The Evolution of perspectives on Augustus' Principate in Roman First Century Authors

Abstract

This thesis addresses the problem of the characterization of Augustus’ rule in modern literature. While he is commonly referred to as an emperor, many historians also emphasize the Republican framework he worked in. This is strange, since the title of emperor implies autocracy, while the institution of a republic does not. To combat this incompatibility of terminology to institution, this thesis returns to the original views of Roman writers about Augustus’ rule. By analyzing the works of Velleius Paterculus, Suetonius and Tacitus and comparing them to Augustus own views of his rule as present in the Res Gestae, an overview of the evolution of their perspectives on Augustus’ rule is presented. This is effected by defining external influences which may have shaped their views and assessing the perspectives on Augustus’ rule present in their individual works. Results indicate that all three writers see Augustus as part of the Republic, although Suetonius and Tacitus agree that the form of the Republic did change. Their terminology did however not carry the connotations of autocracy. When viewing Augustus’ rule from a Roman first century’s perspective, the term princeps is a much more viable title. More research should be done with respect to later works, since those works might be responsible for the evolution of Augustus from princeps to emperor.