THE NEW CONSTITUTION, B.C. 30-23
_Hic ames dici pater atque princeps._
[Sidenote: The new constitution.]
The seven years which followed the death of Antony and Cleopatra
witnessed the settlement of the new constitution in its most important
points. It has been called a _dyarchy_, the two parties to it being the
Emperor and the Senate. They were not, however, at any time of equal
power. As far as it was possible Augustus rested his various functions on
the same foundation as those of the Republican magistrates, and treated
the Senate with studious respect. But in spite of all professions,
in spite even of himself, he became a monarch, whose will was only
limited by those forces of circumstance and sentiment to which the most
autocratic of sovereigns have at times been forced to bow. The important
epochs in this reconstruction are the years B.C. 29, 27, 23; but it will
be necessary sometimes to anticipate the course of events and to speak at
once of what often took many years to develop.
[Sidenote: Reduction of the army.]
The reduction of the vast armaments which the various phases of the civil
war had called into existence was made possible by the wealth which the
possession of Egypt put into Cæsar’s hands. Though Egypt became a Roman
province it was from the first in a peculiar position, governed by a
“prefect” appointed by the Emperor, who took as his private property
both the treasures and domain lands of the Ptolemaic kings and the
balance of the revenues over the expenses. This formed the nucleus of
what was afterwards called the _fiscus_,[214] the imperial revenue as
distinguished from the _ærarium_ or public treasury. He was thus enabled
to disband many legions at once, without the dangerous discontent of the
veterans, or the irritation of fresh confiscations. It was imperatively
necessary to do this if he wished to avoid the dangers which had so often
threatened the State from leaders of overgrown military forces. The
number of legions under arms during the preceding ten years was indeed
formidable. In B.C. 36, when Cæsar took over those of Lepidus and Sextus
Pompeius, he had forty-four or forty-five legions under his command.[215]
Between that time and the war with Antony he had reduced the number to
eighteen. But after the victory at Actium and the death of Antony, the
legions taken over from him, along with those newly raised for the war,
again amounted to fifty. Therefore Cæsar had twice to deal with a body of
about 250,000 men. He says himself that in the course of his wars half a
million citizens had taken the military oath to him. The wealth of Egypt
served to purchase lands or compensate towns for such as were taken for
the veterans. From first to last more than 300,000 men were provided for
in this way.[216] An important purpose also served by this measure was
the repeopling of Italy and the renovation of many towns which during
the civil wars, or from other causes, had fallen into decay. Republican
precedent was followed by recalling the ancient practice of settling
“colonies” in the Italian towns, but with this difference, that the new
colonists were usually treated as a _supplementum_ of an already existing
colonia, lands being purchased for them from private owners or from the
communities. Augustus claims twenty-eight of such Italian colonies, of
which thirteen are known to have been in past times “Roman” or “Latin”
colonies. Other towns, besides a money compensation, were rewarded by
being raised to the status of a colony, generally with the addition of
“Iulia” or “Augusta” to their name. This system was presently extended
beyond Italy—to Africa, Spain, Sicily, Illyricum, Macedonia, Achaia,
Gallia Narbonensis, Asia, Syria, and Pisidia. Settlements in these
countries were all colonies of veterans, except Dyrrachium, which was
filled with dispossessed Italians. This was not altogether a novelty:
for extra-Italian colonies had been already established in Cisalpine and
Transalpine Gaul, at Carthage, and at Corinth. Iulius Cæsar is said to
have settled 80,000 citizens in this way outside Italy. The extra-Italic
colonies of Augustus, however, differed from these last in regard to
status. They had what was called _Latinitas_, that is, citizenship
without the right of voting or holding office at Rome. In virtue of this
citizenship they came under the Roman law and belonged to the assize
(_conventus_) of the provincial governors. Some of them, again, had the
special privileges which were summed up in the general term “Italic
right” (_ius Italicum_), and included freedom from the jurisdiction
of the provincial governor (_libertas_), and exemption from tribute
(_immunitas_). The general aim seems to have been to put the extra-Italic
colonies as far as possible in the same position as those in Italy. As
a rule also the veterans settled in a colony had been enlisted in the
province, and had, therefore, already local connections. Augustus took
trouble in fostering and adorning these towns, whether in Italy or the
provinces, and records with pride that many had become populous cities
during his lifetime. In many cases their subsequent importance shewed
that they had been well selected. Thus Carthage had a great mediæval
history; Durazzo and Philippi were long places of consequence; Saragossa,
Merida, Cordova, Aix, Patras, Beyroot, all trace their prosperity to the
colonisation of Augustus.[217]
[Sidenote: Improvements at Rome.]
Nor did he meanwhile forget to encourage restoration at Rome, to which
he had already given a strong impulse. Nothing had damaged Antony in the
eyes of the Romans more than the report of his intention to transfer the
seat of Empire to Alexandria. A similar report as to the establishment
of an imperial city for the East at Ilium caused a like uneasiness a few
years later, which found expression in one of Horace’s most spirited
odes.[218] Cæsar prudently shewed not only that he held firmly by the
Imperial position of Rome, but that he also wished to make it externally
worthy to be the capital of the world. As in all his projects, no one
co-operated more loyally than Agrippa. But others also were pressed
into the service; and those especially who had earned triumphs were
encouraged to use a portion at least of their spoils in public works. In
the next few years there was a great outburst of temple restoration,[219]
and it became the fashion among the immediate friends and followers of
Augustus to signalise their tenure of office or a military success by
undertaking some important building. Horace again has reflected the view
of such matters which the official classes were expected to take, and
perhaps to a certain extent did take. The sufferings of the Romans in the
revolutionary period had undoubtedly been great. The ruinous state of the
temples was doubtless connected with the unsettled times—whether as cause
or consequence, who could exactly say? It was not unnatural to suppose
that among the other _delicta maiorum_ this too had moved the wrath of
the gods. At any rate moral laxity went side by side with scepticism
and neglect of religious observances. Nor need we regard either poet or
emperor as a monster of hypocrisy in supporting such a doctrine. Habit
and tradition are stronger than philosophy. There always remains the
Incalculable after all our reasoning; and many to-day regret the decay
of religious sentiment as a public misfortune, who are yet profoundly
uncertain as to what they in truth believe themselves.
[Sidenote: Honours bestowed on Cæsar, B.C. 30-27.]
On his return from Asia and Greece, where he had spent the winter and
spring of B.C. 30-29, Cæsar was received with enthusiasm by all classes.
Solemn sacrifice was offered by the consul in the name of the people, and
every honour which the Senate could bestow was awaiting his acceptance.
Those voted after Actium were lavishly increased in September B.C.
30, on the news of Antony’s death and the occupation of Alexandria.
Two triumphal arches were to be erected, one at Rome and another at
Brundisium;[220] the temple of the divine Iulius was to be adorned with
the prows of captured ships; his own birthday, the day of the victory at
Actium, and that of the entry into Alexandria were to be for ever sacred;
the Vestal Virgins and the whole people were to meet him on his return in
solemn procession; he was to have the foremost seat at all festivals; and
was to celebrate three triumphs—one for the victory over the Dalmatian
and neighbouring tribes, a second for Actium, and a third for Egypt.
The _tribunicia potestas_ for life had again been voted to him with
the right of exercising it within a mile radius beyond the walls. He
was to have the right to hear all cases on appeal and to have a casting
vote in all courts. His name was to be mentioned in public prayers for
the state. On the 1st of January, B.C. 29, all his _acta_ had been
confirmed; and when it became known that the Parthians had referred a
disputed succession to the throne to his arbitration, some fresh honours
were devised. The disasters under Crassus and Antony had made the Romans
particularly sensitive in regard to the Parthians; and this apparent
acknowledgment by them of a superiority attaching to Augustus, however
indefinite, was represented by the court party and the court poets, not
only as a veritable triumph over the Parthians, but as a step in a career
of Eastern conquest of almost unlimited extent.[221] Accordingly his
name was now to be coupled with those of the gods in hymns; a tribe was
named _Iulia_ in his honour; he was to wear the chaplet of victory in
all assemblies; and to nominate as many members as he chose to all the
sacred colleges. Cæsar accepted most of these honours, but begged to be
excused the procession on his return. This was an honour which he always
avoided if he could, preferring to enter the city quietly by night. It
was no doubt a trying ordeal at the end of a long journey, and he may
have felt like Cromwell that a larger crowd still would have come out to
see him hanged. The three triumphs, however, were now celebrated with the
greatest splendour, especially the third over Egypt, in which a figure of
the dead queen lying upon a couch, with son and daughter beside her, was
a prominent feature.
[Sidenote: The increase of the Patriciate and the Census.]
Cæsar now had ample powers for every purpose of government. The
_tribunicia potestas_ in itself gave him legislative initiative and
control over other departments. It was afterwards regarded as the most
important of his powers. But in his first measures of reform he availed
himself rather of his powers as consul. The consulship was to be really,
as it always remained nominally, the chief state office, combining all
the prerogatives once centred in the _rex_. Thus in holding the Census of
B.C. 28 he acted as Consul with his colleague Agrippa, exercising indeed
a _censoria potestas_, though not one formally bestowed, but as inherent
in the consulship.[222] He concluded it with the solemn _lustrum_, which
had not been performed for forty-two years, the last Censors (B.C. 50)
having apparently been prevented from performing this solemnity by the
outbreak of civil war. The Census was made the occasion of a reform
in the _ordines_ and especially of the Senate. In the first place, he
recruited the dwindling number of patrician _gentes_ by raising certain
plebeian families to the patriciate, as his own family had been raised
by Iulius in B.C. 45 in virtue of a _lex Cassia_. The same power was now
accorded to him by a law proposed by L. Sænius, who was consul during the
last two months of B.C. 30. The object seems to have been to preserve a
kind of nobility, which at the same time should have certain political
disabilities. The patricians, indeed, still had the exclusive right of
being appointed to certain religious offices, but, on the other hand,
they were debarred from the tribuneship and the plebeian ædileship,[223]
the two offices in which a man by legislative proposals or lavish
expenditure might make himself politically conspicuous.
[Sidenote: The lectiones Senatus.]
A similar desire to restore the ancient order of the State prompted his
reformation of the Senate. The powers of this body had always been great
precisely because they were not defined by law; and by associating it
with himself he would gain all the advantages of this indefiniteness and
prestige, while really keeping full control of it. Iulius Cæsar had made
the mistake of treating it with studied disrespect, and his chief enemies
were within its walls. The Triumvirs, though in reality despotic, had
looked to it to give their _acta_ an outward show of legality. Thus on
Octavian’s demand it had condemned Q. Gallius in B.C. 43, and Salvidienus
in B.C. 40, for treason. It had confirmed the triumviral _acta_ en bloc,
giving Antony charge of the Parthian war and ratifying his arrangements
in the East in advance. It had voted triumphs and other honours to the
triumvirs and their agents. It was the Senate that in B.C. 41 voted L.
Antonius an _hostis_, that in B.C. 32 decreed war against Cleopatra,
deposed Antony from consulship and imperium, and in B.C. 31-30 voted the
various honours and powers to the victorious Cæsar. The late civil war
had in a way made the importance of the Senate more prominent. So many
Senators had joined Antony at Alexandria that, like Sertorius in Spain
and Pompey in Epirus, he had professed to have the Senate with him.
The victory of Actium had pricked that bubble, and the Senate at Rome
remained the only Senate of the Empire. Cæsar was wise to put himself
under the ægis of this ancient and still respected body. But it was
necessary to secure its dignity and effectiveness, which had suffered
in various ways during the revolutionary period. Among other things its
numbers had been swollen and often with men of inferior social standing.
Iulius Cesar had filled it with his creatures—provincials from Gaul
and Spain, sons of freedmen, centurions, soldiers, and peregrini—so
that a pasquinade was put up by some wit that “no one was to show a new
Senator the way to the Senate House.”[224] Another batch of Senators was
introduced after Cæsar’s death, chiefly by Antony, in virtue of real or
fictitious entries found in Cæsar’s papers, whom the populace nicknamed
“post-mortem Senators” (_Senatores orcini_),[225] or sometimes even
on their own initiative without any other formality than assuming the
laticlave and senatorial shoe.[226] Many Senators no doubt perished in
the proscriptions, in the subsequent battles of Philippi and Perusia, and
in the contests with Sextus Pompeius, but the Triumvirs appear to have
been lavish in enrolling new members without regard to fortune, origin,
or official position; and so careless were they in this matter that cases
are recorded of unenfranchised slaves having obtained office and seats in
the Senate and being then recognised and claimed by their masters.[227]
The result was that at the time of the battle of Actium there were more
than a thousand Senators.[228] This was too large a number for practical
work, without taking into consideration inferiority of character. No
doubt a good many who had sided with Antony disappeared in various ways;
but in now making a formal _lectio_ Cæsar resolved to reduce the number
still more. Sixty voluntarily resigned and were allowed to retain the
purple and certain social distinctions, but a hundred and forty were
simply omitted from the new list. By this means the roll was reduced
to about six hundred, which continued to be the number in subsequent
lectiones.
To secure their attendance and to prevent interference in the provinces
the regulation was enforced which prohibited any Senator from leaving
Italy (except for Sicily or Gallia Narbonensis) unless he had imperium
or was on a legatio,[229] that is, practically, unless he was serving
the state in some way on Cæsar’s nomination. In the next _lectio_ (B.C.
19) Augustus tried an elaborate system of co-option, by nominating
thirty on the existing roll, each of whom were to name five who were
to draw lots for admission, and so on till the number was made up.
But finding that it was not worked fairly he stopped this and made up
the roll himself. This continued to be the system, but as time went on
the difficulty was not so much to exclude unworthy men as to induce
enough of the right sort to serve. Membership became less attractive
as the imperial power developed, and the holding of profitable offices
depended on the will of the Emperor, who was not bound to select from
the Senate. Moreover, a property qualification was now required. None
had existed under the republic by definite law, though a certain
fortune was regarded as practically necessary; and as the Senate was
recruited from the _ordo equester_, a minimum was in the last century
of the republic automatically secured. Cæsar fixed 800,000 sesterces,
and later on a million sesterces as the Senatorial fortune, though in
cases of special fitness he gave grants to enable men to maintain their
position. Still the honour of membership was not found to make up for
its disabilities—the difficulty of going abroad and the prohibition as
to engaging in commerce. In B.C. 13 Augustus was obliged to compel men
who had the property qualification to serve. Even then the attendance
was so slack that in B.C. 11 the old quorum of four hundred was reduced.
In B.C. 9 various regulations were introduced to facilitate business,
such as the publication of an order of the day (λεύκωμα), fixed days
of meeting, a variation as to the quorum required for different kinds
of business, a scale of fines for non-attendance, the selection by lot
of thirty-five Senators to attend during September and October, and an
extension to the prætors of the power of bringing business before the
house. Towards the end of the life of Augustus, when his age made it
too much of an exertion to meet the full Senate, a committee of sixteen
Senators was selected by lot to confer with him at his own house. The
inevitable consequence was that this small committee practically settled
most questions, which only came formally before the whole body, whose
administrative function was farther lessened by the diminished importance
of the _ærarium_ as compared with the imperial treasury or _fiscus_.
Finally, it lost the right of coining silver, retaining only the bronze.
On the whole, then, the tendency was towards restricting the functions
of the Senate and making membership less attractive. But this does not
appear to have been the original design of Augustus. He habitually
addressed it with respect, referred all his powers to its confirmation,
and took it into his confidence on imperial affairs. He revived the
ancient dignity of _princeps Senatus_—in abeyance since the death of
Cicero—and held that rank himself all his life. Certain of the provinces
were still left to its management, and cases of _majestas_ were referred
to its decision. The publication of the Senate’s _acta_ had originated
with Iulius Cæsar (B.C. 59), who was not likely to have done anything to
enhance its prestige. The prohibition of this publication by Augustus
was perhaps intended partly to protect the proceedings from criticism,
partly to emphasise the fact that the Senate shared with him the intimate
secrets of government which it was not for the public advantage to have
generally known. The effect, however, was not good; what could not be
ascertained with exactness from official sources was often misrepresented
by irresponsible rumour, and one of the early measures of Tiberius was to
reverse this order.[230]
[Sidenote: The end of the anarchy.]
With a Senate purified by his first _lectio_ Cæsar felt that the
constitution might in form, at any rate, be restored. But first the
end of the revolutionary period had to be marked. On January 11, B.C.
29, the temple of Ianus was closed, for the first time since B.C. 235,
for the third time in all Roman history. It was still shut when Cæsar
returned from Asia, and on the 1st of January, B.C. 28, the _augurium
salutis_ was taken. This ceremony—ascertaining by augury whether prayers
for the people should be offered to Salus—could only be performed in
time of complete peace. At the same time a single edict annulled all
the _acta_ of the triumvirs, which were to have no force from his sixth
consulship (B.C. 28).[231] The constitutional significance of this will
be best seen by recalling some facts as to the triumvirs. Whether its
_acta_ were good or bad, the triumvirate was in itself a suspension of
the constitution. Established by a _lex_ on the 27th of November, B.C.
43, to hold office till the 31st of December, B.C. 38, its authority
had been renewed in the course of B.C. 37 to the 31st of December, B.C.
33, whether by another _lex_ or by the will of the triumvirs themselves
is a moot point.[232] But, however appointed, the triumvirs were like
dictators in superseding all other magistrates, and more powerful
than dictators from the length of their tenure of office, and because
the terms of their appointment (_reipublicæ constituendæ causa_) gave
them absolute legislative powers. They could abolish, modify, or grant
dispensation from existing laws. Their edicts had the force of laws, and
such laws as were passed in the regular way during their office either
confirmed their powers, or were passed at their desire to give formal
permanence to their edicts. They had complete control of elections, and
agreed between themselves as to the nomination of magistrates, often
for several years in advance. They controlled the treasury, the domain
lands, the raising or removal of taxation in Rome and Italy. They divided
among themselves the command of the military forces and the government
of the provinces. Each of them, personally or by a legatus, exercised
imperial powers in the provinces assigned to him; set up or put down
client kings; granted immunities or freedom to cities, or abolished
them; bestowed or withdrew the citizenship of individuals; waged war
with surrounding nations; raised or remitted taxation. At Rome also they
had exercised the right of summoning, consulting, and presiding over
the Senate, of vetoing the motion of other Senators, but without being
subject to the tribunician veto themselves. To abolish the _acta_ of
such a despotic body might with reason be regarded a considerable step
towards a restoration of the constitution. Even if some of his own _acta_
were thereby abolished, Cæsar would have no difficulty in re-enacting
them if desirable. The point was to abolish the memory of a period of
unconstitutional government, to prevent its enactments remaining as
precedents or grounds of claim by citizen or subject, and to leave the
field open for the new arrangement which Cæsar wished men to regard as
a restoration of the republic. For he had already conceived a plan, in
virtue of which the people, magistrates, and Senate should resume their
old functions, while he himself should be practically the colleague of
the higher magistrates—endowed with their powers, though not necessarily
with their office—and thereby practically direct the policy of the state.
The key to the policy—as he wished it to be regarded—is contained in
his own comment: “After that time (January 1, 27) I was superior to all
in rank, but of power I had no more than my colleagues in the several
offices.”[233] There were some of his powers difficult to reconcile with
this theory of a restored constitution; but he was careful to rest these
on votes of the people or Senate, to accept them only for fixed periods,
or to profess to share them with his colleagues.[234]
[Sidenote: Inauguration of the new constitution, 1 January, B.C. 27.]
The new constitution was now introduced in a characteristic scene,
apparently designed to make it clear that Cæsar did not seek power,
but undertook it under pressure. In a meeting of the Senate, at the
beginning of his seventh consulship, he delivered from a written copy
a carefully prepared speech, in which he surrendered to the Senate
all the powers which it had bestowed upon him, as well as those which
he had acquired in any other way—the command of troops, the powers of
legislation, the government of the provinces. He based his resolution
on justice, the inherent right of the people to manage its own affairs,
and on his own right to consult for his personal safety, health, and
ease. At the same time, he dwelt on his public services and those of his
adoptive father, the labours they had both endured, the dangers to which
both had been exposed, and justified the exercise up to this time of his
various powers. Finally, he urged them to refrain from innovations, to
give a hearty obedience to the laws, to elect the best men for civil and
military offices without prejudice or favouritism, to deal honestly with
public money, to treat allies and subjects equitably, to seek no wars but
to be prepared for any, and to see that he had no cause to regret his
renunciation of power. The speech was received with loud remonstrances,
some sincere and some perhaps cautious and time-serving, but so general
that he had to consent with real or feigned reluctance to receive back
his autocratic powers. Was he merely playing a part, or had he any real
wish to retire from public life? As in most cases there was probably a
division of feeling in his heart. He was in weak health, and had had
another illness a few months before. For eighteen years—just half his
life—he had been ceaselessly engaged in fatiguing duties, in wars for
which he had no genius, and in civil administration which, though much
better suited to his taste and abilities, had been carried out amidst
constant opposition and difficulty. One side of his mind may well have
been eager for rest. But, on the other hand, no man who has tasted power
and feels that he can wield it quits it without pain. At no time did
he find pleasure in the outward trappings of state, or in the personal
indulgences for which it gives opportunity, but he was ambitious in the
best sense. He loved his country and desired to be remembered as the
restorer of its prosperity and happiness, as the benefactor of the Empire
and the guarantee of its peace and good government. Twenty-four years
later when Valerius Messalla, speaking in the name of people and Senate,
greeted him with the affectionate title of “Father of his country,” he
burst into tears and could only murmur that he had nothing more to pray
for except to retain their affection to the end of his life. But whatever
secret wish he may have had for rest he must have known that it was
impossible. The elements of disorder and oppression were not destroyed.
If the restraining hand were removed they would break out into new
activity. Nor would it be safe for himself after years of steady working
for this end, in the course of which he must have offended countless
interests, to trust himself to a new generation of statesmen without the
experience in the working of a free state possessed by their ancestors,
and yet with the same passions and ambitions. A scheme had, in fact,
been elaborated in conjunction with his faithful friends and ministers,
Agrippa and Mæcenas. Dio represents the former as urging Cæsar to
withdraw from power and frankly to restore the republic. He grounded his
advice on the financial and political difficulties which he would have
to face, on the uncertainty of his own health, on the impossibility of
drawing back hereafter and the evil destiny of all those who in previous
ages had attempted to gain absolute power. Mæcenas, on the other hand,
not only urged him to retain his power, but went into most elaborate
details as to the arrangements which it would be necessary to make. He
did not deny the risks, but maintained that the glory was worth them,
and that a withdrawal was neither safe for himself nor for the people.
It is not clear how far we may regard these two speeches, as well as
that of Augustus in the Senate, as representing what was really said. It
is possible that as they were all written documents they may have been
preserved, and that Dio is translating from them; but at any rate they
represent fairly well the two sides of the question which Augustus must
have considered with care and anxiety.[235]
[Sidenote: Division of the Provinces, B.C. 27.]
The arrangement actually made was of the nature of a compromise. The
provinces were divided, as formerly between Antony and Cæsar, so now
between Cæsar and the Senate. Those that required considerable military
forces were to be under Cæsar, governed by his deputies with the rank
of prætor (_legati pro prætore_), appointed by his sole authority, and
holding office during his pleasure. The rest were to be still governed
by proconsuls, selected as of old by ballot under the superintendence of
the Senate from the ex-prætors or ex-consuls, subject to the existing
laws as to length of tenure and the obligation of furnishing accounts,
and liable with their staff to prosecution _de rebus repetundis_ in the
ordinary courts. The “primacy” of the Emperor, however, was apparent in
this partnership with the Senate, no less than in that with colleagues
in office. In the allotment of Senatorial provinces he retained the
right of nominating the exact number required, so that no one of whom
he disapproved could obtain a province. In both classes of province he
appointed a procurator, with authority over the finances independent
of the proconsul or legatus.[236] In both also the governor received a
salary fixed by himself, and had to conform to certain general principles
laid down by him. In all alike he possessed a _majus imperium_, soon
afterwards, if not at first, defined as a _proconsulare imperium_.[237]
For the rest he retained his right of being yearly elected consul, his
tribunician power, his membership of the sacred colleges, his command of
the army. But freedom of election was ostensibly restored to the people,
and the Senate was still the fountain of honour, and had the control
of the _ærarium_. But this last was no longer managed by two elected
quæstors, but by two men of prætorian rank, nominated by the Emperor.
It was, moreover, now of minor importance, as the _fiscus_ (to use the
later term) was entirely in the hands of Cæsar, and into it went the
revenues of the imperial provinces, and, above all, of Egypt. The key
of the position was that though the old republican magistrates still
existed, Cæsar in various ways was their colleague, and of course the
predominant partner. The Senate, however, accepted his view of the case,
as afterwards expressed in the _Monumentum_, that he had “transferred
the republic from his power to the authority of the Senate and people
of Rome.” To show their confidence in him the Senators voted him a
bodyguard (the men drawing double pay), and confirmed his authority in
the provinces. The latter, which made him _princeps_ throughout the
Empire, as he already was in Rome, he refused to accept for more than
ten years. But it was always renewed subsequently for periods of five or
ten years; and when in B.C. 23, the _proconsulare imperium_ was declared
to be operative within, as well as beyond, the pomærium, he had, in fact,
supreme control, military and financial, in all parts of the Empire. To
mark his exceptional position without offending the prejudice against
royalty, it was desired to give him a special title of honour. His own
wish was for “Romulus,” as second founder of the state. But objection was
raised to it as recalling the odious position of _rex_, and he eventually
accepted the title of AUGUSTUS, a word connected with religion and the
science of augury, and thereby suggesting the kind of sentiment which
he desired to be attached to his person and genius. This was voted by
the Senate on the Ides (13th) of January, B.C. 27, and confirmed by a
plebiscitum on the 16th. He was now “first” or _princeps_ everywhere,
whether in the Senate, or among his colleagues in the offices, or among
the proconsuls in the provinces.[238] He was, therefore, spoken of as
_princeps_ in ordinary language, and the word gradually hardened into a
title. It exactly suited the view which he himself wished to be taken
of his political position, as giving a primacy of rank among colleagues
of equal _legal_ powers; though, of course, a primacy, supported by the
power of the purse and the sword, made him a master while masquerading
as a colleague. He, however, adopted the word as rightly expressing his
position without giving needless offence, and his successors took it as a
matter of course, though it less frequently occurs in inscriptions than
their other titles.[239]
Closely connected with the bestowal of the title Augustus was another
vote of the Senate, that the front of his house should not only be
adorned with the laurels that told of victory over his enemies, but also
with the oaken or “civic” crown which told of the lives of citizens
preserved. This appears again and again on his coins with the legend—_ob
cives servatos_: and it is mentioned by Augustus himself at the end of
his record of achievements, as though—with the later title of Pater
Patriæ—it indicated the chief glory of his career.