Monumentum Ancyranum: The Deeds of Augustus

by Emperor of Rome Augustus

But Mommsen and the Berlin Academy were not satisfied. Carl Humann had distinguished himself by his researches at Pergamos, and to him they committed the task of securing casts of the whole of both texts. The story of his achievement is extremely interesting. Difficulty after difficulty was met and surmounted. And finally he succeeded in his plan. With materials dug near-by he made plaster casts. The owners of the Turkish houses he succeeded in inducing to allow their walls to be so far torn away as to permit him to get at the entire Greek text. And finally twenty great cases containing the whole series of casts were sent away on pack mules to the coast and thence to Berlin. The Royal Academy now counts these casts among its chief treasures. This was in 1882. In 1883 Mommsen published his great critical edition of the text, on which this edition is based. His work is almost final on the subject, but especially in the matter of conjectural fillings of the lacunæ is subject to revision. But an inspection of the text as given in this volume will show that we have the words of Augustus almost in their entirety.

At Apollonia, on the borders of Phrygia and Pisidia, has been found another ruined temple, with remnants of the Greek version of this inscription. At Apollonia the inscription originally covered seven pages. Of these there are still legible the upper portions of pages two, three, four and five. The correspondence between the text at Ancyra and that at Apollonia is almost exact, and where there is a divergence, it has been indicated.

II. Character and Purpose of the Inscription.

German scholars have waged a fierce warfare over the question of the literary character of the Res Gestæ, as Mommsen commonly calls it. He himself refrains from assigning it decidedly to any class of composition. Is it epitaph, or a “statement of account,” or “political statement”? Otto Hirschfeld contends strongly it is not an epitaph because it contains no dates of birth or death, and is in the first person. Wölfflin calls it a statement of account. Geppert sides with Hirschfeld. Bormann, Schmidt and Nissen all hold it to be an epitaph. And this appears to be the final agreement. The latest word is the discussion by Bormann, in 1895, in which he still maintains the epitaph view. For these discussions, cf. the bibliography at the end of this volume.

Of course it is an epitaph of unique character. It has certain striking peculiarities, and specially of omission. There is no mention of domestic affairs. The wife of the Emperor is unnamed. Although in enumerating his honors and offices it was necessary to date events by the names of consuls, yet aside from this he mentions no person outside the imperial household, not even such favorites as Mæcenas and Agrippa. His foes, Brutus, Cassius and Antony, are several times alluded to, but never named. The same is true of Lepidus and Sextus Pompeius. Unfortunate events are not noticed. His omission of the disaster to the Roman arms under Varus has been severely criticised as an attempt to deceive; but if the inscription is really an epitaph one cannot wonder at such silence. The omission of the dates of birth and death has been variously explained. Some have thought that he meant his heirs to fill in any such gaps after his death, and to recast the whole into the third person. Or, it has been suggested that it was the desire of Augustus to be counted a divinity, and that therefore he wished to pose as one “without beginning of years, or end of days.” It certainly would be incongruous to record the death of a god. With regard to his general purpose Mommsen says: “No one would look for the arcana of empire in such a document, but for such things as an imperator of mind shrewd rather than lofty, and who skillfully bore the character of a great man while he himself was not great, wished the whole people, and especially the rabble, to believe about him.” Two purposes are manifest throughout the document. One is to pose as a saviour of the state from its foes, and not at all as a seeker after personal aggrandizement; another is to represent his whole authority as having been exercised under constitutional forms. These two ideas appear again and again.

III. Divisions of the Text.

The text may be roughly divided into three sections. Chapters one to fourteen give the various offices held by Augustus, and the honors bestowed upon him; chapters fifteen to twenty-four recount his expenditures for the good of the state and the people; and the remaining chapters, twenty-five to thirty-five, give the statement of his various achievements in war, and his works of a more peaceful character. This classification will not hold rigorously, but is true in the main.

The division into chapters or paragraphs is marked in the Latin text by making the first line of each chapter project a little to the left of the remaining lines. Each such paragraph is relatively complete. And the use of such a topical method marks a new manner of composition quite different from the old annalistic style of Roman historiography.

IV. The Greek Version.

George Kaibel has made a special study of the Greek version, and is led to the opinion that it was made by a Roman rather than by a Greek. It is a grammar and dictionary rendering, rather than the idiomatic work of one quite at home in the use of Greek. This conclusion is based upon linguistic grounds. A further question remains as to where this translation was made, whether at Rome or in the provinces. The fact of the identity of the two copies at Apollonia and at Ancyra would seem to indicate a common Roman source.