Augustus: The Life and Times of the Founder of the Roman Empire

by Evelyn S. Shuckburgh

The value of his work.

In estimating the value of his work we are met with this difficulty at the very threshold of the inquiry, that his object was to avoid quick and conspicuous changes. Instead of discussing some heroic measure we have to examine a multitude of details. In every department of political and social life we trace his hand. Working day and night, he was scheming to alter what he thought bad, and to introduce what he thought good. The reconstruction and embellishment of the city, the restoration of religion, the rehabilitation of marriage, measures necessary for the security of Rome and Italy, for the better government and material prosperity of the provinces, for the solvency of the exchequer, and for the protection of commerce—all these continually occupied his time and his thoughts. Of this steady industry this or that result may be open to criticism, but, on the whole, it seems certain that it increased the good order and prosperity of the Empire, and therefore added to the comfort and happiness of innumerable lives.

Advantages and disadvantages of the autocracy.

But of course the upshot of it all was the establishment of a monarchy; and it still remains to be considered how far its benefits were counterbalanced by evils arising from the loss of freedom. It might be argued that tyrants always appeal to their right use of power however irregularly obtained, but that the plea is beside the question. Freedom is the only guarantee of the continuance of good government. The beneficent tyrant may any day be succeeded by a bad one. The policy of Augustus had led the people on step by step to forfeit this freedom, and lose even the taste for it, lulled to sleep by the charms of safety and luxury. When the glamour had faded from some eyes, it was too late. The generation which had known freedom had disappeared; the experience necessary for working the old machinery no longer existed. The few who still remembered with regret the old constitution, under which they had hoped to take an independent share of political activity, had nothing left to them but sullen submission.

In the provinces.

In the provinces, indeed, this consideration did not apply. The despotism there added to the sum of happiness and took nothing away. They had lost their independence long ago. They were already under a master, a master who was changed at short intervals, whom it was very difficult to bring to an account if he were oppressive, in whose selection they had had absolutely no share, and whose character they had no means of calculating beforehand. They might one year be enjoying all the benefits of an able and disinterested ruler, the next they might find themselves in the power of a tyrannical extortioner, selfish, cynical, cruel. The old republican names and ideals were nothing to them; or rather they suggested organised oppression and a conspiracy to refuse redress. The change to one master, who had everything to gain by their prosperity, and was at the same time master of their old oppressors, must have seemed in every respect a blessing. If there was any drawback it was that nationality and the desire for self-government were killed by kindness. In all difficulties and disasters they looked to the Emperor for aid and seldom looked in vain. In the East especially this was probably not wholesome; yet the immediate effects in producing prosperity and comfort were marked enough to put aside for the present all such scruples.

In Italy.

But for the governing nation itself, while some of the benefits were no less manifest, the mischievous results were more easy to point out. Material prosperity was much increased. The city was made a pleasant and attractive place of residence. Italy was partially repeopled with an industrious class. Commerce was encouraged and protected, literature and the fine arts were fostered, and the Palace on the whole set a good example of simplicity of living. But, on the other hand, the rule of a single person stifled political life. By the system of curæ or special commissions all administrative work was transferred to nominees of the Emperor, who were often his intimate friends, or even his freedmen, bound to him by the closest ties of subordination. The old magistracies became unattractive, not only because they no longer led as a matter of course to profitable employment abroad, but because their holders had little of interest to do. The Senate, though treated with respect and retaining some importance as a high court of justice, was practically no longer a governing body. It was wholly at the beck of the Emperor, and such work of consequence as it still performed was often transacted by small committees, the main body merely assenting. In spite, therefore, of the dignity of the Senator’s position, it ceased to attract the best men. The higher classes turned away from a political career, and gave themselves up more and more to luxurious idleness. The rise of the freedman—practically the rule of favourites—was clearly foreshadowed, though owing to the industry of Augustus, and his genius for detail, it did not become prominent in his time. As the upper classes were thus to a certain extent demoralised by the Principate, so the city proletariat was pampered and made still more effete. The city was made only too attractive to them, and they were to be kept in good humour by an endless series of games and shows. There was a good deal of truth in the retort of the player Pylades, when reproved by Augustus for his feud with Bathyllus, that it was for the Emperor’s advantage that the people should have their attention fixed on the playhouse rather than on politics. But they soon began not only to regard these amusements as their right: they expected also to be fed at the cost of the government, whether by direct gifts of money, or by the distribution of cheap or even gratuitous corn. Nor can it be said that the amusements provided for them were of an elevating nature. Augustus boasts in the Index (c. 20), that he gave seven shows of gladiators in his own name or that of his sons, in which about 10,000 men in all had fought;[317] and besides other games twenty-six venationes of “African beasts,” i.e., mostly elephants, in which about 3,500 were killed. The mob of Rome needed little brutalising, but they got it in abundance.

With such drawbacks, however, it still must be owned that the administration of Augustus largely increased the sum of human happiness by the mitigation of oppression in the provinces, and by the suppression of disorder in Rome and Italy. The finances were placed on a sound footing, property was rendered secure, and men felt everywhere that they might pursue their business with every chance of enjoying the fruits of their labours. This was something after a century of revolution more or less acute, and twenty years of downright civil war. It is worth while to attempt to picture to ourselves the man who was the author of these good and bad results.

The personal appearance and character of Augustus.