image of kneeling Parthian was so popular that Romans even wore this image on their rings. This image had shaped the Roman view of the subjects and their relationship to the subject peoples. Thus, the celebration of Augustus’ victory over Parthians expressed not only the dawning of the Golden Age of peace, but also Augustus as the guarantor of the world order of peace. Augustus claimed this in the introduction of the Ancyra copy of the AA that through his military acts he “subjected the earth to the rule of the Roman people.” That means, the subjection of the world under Rome through divinely sanctioned violence was disguised as the existence of peace, and the dawning of the Golden Age of peace.

The inauguration of the Golden Age of peace secured through sacred violence was represented by the closure of the gates of the Janus temple and the Secular Games (AA 13, 22.2). Augustus boasted that his military victories “had secured peace by land and sea throughout the whole empire of the Roman people” (AA 13). Mention of his victories over land and sea was intended to emphasize the establishment of imperial peace in distant regions. The gates of the Janus temple had been closed only twice in the history of Rome before the birth of Augustus. However, they were closed three times during Augustus’s rule. They were closed for the first time in January 29 BCE, after Augustus had defeated Mark Antony, and thus bringing an end to the civil wars. The temple gates were closed for the second time in the autumn of 25 BCE, when the Spanish Cantabrians were subdued. However, it is uncertain when they were closed for the third time. By connecting his victories over the enemies of the Roman peace to the religious significance of the gates of the Janus temple, Augustus was claiming divine legitimacy to his violence. Bringing peace in the empire was a divinely sanctioned duty. It was his victories over the enemies of Rome through divinely sanctioned military violence that established peace. When Augustus boasted that the gates of Janus temple had been closed more times under his rule than during all recorded history of Rome, he was claiming himself to be the most successful divine agent, through whom the Golden Age of peace had dawned.

Augustus’ special status in relation to gods was recognized by the Senate through conferring on him the title “Augustus”. The title “Augustus” had a broad range of meanings, including “stately”, “dignified” and “holy”. It could also recall augur, the priest who interpreted omens. As an honorific title, “it surrounded him with a special aura, “as if the name alone had already conferred divinity upon him” (Florus 2.34.66).”[19] Suetonius confirmed this meaning of the title “Augustus”:

Afterwards (Octavian) took the names Gaius Caesar and then Augustus, the one by the will of his great-uncle, the other on the motion of Munatius Plancus. For when some had proposed that he should be called Romulus, as if he were a second founder of the city, Plancus carried the proposal that he should instead be called Augustus, not only because the name was new, but also because it was more impressive, insofar as places-whether sacred (religiosa) in their own right or consecrated by augury-are called ‘august’ (Suetonius, Augustus 7.2).

Explaining to the Greeks the significance of the title “Augustus” Cassius Dio wrote:

When he had completed these matters of detail, the name Augustus was awarded to him by the Senate and the people. They desired to address him in a fashion both unique and appropriate-some proposed one name, and others chose another-while Caesar desired strongly to be called Romulus. When he saw that because of this he was suspected of desiring the kingship, he ceased to claim it and called himself Augustus instead, as if he were something more than human. For everything that is greatly honored and sacred is termed “august”. Because of this, speakers of Greek address him sebastoi, meaning someone worthy of veneration, from the word sebazesqai (to venerate, worship) (Dio 53. 16.6-8).        

In conferring the title “Augustus” to the emperor, the Senate acknowledged his unique stature and relationship to gods. The evidence for this was Roman victories under his rule that dawned the Golden Age of peace.

The inauguration of the Golden Age of peace by Augustus was celebrated by conducting the Secular Games in 17 BCE. The celebration of the Secular Games was a sacred ceremony. It brought citizens together to commemorate the dawning of the Golden Age of peace. This age was marked out by Augustus. Two inscriptions give evidence to it. According to the calendrical inscription of Priene dated 9 BCE, near the provincial capital Ephesus, Augustus was celebrated as the ruler given by providence, “who has brought war to an end and has ordained peace…(thus) for the world, the birthday of the god (i.e. Augustus) means the beginning of the tidings of peace” (OGIS 458). The inscription from Halicarnassus in Asia Minor testified that Augustus was celebrated as the savior of the whole human race. The reason was, “Land and sea have peace, the cities flourish under a good legal system, in harmony and with an abundance of food, there is an abundance of all good things, people are filled with happy hopes for the future and with delight at the present….”[20]

Intellectual rationalization and propaganda for the Golden Age of peace established by Augustus was provided by pro-Augustus writers like Virgil and Horace. Virgil probably supported the emperor for financial security and from political conviction.[21] Virgil wrote:

This, this is he whom so often you hear promised to you, Augustus Caesar, son of god, who shall again set up the golden age in Latium amid the fields where Saturn once reigned, and shall spread his empire past Garament and Indian, to a land that lay beyond the stars (Virgil, Aeneid VI, 791-795, cf. Eclogue IV, 4-10).

So also the central message of the hymn, written by Horace and sung by twenty-seven boys and twenty-seven girls, confirmed the establishment of peace and prosperity: “Now faith and peace and honor and old-fashioned conscience and unremembered virtue to walk again, and with them blessed plenty pouring her brimming horn.” The Golden age of peace connotes an order based on the Roman understanding of peace in terms of pacification and subjugation. This had provided a context to use military violence as sacred violence against those perceived to be a threat to this imperial order, and to subjugate those regions that were not under the control of Rome. Therefore, the Golden Age of peace was maintained through war, victory and dominance.

The Golden Age of peace was so bound up with Augustus that he continued to be the protector and enforcer of the Roman imperial order of peace. The inclusion of Augustus’ name in the hymn of the Salii indicated that the security of the imperial order of peace was bound up with Augustus (AA 10.1). This hymn was an incantation accompanied by dance. Through this the Salii served not only to start but to conclude the summer war campaign religiously. Thus, this religious ceremony assured the security of the imperial order of peace. The inclusion of Augustus’ name in the hymn of the Salii gave him divine authorization to protect and enforce the Roman imperial order of peace.

 There were divergent views about Augustus being the restorer of republic and peace. Velleius declared:

In the twentieth year civil wars were brought to an end, foreign wars were buried, peace recalled; the frenzy of arms was everywhere lulled to sleep, the laws recovered their vigor, the courts their authority, the senate its majesty, the imperium of the magistrates was restored to its ancient extent,…the pristine form of the republic was recalled as of old. (II, 89).

However, Dio called this the beginning of the autocracy (LII, 1, 1; LIII, 11, 4), and Tacitus the beginning of monarchy. Although Augustus handed over the legal power and authority to the Senate and the people, in reality he did not hand over any real power. Augustus also admitted this: “After this time, I exceeded everybody in authority” (AA 34.3). He held back his command over most of Rome’s armies, which were in his provinces, Syria, Spain, Cyprus, Cilicia and Gaul. Augustus assumed tribunicia potestas in perpetuity. With this he would enjoy the power of tribune without actually having to hold the post. Tribunes attended the Senate meetings and presented laws for approval by people. They could also veto any officeholder’s decisions, including those of other tribunes. Augustus was also given “a general and overriding proconsular authority (imperium maius, “greater power”), the right to intervene anywhere in the empire at and when he chose.”[22] Thus, he accumulated more power to himself. Though Augustus insisted that power and honor were bestowed upon him by people and the Senate, and was unwilling to accept unrepublican honors and powers, he never mentioned in AA that there was no precedent for any man holding so many powers and positions at the same time.[23] This is an example of clever propaganda. Ronald Syme in his book The Roman Revolution[24] exposed the real workings of the autocratic power behind the empty façade of republican government. Augustus was pater patriae (“father of his country”). In the imperial art the Roman provinces were depicted as women.[25] That means, not only the people of Rome, but also the subjects were expected to be submissive to the pater patriae in order to maintain the Golden Age of peace.

 


[1] Brunt and Moore, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, p. 3.

[2] Ramage, The Nature and Purpose, p. 71.

[3] Brunt and Moore, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, p. 19.

[4] Anthony Everitt, Augustus: The Life of Rome’s First Emperor (New York: Random House, 2006), p. 80.

 

[5] Everitt, Augustus, p. 95.

[6] Brunt and Moore, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, p. 66.

[7] Paul Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, tr. by Alan Shapiro (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1990), pp. 52-53.

[8] Sarah Culpepper Stroup, “Making Memory: Ritual, Rhetoric, and Violence in the Roman Triumph,” in Belief and Bloodshed: Religion and Violence across Time and Tradition, ed. by James K. Wellman (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007), p. 30.

[9] Stroup, “Making Memory,” p. 31.

[10] Girard, Violence and the Sacred, p. 151.

[11] Girard, Violence and the Sacred, p. 152.

[12] Stroup, “Making Memory,” p. 30.

[13] Stroup, “Making Memory,” p. 37.

[14] V. Ehrenberg and A.H.M. Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 40.

[15] Brunt and Moore, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, p. 71.

[16] Brunt and Moore, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, p. 72.

[17] Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 273ff. 

[18] Zanker, The Power of Images, p. 186.

[19] Zanker, The Power of Images, p. 98.

[20] The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum IV, ed. by G. Herschfeld (London: 1893), no. 894.

[21] Everitt, Augustus, p. 115.

[22] Everitt, Augustus, p. 218.

[23] Brunt and Moore, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, p. 5.

[24] Syme, The Roman Revolution.

[25] John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom: A New Vision of Paul’s Words & World (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2004), p. 268.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

One Response to ““WE BRING PEACE AND FREEDOM TO THE WORLD”: Caesar Augustus’ “Acts of the Divine Augustus””

  1. Poetryoffood.Com Says:

    This website was… how do I say it? Relevant!! Finally I have found something which helped me.
    Many thanks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: