Truth: Res Gestae Divi Augusti

¶ … Truth:

Res Gestae Divi Augusti and Tacitus' Annals

Politics is as much a game of appearances as it is a story of realities. This is never more true than when the political figure in question stands at the end of one age and the beginning of another. Such figures feel a unique need to justify their actions. They need to prove themselves to posterity, to explain why they have changed "the system," and why their achievements must be celebrated, rather than denigrated. Augustus' Res Gestae Divi Augusti is an attempt to place the Emperor's actions in the context of public necessity. Augustus' actions and achievements were both necessary and desirable. He acted not from motives of self-interest but in response to the deep needs of the people of Rome. Nothing he did was done without reference to them and to ancient Roman traditions. In contrast, the great Roman historian Tacitus saw Augustus' actions as anything but traditional. In his eyes, the Res Gestae Divi Augusti would be nothing less than a self-serving attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Tacitus spares no attempt to discredit Augustus' motives and accomplishment. Even things that might be taken as desirable are scrutinized and disparaged. Augustus places himself firmly within the context of Roman history, and so does Tacitus. As these two accounts show, history -- and in particular the actions of one individual -- can be read in entirely different ways. Augustus and Tacitus see basically the same things, but interpret them differently. Each man has an agenda, and that agenda is clear.

Augustus begins Res Gestae Divi Augusti with a history of himself. He raised an army at his own expense and saved the republic from tyranny. Tacitus begins his Annals with an account of the early days of that same republic. Tacitus is careful to point out that the kings who first governed Rome were quickly replaced by a form of administration that did not allow for any individual or group of individuals, to exercise full power for any length of time. Augustus' own claim that he acted for the good of all when that "all," as represented by the Senate and consuls would not, is taken as but the first sign of the Emperor's ingenuousness:

In Tacitus's view, images reflect a progressively unstable symbolic order. Under Augustus, images dissimulate something: that the princeps has ultimate power but pretends he does not. The fact that both aspects are credible keeps the reality principle intact and creates a "good image" for Augustus himself.

The idea of the credible vs. The incredible is carried further in later passages of the two works. Augustus regularly recalls how his own personal largesse helped the ordinary people of Rome. Augustus spent vast sums alleviating hunger. He gave sums of money to hundreds of thousands of poor Romans. He settled soldiers in military colonies throughout the empire and gave them lands and money. Augustus continually sets himself as person who acts in place of the state because the state itself would not, or could not, act for the benefit of its own citizens. Such actions are always described as being taken in conjunction with others, not necessarily directly, but while sharing power or holding office at the same time as others who theoretically hold equal positions: "From the consulship of Gnaeus and Pulbius Lentulus onwards, whenever the taxes did not suffice, I made distributions of grain and money from my own patrimony…."

Res Gestae Divi Augusti is a long catalog of Augustus' generosity.

Nevertheless, Tacitus in his Annals is quick to see other motives behind all of this apparent public spiritedness. Tacitus frequently speaks of plans by Augustus that go awry. He relates how Augustus attempted to secure the succession in his own family and was thwarted by the deaths of his heirs. He also viciously attacks Livia as an emblem of almost pure evil, weaving intricate plots that threaten to undermine both her husband and the good of the state. Tacitus uses the outcome of these machinations as a way of showing that true goodness cannot be suppressed. As Goodyear notes in the Annals, Tacitus employs unusually strong and vicious language in his condemnation of Livia's removal of Agrippa Postumus, a move that results in Germanicus becoming heir. At the same time Tacitus reveals his own partiality to Germanicus, an individual whom he clearly considers capable of restoring the "the real" Rome.

Propriety and loyalty to tradition are regular themes in Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Augustus recites the list of temples he has restored or founded. He thrusts aside the idea that he wishes to be worshipped by telling the story of how he took all the silver statutes that had been set up to him and had them sold and substituted for golden offerings to the gods -- offerings that he re-dedicated on behalf of both the original donors and also himself.

Augustus means for these actions to be a sign that he is restoring the timeless values of the republic under which all citizens played a role in government and all worked for the general good. Tacitus presents Augustus' deeds as empty gestures, purposeful re-workings of the past to serve the needs of the present. Augustus takes the customs of former times and redefines them so that they no longer have the meaning they once held: "Tacitus portrays a new state from which the old values are absent and in which the vocabulary of the republic is perverted to a new use. How then can his reinstatement of republican values have any meaning?"

In the opinion of Tacitus, Augustus is actually using the past to create an entirely different sort of Rome. The past is familiar to the people, by using its forms and terminology, Augustus can make novel ideas seem acceptable. In particular, he can make acts of tyranny seem like necessary things, actions that conform with long established practice.

Still, Goodyear points out that many of Tacitus' complaints are themselves a twisting of language and intent. One that stands out is his critique of Augustus' donation of land and money to the Roman soldiers. Tacitus presents this as an example of Augustus' cunning -- it is an attempt to bind the soldiery to himself. Goodyear lets us know that such measures were essential in the Rome of that period as they guaranteed the effectiveness of the army and contributed to the preservation of peace and civil order.

In general, Tacitus sees Augustus as an aberration. He arises out of historical trends, but then uses these historical trends to his own advantage to create a new system that is entirely at odds with the old. Augustus' claims to be employing only the powers of a tribune are scarcely to be believed. His rejection of honor after honor means little in the context of all the other honors he has already been given. Augustus "graciously" accepts honors and offices that others give him though these individuals and political entities and provinces cannot avoid giving him these additional attributes of power and influence. Augustus is the great manipulator, charlatan who plays on the fears of the Roman people and panders to their basest instincts.