Patronus Patriae Augustus Manipulation o

4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I owe my deepest graditude to my thesis advisor, Dr. Alison Futrell, who
throughout this slow process was extremely patient and never hesitant to give advice and
words of encouragement. Anytime my ideas or confidence would falter, she righted the
ship and kept me on course. I am also indebted to my other thesis committee members.
Both Dr. John Bauschatz and Dr. David Christenson have been essential to my
appreciation of Greek and Latin, and practically this entire thesis would be illegible and
confusing without them.
I would also like to thank every professor in the Department of Classics whose
class I was lucky enough to take. They were all instrumental in the way I conducted my
research for this thesis. Furthermore, I am grateful to Jennifer Kendall who was tolerant
of my unending writing process, allowing me extra time when extra time had already
been granted. Despite my shortcomings as the ideal teaching assistant, she was always
eager to hear the development of my new and entirely course-unrelated thesis ideas.
Lastly, I am grateful for all the other graduate students in the department who always
offered me great support and never expressed any hatred for my continued lamenting
over the drawnout process that was the creation of this thesis. Thank you.
5
DEDICATION
For My Parents, My Grandmother, and Alex
After all you’ve invested in me, I offer this thesis to you.

6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………… 7
I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………….. 8
II. THE ROMAN ELITES ……………………………………………….. 11
III. THE ROMAN PLEBS ……………………………………………….. 57
IV. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………… 107
V. WORKS CITED ……………………………………………………… 111

7
ABSTRACT
This project aims to examine how Augustus used the patron-client relationship in
stabilizing his position as princeps of the Roman state. The relevant ancient sources for
Octavian/Augustus’ actions and the nature of patronage in Rome along with some
modern scholarly views on Augustan patronage will provide a basis for a close
examination of the workings of and the reasoning behind Augustus’ use of this traditional
republican institution. I will discuss Augustus’ patronage of both the Roman elites
(senators and equestrians) and the Roman plebs. From these examinations it will become
evident that Augustus used his patronage to acquire a type of auctoritas different than the
militaristic and political type he already held. This focus on a more social auctoritas will
add to the scholarly discussion of Augustus’ self-promotion as well as acknowledge that
Augustan patronage was not confined to one specific sphere of society.

8
I. INTRODUCTION
After the death of Antony, Octavian had complete control of the Roman state due
to his armies and the reluctance among the Roman populace toward more bloodshed after
years of civil war and partisan politics in the Late Republic. Many scholars (including
Scullard (1976: 218), Southern (1998: 196), and Eck (2007: 50)) have noted that his
command of the armies was the real basis of Octavian/Augustus’ rule. Having seen in the
case of his adoptive father, Julius Caesar, the dangerous outcome that could occur for a
Roman who used his military standing openly to control the Roman state autocratically
and hubristically, Octavian/Augustus attempted to downplay the amount of power he held
as a result of his army. By holding the consulship successively from 31 BCE to 23 BCE
and with the Settlements of 27 BCE and 23 BCE,1 Augustus was able legally to defend
his position as princeps of the state. Syme (1956: 330) and Yavetz (1969: 92) argue that
these settlements shifted the basis of Augustus’ rule from his command of the armies to
his auctoritas,2 although controlling a majority of the armies certainly aided his
auctoritas. Crook (1996a : 79) notes that even though Augustus had effectively restored
the Republic in handing over sovereignty to the people and the senate, the
conglomeration of powers he received was “un-republican.” Crook (1996b: 121) later
adds that Augustus’ auctoritas made the “brute fact” that he held the reins of the state
acceptable to the Romans in general.
1
In these settlements Octavian/Augustus received titles and legal powers which would help the princeps
define his rule.
2
Authority derived from prestige and reputation.
9
But what made Augustus’ auctoritas acceptable to the Roman people besides the
threat of further civil war? Even before the Settlements, Augustus began to implement
elements of the patron-client relationship in his conduct with the citizens of Rome in
order to present his superior position in the state as being in accordance with a traditional
Roman institution and to further promote the stability of that position. The patron-client
relationship was supposed to date all the way back to the origins of the city. Dionysius of
Halicarnassus tells us that Romulus had placed the clients (the plebeians in early Rome)
under the protection of the patrons (the patricians) (Ant. Rom. 2.9.2) and that the patrons
were to aid the clients in public and private matters (Ant. Rom. 2.10.2).3 He adds that in
return clients were supposed to serve their patrons as much as they were able (Ant. Rom.
2.10.4) and that a client should not be allied with his patron’s enemies or vice versa (Ant.
Rom. 2.10.3).4
Syme (1956) devotes a chapter (369–86) to Augustus’ patronage, but he only
focuses on its use for the development of the Caesarian party (e.g. his discussion of
dynastic marriage, 377–9) rather than exploring the workings of the princeps’ patronage.
Similarly, Saller (1982: 41) discusses imperial patronage only within a close network of
supporters which he calls a “court.” While Augustus is mentioned frequently, Saller
refers to Trajan more often than the founder of the Principate in his broad examination of
patronage from Augustus to M. Aurelius. Veyne (1992: 233) argues that Augustus ran the
state as its patron. Due to his focus on euergetism in Ancient Greece and Rome, Veyne’s
3
Ant. Rom. 2.9.2: παρακαταθήκας δὲ ἔδωκε τοῖς πατρικίοις τοὺς δημοτικοὺς…. Ant. Rom. 2.10.2: πᾶσαν
αὐτοῖς εἰρήνην τῶν τε ἰδίων καὶ τῶν κοινῶν πραγμάτων, ἧς μάλιστα ἐδέοντο, παρέχειν.
4
Ant. Rom. 2.10.4: τῶν μὲν πελατῶν ἅπαντα τοῖς προστάταις ἀξιούντων ὡς δυνάμεως εἶχον ὑπηρετεῖν....
Ant. Rom. 2.10.3: ἀμφοτέροις οὔτε ὅσιον οὔτε θέμις ἦν ... μετὰ τῶν ἐξετάζεσθαι.
10
portrayal of Augustus as patron relies solely on his gifts and good deeds. While these are
very important in patronage, there are other key aspects of the patron-client relationship
missing from his analysis (e.g. its protective function). Crook (1996b: 115) in contrast
describes the idea of the princeps as universal patron of the state as “too schematic.”
Veyne’s generalization of the state as client is also problematic. Based on who would
benefit the most from certain gifts (e.g. the distribution of grain, 244), it often seems that
Veyne’s “state” is in fact only the Roman plebs, neglecting the Roman upper class.
Similar to Veyne, Yavetz (1969: 90), whose overall focus is the relationship between the
Roman plebs and the Julio-Claudian principes starting with Julius Caesar, notes that
Augustus was the sole patron of the plebs. While his argument is quite convincing, his
discussion of beneficia could be more specific and detailed.
Although Augustus’ use of patronage has been discussed before, the debates over
how his patronage was manifested to its clients and who constituted the clientele call for
further study. This thesis will attempt to reveal how Augustus adapted elements of the
patron-client relationship in his efforts to make his position as princeps stable and
acceptable to both the Roman elites (the senatorial order and the equites) and the Roman
plebs. Furthermore, we will see that some of Augustus’ highest honors and most useful
powers, including some derived from the Settlements of 27 BCE and 23 BCE, were
obtained through the reciprocal actions of the patron-client relationship.

11
II. THE ROMAN ELITES
With the Roman elites, especially the senatorial class, Augustus implemented the
traditional Roman institution of amicitia.5 Whereas during the Republic, when wealthier
and more respected members of the senate would financially, socially, and politically aid
other members of the elite class with whom they had existing ties or some sort of reason
for seeking a personal relationship, during Augustus’ development of the Principate, the
number of ties and amount of influence held by a certain man grew vastly to the point
where he was seemingly able to be connected to every important member of the upper
class. The importance of these members can be explained by Syme’s (1956: 385) notion
that in a Julio-Claudian court “the loss of [the princeps’] amicitia marks the end of a
courtier’s career, often of his life.” This tight network of elites allowed Augustus not only
to create the stability that he needed for implementing his systematic changes to the
Republic, it also supplied him with many of the necessary tools for these changes.
Augustus carefully crafted this network of amicitia by presenting himself as an equal to
the rest of the senators, by sharing honors with many members of the senate and the
increasingly politically important equestrians, and by demonstrating overt concern for the
institution of the senate and the Republic in general.
A. Creating the Illusion of Equality
5
Saller (1982: 11–5) discusses the differences between the ideals of amicitia found in the works of
philosophers, in which the basis of friendship was solely mutual affection between both parties, and the
actual common understanding of amicitia, which also recognized the necessity of an exchange of goods
and services that would benefit both parties involved.
12
As Saller (1982: 1) notes, a patron-client relationship must be asymmetrical.
During Augustus’ Principate there was most certainly a difference between the wealth
and power of Augustus and that of the remainder of Rome’s upper class, which if
perceived, would have put Augustus’ position, and likely his life, at risk. In his advice
about how the state should be run, Dio’s Agrippa reminds Octavian:
ἥ τε γὰρ ἰσογονία ἰσομοιρίας ὀριγνᾶται, καὶ τυχοῦσα μὲν

χαίρει, διαμαρτοῦσα δὲ ἄχθεται· καὶ τὸ ἀνθρώπειον πᾶν,
ἅτε ἔκ τε θεῶν γεγονὸς καὶ ἐς θεοὺς ἀφῆξον, ἄνω βλέπει,
καὶ οὔτε ἐθέλει ὑπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ διὰ παντὸς ἄρχεσθαι, οὔθ’
ὑπομένει τῶν μὲν πόνων καὶ τῶν κινδύνων τῶν τε
δαπανημάτων μετέχον, τῆς δὲ κοινωνίας τῶν κρειττόνων
στερόμενον, ἀλλὰ κἂν ἀναγκασθῇ τι τοιοῦτον ὑποστῆναι,
μισεῖ τὸ βεβιασμένον, κἂν καιροῦ λάβηται, τιμωρεῖται τὸ
μεμισημένον. (Dio Cass. 52.4.3–4)
For equality of birth desires equal shares, and if it achieves
this, it rejoices, but if it fails, it is distressed. And all of
mankind, inasmuch as it is born from the gods and will
return to the gods, looks upwards and does not wish to be
ruled by one man for all time, nor will it submit to him
while sharing toils, dangers, and expenses but also lacking
a partnership in the better things. But, if forced to undertake
any such thing, it hates the one coercing, and if it receives
an opportune time, it takes vengeance upon the hated man.6
Thus, in order for Augustus to make his patronage acceptable to the members of the
Roman elite and to ensure his personal safety, he had to emphasize his similarities with
the rest of the senators. In the Res Gestae he writes:
[p]rinceps s[enatus fui usque ad e]um d[iem quo

scrip]seram [haec per annos] quadra[ginta]. (Aug. RG 7)7
6
All translations are my own.
7
This is the reconstructed and punctuated Res Gestae text found in Cooley (2009).
13
I have been the foremost member of the senate through

forty years right up to this day on which I had written these
words.
While he admitted to being the first in position in the senate, the princeps senatus was a
recognized position in the Late Republic, and he was portraying himself as a member of
this body. Thus he could argue that the senators still enjoyed the role in government to
which this body was accustomed. In a later section he reemphasizes his equality:
post id tem[pus a]uctoritate [omnibus praestiti, potest]atis

au[tem n]ihilo ampliu[s habu] quam cet[eri, qui m]ihi
quoque in ma[gis]tratu conlegae f[uerunt]. (Aug RG 34)
After this time [i.e, 27 BCE, when the senate had given him
the title Augustus] I surpassed everyone in auctoritas;
however I held no more power than the others who were
also my colleagues in magisterial office.
In this case Augustus was exploiting technicalities. While each of the powers he held by
virtue of the Settlements was equal to those of its equivalent office, it was the
combination of all of them in one person that gave him his potestas. It is also interesting
that in this passage Augustus notes that it was not his potestas that was superior but his
auctoritas which would have been acceptable to Roman tradition. The combination of
this overt superiority in auctoritas and the covert dominance in potestas was one of the
major inequalities between Augustus and the other members of the senate.
Suetonius gives many examples of the princeps’ efforts to maintain the
appearance of having an equal status with the senators. Suetonius notes:

14
Officia8 cum mutua exercuit, nec prius dies cuiusque

sollemnes frequentare desiit, quam grandior iam natu et in
turba quondam sponsaliorum die vexatus. (Suet. Aug. 53.3)
He maintained mutual social calls with many, and he did
not stop attending the ceremonial days of each one before
he was advanced in age and he was distressed once in a
crowd on a wedding day.
The fact that he worked on his social duties with many indicates his efforts to appear to
be an equal with many members of the senate. Suetonius further illuminates Augustus’
attempts to pass himself off as an average Roman citizen by noting that he voted in the
same manner as a normal citizen (Aug. 56.1),9 he followed the social customs of having
dinner parties (Aug. 74.1),10 and he did not consider a senator’s independence and
personal opinion to be a crime (Aug. 54.1).11
In Dio’s presentation of Agrippa and Maecenas attempting to persuade Octavian
about which form of government should be installed, although he was arguing for the
princeps to found a monarchy, in his advice Dio’s Maecenas also recommends that
Octavian should also avoid an appearance of inequality by not accepting too many gifts
so that the senators might trust the future emperor:
σαυτῷ δὲ δὴ μήτε ἔξαλλóν τι μήθ’ ὑπερήφανον μήτε παρὰ

τῶν ἄλλων μήτε παρὰ τῆς βουλῆς ἢ ἔργῳ ἢ λóγῳ δοθὲν
περιίδῃς. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοις κόσμον ἡ παρὰ σοῦ τιμὴ
φέρει, σοὶ δ’ αὐτῷ μεῖζον μὲν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων οὐδὲν ἂν
δοθείη, ὑποψία δ’ ἂν κιβδηλίας πολλὴ προσγένοιτο ... (Dio
Cass. 52.35.1–2)
8
Officium is one of Saller’s (1982: 15–7) key words that can be used to indicate amicitia between senators.
9
Ferebat et ipse suffragium in tribu[s], ut unus e populo.
10
Conuiuabatur assidue.
11
Nec ideo libertas aut contumacia fraudi cuiquam fuit.
15
And concerning yourself, do not permit that something

either exceptional or magnificent be given in either deed or
word by the senate or others. For honor from you brings
glory to others, but nothing greater than what you have
could be given to you, and a great suspicion of dishonesty
could arise…
As if following this advice, Augustus rejected many gifts and honors which the senators
wished to award him so as not too seem overly superior to them. Indeed, in the fourth
chapter of the Res Gestae Augustus proclaims:
[Bis] ovans triumpavi et tri[s egi] curulis triumphos et

appella[tus sum v]iciens et semel imperator, [decernente
pl]uris triumphos mihi sena[t]u, qu[ibus omnibus
su]persedi. (Aug. RG 4)
Twice I triumphed celebrating an ovation and three times I
led triumphal chariots and have been named Imperator
twenty-one times, and although the senate decreed more
triumphs for me, I refused all of them.
Although he did celebrate a few triumphs, Augustus was able to gain honor and prestige
by publicly denying other triumphs offered to him. At the same time he was able to
prevent himself from seeming eager to receive an excessive amount of honor, which
could have led to jealousy and a feeling of inequity among the other senators.
Dio’s Maecenas would not have been the only voice to caution Augustus about
excessive honors. Suetonius notes that Julius Caesar’s acceptance of exceptional honors
was a factor in his ultimately fatal relations with the senate:
Praegravant tamen cetera facta dictaque eius, ut et abusus

dominatione et iure caesus existimetur. Non enim honores
modo nimios recepit: continuum consulatum, perpetuam
dictaturam praefecturamque morum, insuper praenomen
Imperatoris, cognomen Patris patriae, statuam inter reges,
suggestum in orchestra; sed et ampliora etiam humano
16
fastigio decerni sibi passus est: sedem auream in curia et

pro tribunal, tensam et ferculum circensi pompa, templa,
aras, simulacra iuxta deos, pulvinar, flaminem, lupercos,
appellationem mensis e suo nomine; ac nullos non honores
ad libidinem cepit et dedit. (Suet. Iul. 76.1)
Nevertheless other things he did and said indicate that he
might have been deemed worthy of being killed after
abusing his rule and the law. For not only did he receive
excessive honors—continuous consulship, perpetual
dictatorship and the power of a censor, the praenomen of
Imperator, the cognomen of Pater Patriae, a statue among
the kings, a platform in the orchestra—but he also allowed
things too great for human status to be voted for him: a
golden chair in the senate house and in front of the tribunal,
a carriage and a litter in the procession of the Circus,
temples, altars, statues rivaling those of the gods, a
pulvinar,12 a flamen, priests for the Lupercal, a month
named after him; and he took and permitted every honor
that was pleasing to him.
These excessive honors (honores nimios and ampliora humano) would have clearly
illustrated the difference in status between Caesar and the other members of the senate.
Suetonius’ choice of libidinem also suggests an inordinate desire for these. Augustus
partly avoided Caesar’s mistake by opposing too close of an association with the gods in
Rome and forbidding temples from being built in his honor there (yet, following custom,
he did permit temples to be built to him in the provinces as long as the name of Rome
was also connected with his (Suet. Aug. 52), and in the west he played a much more
active role in the spreading of imperial religious ideas (Zanker 1988: 319)).13
In a subsequent section, Suetonius continues his discussion of the deterioration of
Caesar’s relationship with the senate:
This is a couch on which images of the gods were usually placed.

12
Templa, quamuis sciret etiam proconsulibus decerni solere, in nulla tamen prouincia nisi communi suo
13
Romaeque nomine recepit. nam in urbe quidem pertinacissime abstinuit hoc honore …
17
Verum praecipuam et exitiabilem sibi inuidiam hinc

maxime mouit. adeuntis se cum plurimis
honorificentissimisque decretis uniuersos patres conscriptos
sedens pro aede Veneris Genetricis14 excepit. (Suet. Iul.
78.1)
What especially stirred up a particularly fatal hatred for
him [Caesar] was that he remained seated while he greeted
all the senators arriving at the temple of Venus Genetrix
with many extremely high honors they had voted for him.
Not only was Caesar seemingly willing to accept more excessive honors from the senate,
but by remaining seated, he did not show them the proper respect due to senators.
Moreover, the meeting was held in his own forum which would have seemed to promote
his position above the rest of the state. Demonstrating that Augustus had learned from
Caesar’s example, Suetonius tells us:
Die senatus numquam patres nisi in curia salutavit et

quidem sedentes ac nominatim singulos, nullo submonente,
etiam discedens eodem modo sedentibus singulis valere
dicebat. (Suet. Aug. 53.3)
On a day when the senate was meeting he only greeted the
senators, each of them by name, when they were seated in
the senate house. He did so unprompted, and further when
he dismissed them, he used to say farewell in the same
way, to each one seated.
Whereas Caesar acted as a superior to the other senators by remaining seated upon their
entrance and by holding the meeting in his forum (with deadly consequences), Augustus
treated each senator and the meeting itself as a formal and important part of the
government. They were not regarded as a passive audience to his rule, but instead key
components of the state who deserved the respect of having Augustus know their names
and of being greeted as partners, if not superiors, in governance. The fact that Augustus
14
This temple was located in the Julian Forum.
18
did not initiate the senators unless they were in the senate house also suggests that he
would not have allowed them to greet him at his house—as clients normally would15—
on days when the senate convened. His many attempts to present an image of equality
with the senate, if they did not fully convince the other members that he was their partner
and colleague, at least helped Augustus avoid the excessive, and ultimately fatal, self-
promotion of Caesar.
B. Sharing Honors with Members of the Senate
While sharing honors with other members of the elite most likely would have
helped demonstrate Augustus’ claims of equality with them, its main purpose was to
create powerful social cohesion. Given the reciprocal nature of amicitia, by sharing
honors with senators, Augustus would have created in turn a sense of obligation towards
himself among those obtaining said honors. Saller (1982: 70) notes that the gratia
expected by an emperor from one of his subjects was supposed to take the form of
loyalty, the acceptance and acknowledgement of the latter’s inferior position; he cites a
passage of Seneca the Younger’s:
Hic princeps suo beneficio tutus nihil praesidiis eget, arma

ornamenti causa habet. (Sen. Clem. 1.13.6)
The princeps, safe because of his kindness, does not need
guards at all; he holds arms for the sake of decoration.
While Seneca wrote after the time of Augustus, this understanding of imperial
benefaction had developed from Augustus’ use. Thus Augustus’ benefaction—his various
methods of helping senators—could have led to their loyalty—tolerance of his position in

15
I.e. as a salutatio.
19
the state. One of the emperor’s most powerful pieces of beneficium was the distribution
of honor.
In order to help solidify his patronage throughout the senatorial class, Augustus
introduced young senators and children of senators to public life. Dio mentions that
during the Augustalia Augustus “provided a horse-race featuring the boys and men of the
nobility” (τὴν ἱπποδρομίαν διά τε τῶν παίδων καὶ διὰ ἀνδρῶν τῶν εὐγενῶν ἐποίησε,
53.1.4). Suetonius notes that Augustus staged the Trojan Games in the fashion he chose,
prisci decorique moris existimans clarae stirpis indolem sic notescere (“deciding that the
natural character of the brilliant offspring [of the senators] should become known by this
ancient and honorable custom,” Aug. 43.2). These actions also highlight his adherence to
tradition. Earlier Suetonius illustrated Augustus’ methods for preparing the future
senators for both civil and military duties:
Liberis senatorum, quo celerius rei publicae adsuescerent,

protinus virilem togam, latum clavum induere et curiae
interesse permisit, militiamque auspicantibus non
tribunatum modo legionum sed et praefecturas alarum
dedit; ac ne quis expers castrorum esset, binos plerumque
laticlavios praeposuit singulis alis. (Suet. Aug. 38.2)
He permitted the sons of senators, so that they might
become acquainted with the state more quickly, to assume
the broad purple stripe immediately when assuming the
toga and to attend the senate, and he gave military service
with taking auspices [the beginning of a military career],
not only as tribune of the legions but also commander of
the wings [the cavalry squadrons]; and lest anyone be
inexperienced in military camps, he often placed in
command two broad-striped [those wearing the senatorial
toga] men over the individual wings.
20
Again, emphasizing his equality, Augustus would introduce his family members into
public life in a similar manner. Dio notes that both Gaius and Lucius were introduced into
the senate and given cavalry commands in 5 BCE and 2 BCE respectively, and Agrippa
Posthumous took part in the Trojan games with the other senators’ sons in 2 BCE.16
Through these actions, Augustus not only supplied very experienced men for the future
Rome, but also played an integral role in the political careers of these same men, for
which they would be in some sort of debt to him. In other words, he bound the next
generation of senators to him and indoctrinated them with the idea that the princeps was
the source of civil and military positions. The fact that the princeps played a vital role in
the careers of their sons also would have convinced the older senators that conforming to
Augustus’ new order was in their best interest.
Ιn addition to allowing and encouraging Roman elites to win honor through
building projects, staging games, and military distinction, Augustus helped members of
the upper class acquire important administrative and social positions. Dio’s Agrippa
warns Octavian about the risk of not allowing the members of the senatorial class to share
administrative positions as follows:
ἂν δὲ δὴ τούτοις μὲν μηδὲν ἐπιτρέπῃς, τοῖς δὲ φαύλοις καὶ

τοῖς τυχοῦσι τὰ πράγματα προστάσσῃς, τάχιστα μὲν ἂν
ὀργὴν παρ’ ἐκείνων ὡς ἀπιστουμένων λάβοις, τάχιστα δ’
ἂν ἐν τοῖς μεγίστοις πταίσειας. (Dio Cass. 52.8.6)
16
τῷ δ’ ἐφεξῆς ἔτει δωδέκατοω ὑπατεύων ὁ Αὔγουστος εἰς τοὺς ἐφήβους τὸν Γάιον ἔταξε καὶ ἐς τὸ
βουλευτήριον ἅμα εἰσήγαγε καὶ πρόκριτον ἀπέφηνε τῆς νεότητος ἴλαρχόν τε φυλῆς γενέσθαι ἐπέτρεψε.
[The text from the rest of 5 BCE until 2 BCE is missing] καὶ μετ’ ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ ὁ Λούκιος τὰς τιμὰς ὅσαι
τῷ Γαΐῳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἐδέδοντο ἔλαβεν (Dio Cass. 55.9.9–10). τήν τε Τροίαν καλουμένην οἱ παῖδες οἱ
πρῶτοι μετὰ τοῦ Ἀγρίππου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτῶν ἵππευσαν (Dio Cass. 55.10.6).
21
If you do not entrust anything to these men [senators], but

you assign matters to common and vulgar men, quickly you
will encounter the anger of those men whom you did not
trust, and quickly you will fail in great endeavors.
Augustus does in fact permit senators to continue to hold office and thus have a share in
the running of state rather than replacing them with cronies from the lower class.17
Augustus even reformed the system so that there were more opportunities for senators to
be involved in administration. Dio describes one of these reforms (from 23 BCE)
concerning the creation of the suffect consulship:
ἐπεὶ γὰρ αὐτός, ἐξ οὗπερ τὰ πράγματα κατέστη, καὶ τῶν

ἄλλων οἱ πλεíους δι’ ἔτους ἦξαν, ἐπισχεῖν τε τοῦτο αὖθις,
ὅπως ὅτι πλεῖστοι ὑπατεύωσιν, ἠθέλησε. (Dio Cass.
53.32.3)
For since the time when he settled the state, he and most of
the others ruled throughout the [whole] year. Later, he
wanted to stop this, in order that a very great number of
men might hold the consulship.
More consuls during the year not only meant that certain senators gained more
administrative experience, but it also meant that they would receive the honor and
prestige that followed the acquisition of the office even if the year was named after the
two consul elected January 1.
Augustus also distributed religious posts to the elites as a part of his overarching
plan to restore and reform Roman religion in efforts to promote the idea that Rome was
being reborn. As Saller (1982: 45) notes, priesthoods and ornamenta were examples of
emperors’ religious benefactions. Suetonius provides some details on Augustus’ religious
reforms:
17
Augustus did employ upperclass nonsenators, the equites, in his administration. See p. 34.
22
Sacerdotum et numerum et dignitatem sed et commoda

auxit, praecipue Vestalium virginum. (Suet Aug. 31.3)
He increased both the number and dignity and also the
advantages of the priests, especially the Vestal Virgins.
While Suetonius notes that the Vestals were the ones who gained the most from this
reform, this increase in the dignity of the priests due to Augustus’ emphasis on the
importance of religion meant that the honor of holding the priesthood was more valuable
in terms of the respect given to those who held the positions. As Eck notes (2007: 49), the
increase in number of priests meant that the number of patricians had to be increased due
to the decline of the patrician population as a result of their fighting in the civil wars. Eck
adds that by creating new patrician families in 28 BCE, Octavian increased the number of
his political supporters: these new patricians owed their elevated status to the princeps.
When examining Augustus’ distribution of honors, those received by members of
his family stand out. While it is true that these familial gifts were not associated with
amicitia, nevertheless Augustus used the same type of gifts as beneficia within his
amicitia relationships. Thus it is worthwhile to examine these familial gifts. The Res
Gestae provides good evidence for some of them:
Ter munus gladiatorium dedi meo nomine et quinquiens

filiorum meorum aut n[e]potum nomine; quibus muneribus
depugnaverunt hominum ci[rc]iter decem millia. Bis
athletarum undique accitorum spectaculu[m] p[o]pulo
pra[ebui me]o nomine et tertium nepo[tis] mei nomine.
(Aug. RG 22)
I gave gladiator shows three times in my name and five
times in the name of my sons or grandsons; at these games
about 10,000 men fought. Twice I offered to the people a
23
show of athletes called from all over in my name and three

times in the name of my grandson.
It is interesting that in the case of the athletic shows, Augustus actually gave honor to his
grandson more than to himself; yet he still emphasized his own role by not stating the
name of his grandson, or sons and grandsons in the case of gladiatorial shows.
Haselberger (2007: 132) notices a similar trend with respect to architectural
benefactions, as Augustus seems to have preferred to build in the names of members of
his family. Suetonius makes this clear:
Quaedam etiam opera sub nomine alieno, nepotum scilicet

et uxoris sororisque fecit, ut porticum basilicamque Gai et
Luci, item porticus Liviae et Octaviae, theatrumque
Marcelli. (Suet. Aug. 29.4)
He also constructed some edifices under another’s name,
i.e. his grandsons and his wife and his sister, such as the
portico and basilica of Gaius and Lucius,18 likewise the
porticoes of Livia and Octavia, and the theater of
Marcellus.
As with the shows given in the names of his relatives, Augustus clearly would have been
viewed as the main agent of the deed, and thus would have received most of the credit for
their construction. After all, Suetonius records that Augustus built these buildings, and
did not just allow their construction.
With respect to the military honors his family received, his family members often
received military commands. It should be noted that while Augustus would not allow
Tiberius to celebrate a triumph the Senate had voted for quelling a revolt in Pannonia in
18
This portico was most likely added to the Basilica Pauli and thus it was not a new basilica (Haselberger
2002: 204).
24
12 BCE, nevertheless he granted Tiberius triumphal honors in its place (τὰς δὲ τιμὰς τὰς
ἐπινικίους ἀντέδωκε, Dio Cass. 54.31.4). Tiberius did celebrate a triumph in 7 BCE when
he convened the senate while Augustus was away from Rome.19 The reason why
Augustus denied a full triumph in the year of Agrippa’s death will be discussed below
(pp. 24).
While he seems to have a had preference for honoring his own family, Augustus
also allowed, within limits, the same types of honors to be granted to Roman elites who
were not members of his family. In fact, it is likely that Augustus’ familial gifts fit the
paradigm of elite gifts so that they did not invoke jealousy among the rest of the elites
towards his family members. The most well known of Augustus’ beneficiaries is
Agrippa; while he was married to Julia, which in itself was a rather great honor for
Agrippa,20 the number of beneficia he received and his family’s lowly status before these
gifts argue for him not being considered a family member.21 Dio highlights this: when
writing of Agrippa’s death, he notes that Agrippa was one “whom Augustus used to love
because of his excellence but not because of some necessity of kinship” (ὅνπερ που δι’
ἀρετὴν ἀλλ’ οὐ δι’ ἀνάγκην τινὰ ἠγάπα, 54.31.1). Multiple times Dio mentions that
Augustus honored Agrippa (53.23.3, 53.27.4, 54.29.5). Agrippa was definitely awarded
membership into at least one priesthood, the quindecimviri.22 Dio also states that it was
difficult to know whether Augustus had shared the fasces (τοὺς Φακέλους τῶν ῥάβδων)
19
τά τε νικητήρια ἤγαγε (Dio Cass. 55.8.2)
20
ἀξίωμα αὐτῳ μεῖζον (Dio Cass. 54.6.5).
21
Syme (1956: 129) describes Agrippa’s family name as “ignoble” and “never before known” and notes
that neither his friends nor his enemies say anything about his family or origins.
22
ἐν γὰρ τοῖς πεντεκαίδεκα ἀνδράσιν (Dio Cass. 54.19.8).
25
with anyone except Agrippa “for he used to honor Agrippa to an extreme” (τὸν γὰρ
Ἀγρíππαν ἐς ὑπερβολὴν ἐτίμα, 53.1.2). Perhaps Agrippa’s refusal of a triumph and its
repercussions best reveal his exceptional status, which was achieved through Augustus’
aid. On the matter Dio writes:
καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὐδ’ ἄλλῳ τινὶ ἔτι τῶν ὁμοίων αὐτῷ, ὥς γε
καὶ ἐγὼ κρίνω, ποιῆσαι τοῦτο ἐδόθη, ἀλλὰ μόναις ταῖς
ἐπινικίοις τιμαῖς ἐγαυροῦντο. (Dio Cass. 54.24.8)
And for that reason [i.e. Agrippa’s turning down the
opportunity to celebrate a triumph], doing this [i.e.
celebrating a triumph] was granted to no other of his
equals, as I see it at least, but they celebrated only
triumphal honors.
This passage explains Augustus’ refusal to grant a triumph to Tiberius, noted earlier (p.
22). Augustus was already hesitant to grant triumphs after Agrippa declined his, and he
most certainly would not have wished for one to be celebrated in the year in which
Agrippa died. There is of course a more practical reason why Augustus would have been
reluctant to grant triumphs. If triumphs were celebrated only by the emperor, they would
have been a great tool for promoting the princeps’ superiority under the reasoning that he
was the commanding imperator (see pp. 28–9). At the same time, Augustus also made
sure that military achievements were still commemorated through ovationes and
triumphal honors.
The fact that one man could achieve so high a status from being in Augustus’
good graces that others could not obtain the very honors he had refused also reveals the
power Augustus’ beneficia could hold. Furthermore, this example of attaining high status
could serve as inspiration for the rest of the senate to strive to become one of Augustus’
26
favorites while also acting as a warning to those reluctant to join his program that he was
more than willing to promote men whose origins lay outside of the traditional senatorial
class.
To be among Augustus’ intimates was of great value during the Principate.
Suetonius describes Augustus’ friends thus:23
Reliqui potentia atque opibus ad finem vitae sui quisque

ordinis principes floruerunt, quamquam et offensis
intervenientibus. (Suet. Aug. 66.3)
His other friends flourished with wealth and power, each
being a leading man of his order at the end of his life
although offenses also arose.
Augustus, while illustrating the loyalty of many senators, also reveals how some of those
intimates may have become rich and powerful in the Res Gestae:
Qui sub [signis meis tum] militaverint, fuerunt senatores

plures quam DCC, in ii[s qui vel antea vel pos]tes consules
facti sunt ad eum diem quo scripta su[nt haec LXXXIII,
sacerdo]tes cir[c]iter CLXX. (Aug. RG 25)
There were more than 700 senators, who had then
performed military service under my standards. Among
these men there were 83 who, either before or after the day
on which these words were written, became consuls, and
about 170 were made priests.
23
Suetonius excludes Salvidienus Rufus and Cornelius Gallus from these friends. Salvidienus Rufus had
been designated by Octavian to be consul in 39 BCE but was sentenced to death in late 40 BCE for plotting
against him (Syme 1956: 220). Cornelius Gallus was the first praefect of Egypt, but due to abuse of power,
which according to Dio included speaking poorly about Augustus, setting up statues of himself, and
inscribing his accomplishments on the pyramids (μάταια ἐς τὸν Αὔγουστον ἀπελήρει, εἰκόνας ἑαυτοῦ
ἔστησε, τὰ ἔργα ὅσα ἐπεποιήκει ἐς τὰς πυραμίδας ἐσέγραψε, 53.23.5), Augustus ceased his amicitia with
him. Gallus committed suicide in 27 or 26 BCE when the senate tried him for high treason (Syme 1956:
309). Suetonius reports that Rufus plotted against Augustus and that Gallus was ungrateful and had a
malevolent soul (quorum alterum res nouas molientem damnandum senatui tradidit, alteri ob ingratum et
maliuolum animum domo et prouinciis suis interdixit (Aug. 66.2)
27
Augustus magnifies his own honor by showing how many members of the senate had
taken orders from him in the military sphere. In addition, at least 170 senatorial men were
able to obtain such appointments at some point in their careers which would have added
to the prestige and authority of these followers of Augustus.24 Furthermore, in a speech to
the senate Dio has Augustus tell the senators that “the faction having joined with me [in
the civil war] both has been made friendly by my reciprocity for their good service and
has been secured with their partnership of affairs” (τὸ συναράμενόν μοι τῇ τε ἀμοιβῇ τῶν
εὐεργεσιῶν ᾠκείωται καὶ τῇ κοινωμίᾳ τῶν πραγμάτων ὠχύρωται, 53.4.1). The fact that
Dio uses the verbs οἰκειόω (to make someone a kinsman) and ὀχυρόω (to fortify) suggest
that personal relationships like patronage could be used to strengthen social standing.
Also, these two passages together suggest the likelihood that some of those who fought
under Augustus would have been repaid reciprocally with either a political or religious
office via help from the princeps.
Suetonius illustrates Augustus’ efforts to get some of his favorites elected to
political office:
Quotiens magistratuum comitiis interesset, tribus cum

candidatis suis circumibat, supplicabatque more sollemni.
(Suet. Aug. 56)
Whenever he involved himself in the elections for the
magistrates, he used to walk around the tribes with his
candidates, and he used to campaign [for them] in the
traditional custom.
24
There most certainly is some overlap between the 83 and 170 cited by Augustus since some of the
senators who became consul would also have become priests, e.g. Agrippa.
28
Certainly those chosen to be “his” candidates must have had something to offer Augustus
or have already aided him in some way; with a political ally as strong as the man who
claimed to be the restorer of the Republic, these candidates had good odds of winning
their elections. This effective reciprocity led Syme (1956: 376) to assert that throughout
Augustus’ Principate “loyalty and service to the patron and leader of the Caesarian party
continued to be the certain avenue of advancement.” It is also important to note
Augustus’ public display of preserving tradition in his campaigning efforts.
Dio provides another example of Augustus distributing honor among the elites
who fought with him when he describes Augustus’ decision on how the triumph after his
victory in Egypt should be celebrated:
τὸν δὲ δὴ συνύπατον τούς τε λοιποὺς ἄρχοντας περιεῖδε

παρὰ καθεστηκὸς ἐπισπομένους οἱ μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν
βουλευτῶν τῶν συννενικηκότων· εἰώθεσαν γὰρ οἱ μὲν
ἡγεῖσθαι οἱ δὲ ἐφέπεσθαι. (Dio Cass. 51.21.9)
And indeed, contrary to precedent, he allowed his co-
consul [S. Apuleius] and the remaining magistrates to
accompany him along with the remaining senators, the ones
having a part in his victory; for the magistrates were
accustomed to go before the procession and the senators to
follow it.
While the decision to have the magistrates join the rest of the senators may have taken
some prestige away from the men specifically holding the magistracies, taking any part in
a triumph would have helped raise an elite man’s prestige.25 Marching alongside the
conquering general, especially a figure as prominent as Augustus, also would have had an
impact on the audience. Furthermore, this would have stressed the notion that the way for
Carey (1970: 63) notes that the magistrates would have been behind Octavian, thus
25
confirming and promoting him as the chief citizen of the state.

29
a noble man to acquire honor was through association with the princeps while promoting
Augustus’ preeminence as well. Concerning others celebrating triumphs, Dio highlights
Augustus’ custom:
ὁ γὰρ Αὔγουστος καὶ ταῦτα ἀφθóνως τισί τήν γε πρώτην

ἐχαρίζετο, καὶ δημοσίαις ταφαῖς πλείστους ὅσους ἐτίμα.
(Dio Cass. 54.12.2)
For, at least in the beginning, Augustus also used to give
ungrudgingly these things [triumphs] to certain men, and he
used to honor very many men with public burials.
Gaius Carrinas (Dio Cass. 51.21.6) and Marcus Crassus (51.25.2) were two of these
“certain men” who celebrated triumphs, and both of them celebrated with Octavian as
triumphing general in the procession as well.26 At first appearance, it may seem as though
Augustus was only trying to claim honor from others’ victories, which he probably was;
but as in the case of the other magistrates and senators sharing in his triumph over Egypt,
the public association with the princeps still would have been a great honor for these
men. Again these triumphs would have expressed the idea that personal achievement
occurred from an association with the princeps. Dio does not report whether Augustus
took part in the other triumphs which the Fasti Triumphales record as being celebrated in
the twenties BCE, but given Carrinas and Crassus’ triumphs as examples, it would not be
surprising if he had.
26
Dio reports that both of these triumphs occurred in 29 BCE. The Fasti Triuphales records Carrinas’ took
place in 28 BCE and Crassus’ in 27 BCE. Carrinas received his for his victories against the Morini and the
Suebi (Dio Cass. 51.21.6), Crassus for his against the Dacians and Bastarnae (Dio Cass. 51.23.2). Crassus
was also denied the opportunity of dedicating spolia opima since he was not the imperator (see p. 29) (Dio
Cass. 51.24.4).
30
This new system of sharing triumphs with Augustus (starting at least in 29/8
BCE) was accepted because the princeps followed the tradition that triumphs were
granted to the general in charge. Dio makes it clear that, although Carrinas, whose father
had been proscribed by Sulla and who had been prevented from holding office himself,
had led the troops in battle, “the credit for the victory belonged to the [his] supreme
general [Augustus]” (ἡ ἀναφορὰ τῆς νίκης τῇ αὐτοκράτορι αὐτοῦ ἀρχῇ προσήκουσα ἦν,
51.21.6). Along the same lines, while Crassus shared his triumph with the princeps,
Augustus alone assumed the title of imperator.27 Both of these instances suggest that by
29 BCE Augustus at least unofficially held maius imperium. Even though Augustus
ceased allowing triumphs to be celebrated by anyone else but the princeps after Agrippa
declined his own, (see above, pp. 23–4), Augustus still bestowed triumphal honors upon
and gave thanksgivings (supplicationes) to other worthy elites such as Lucius Piso who
received a supplicatio and triumphal honors in 11 BCE for defeating the Bessi.28
Suetonius reports that Augustus allowed over thirty generals in all to celebrate triumphs
and even more to receive triumphal honors.29 Furthermore, “he ordered those who
celebrated triumphs to use their spoils to set up monuments for their accomplishments”
(τοῖς τὰ ἐπινίκια πέμπουσιν ἔργον ἐκ τῶν λαφύρων ἐς τὴν τῶν πράξεων μνήμην ποιεῖν
προσέταξε, Dio Cass. 54.18.2), which would have granted even more honor to these men
and exerted Augustus’ authority as well.
27
οὐ μέντοι καὶ τὸ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος ὄνομα, ὥς γέ τινές φασιν, ἔλαβεν, ἀλλ’ ὁ Καῖσαρ μόνος αὐτὸ
προσέθετο (Dio Cass. 51.25.2).
28
καὶ αὐτῷ διὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἱερομηνίαι καὶ τιμαὶ ἐπινίκοι ἐδόθησαν (Dio Cass. 54.34.7).
29
super triginta ducibus iustos triumphos et aliquanto pluribus triumphalia ornamenta decernenda curauit
(Aug. 38.1).
31
Building projects, like those in the Campus Martius, resulted from this Imperial
mandate. Suetonius mentions that Augustus often urged the leading citizens to improve
the city through building, and he lists a few who took Augustus’ advice, including
Cornelius Balbus and Statilius Taurus.30 Haselberger (2007: 130) notes that the Campus
Martius was developed through collaboration between Augustus and other principes viri,
especially Agrippa. He later (2007: 152) discusses the erection of a theater by L.
Cornelius Balbus in the Circus Flaminius and describes Balbus as one “whom Augustus
held in particularly high regard.” This assessment appears to have developed from the
fact that Balbus was the last non-member of the Imperial family to build such a large
project. Dio describes Statilius Taurus’ building project and illustrates how beneficial
such projects could be to a politician:
τοῦ δὲ δὴ Καίσαρος τὸ τέταρτον ἔτι ὑπατεύοντος ὁ Ταῦρος

ὁ Στατίλιος θέατρόν τι ἐν τῷ Ἀρείῳ πεδίῳ κυνηγετικὸν
λίθινον καὶ ἐξεποίησε τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ τέλεσι καὶ καθιέρωσεν
ὁπλομαχίᾳ, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο στρατηγὸν ἕνα παρὰ τοῦ δήμου
κατ’ ἔτος αἱρεῖσθαι ἐλάμβανε. (Dio Cass. 51.23.1)
And indeed while Caesar was still serving as consul for the
fourth time [29 BCE], Statilius Taurus both constructed a
stone theater for venationes on the Campus Martius from
his own expenses and dedicated it with a gladiatorial
contest, and because of this, he used to receive from the
people the election of one praetor per year.
By not only allowing but in fact encouraging Taurus and others to build public buildings,
especially ones meant for entertainment and other aspects of Roman ludi (e.g. religious
festivals, etc.), Augustus provided certain members of the elite with a great opportunity to
30
Sed et ceteros principes uiros saepe hortatus est, ut pro facultate quisque monimentis uel nouis uel
refectis et excultis urbem adornarent. Multaque a multis tunc extructa sunt…a Cornelio Balbo theatrum, a
Statilio Tauro amphitheatrum…. (Aug. 29.4–5)
32
gain prestige among the masses. In Taurus’ case, this prestige was so great that it resulted
in him gaining the ability to have independent say in who held a praetorship, a disruption
of the traditional system for Roman elections. Yet, as seen earlier (p. 26), Augustus
attempted to maintain the traditional methods of campaigning for his candidates. If
someone could gain this nontraditional power for the dedication of one hunting theater,
one can only imagine what benefits could have been available to the man viewed as the
true author of the public building program. As was the case with the granting of triumphs,
as time went on and the Principate became more established, Augustus limited the
construction of buildings to the point that after Balbus finished his theater in 13 BCE
large-scale building projects–excluding several restorations that were associated with
those holding public offices–were permitted only to members of the imperial family
(Haselberger 2007: 152).
It appears that Augustus did not reserve the honors of building public works for
his favorites alone. Suetonius (Aug. 30.1) mentions that Augustus commanded triumphal
men to repair roads at their own expense, and Dio (53.22.1) notes that Augustus had
given these commands to senators in general.31 This is similar to section 77 of the Lex
Ursonensis established by Julius Caesar in his colony in Spain that allowed (and
encouraged) any duumvir or aedile to pave public roads in that colony.32 The
maintenance of roads most certainly would have been viewed as less prestigious than the
31
Quo autem facilius undique urbs adiretur, desumpta sibi Flaminia uia Arimino tenus munienda reliquas
triumphalibus uiris ex manubiali pecunia sternendas distribuit.; τὰς ὁδοὺς τὰς ἔξω τοῦ τείχους
δυσπορεύτους ὑπ’ ἀλμελείας ὁρῶν οὔσας τὰς μὲν ἄλλας ἄλλοις τισὶ τῶν βουλευτῶν ἐπισκευάσαι τοῖς
οἰκείοις τέλεσι προσέταξε....
32
Si quis vias fossas cloacas IIvir aedilisve publice facere inmittere commutare aedificare munire intra eos
fines, qui coloniae Iuliae erunt, volet, quot eius sine iniuria privatorum fiet, it is facere liceto.
33
erection of buildings like theaters, which were reserved for those more closely connected
to Augustus, but they still would have brought some honor, which formerly would have
been directed towards the aediles, to the senators who undertook these projects.
Concerning the restoration of temples Dio says that in 28 BCE:
τοὺς μὲν γὰρ ὑπ’ ἰδιωντῶν τινων γεγενημένους τοῖς τε

παισὶν αὐτῶν καὶ τοῖς ἐκγόνοις, εἴγε τινὲς περιῆσαν,
ἐπισκευάσαι ἐκέλευσε, τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς αὐτὸς ἀνεκτήσατο.
oὐ μέντοι καὶ τὴν δόξαν τῆς οἰκοδομήσεώς σφων
ἐσφετερίσατο, ἀλλ’ ἀπέδωκεν αὐτοῖς τοῖς κατασκευάσασιν
αὐτούς. (Dio Cass. 53.2.4–5)
He [Augustus] ordered the sons and descendants of the
private citizens who had produced [temples] at their own
expense, if any survived, to repair them, and he himself
repaired the remaining ones. And indeed he did not make
the glory of their construction his own, but he gave it to the
ones having built them.
This policy resulted in an increase in prestige for Augustus due to the city’s appearing
more prosperous, a further indication of Augustus’ “equality” with the elites, since he
was not taking all the credit for the repairs, and a confirmation of Augustus’ commitment
to tradition, because honor for the construction was attributed to the families of those
who built the temples. It should be noted that while Augustus may not have taken all the
credit in person, he emphasizes that the construction and restoration projects were
enacted through him in the Res Gestae. Dio provides a further example of this policy
while discussing the restoration of the Basilica Aemilia after it had burned down:
ἡ μὲν οὖν στοὰ μετὰ τοῦτο ὀνόματι μὲν ὑπ’ Αἰμιλίου, ἐς ὃν

τὸ τοῦ ποιήσαντός ποτε αὐτὴν γένος ἐληλύθει, τῷ δὲ ἔργῳ
ὑπὸ τοῦ Αὐγούστου καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν τοῦ Παύλου φίλων
ἀνῳκοδομήθη. (Dio Cass. 54.24.3)
34
After this [it burning down in 14 BCE] the basilica was

rebuilt in name by Aemilius, who was a descendant of the
man who built it, but in deed by Augustus and the friends
of Paulus.
In this case, Augustus and the friends of Paulus allowed Aemilius to receive honor
despite the fact that they were the ones who funded the restoration.33
This is not the only example of Augustus financially aiding members of the upper
class. After mentioning the games that he provided in the name of his family (without
giving any specific family members’ names) and himself in the Res Gestae, he continues
as follows:
Ludos feci m[eo no]m[ine] quarter, aliorum autem

m[agist]ratuum vicem ter et viciens. (Aug. RG 22)
I staged games [presumably ludi ordinaria] in my name
four times, and moreover on behalf of other magistrates
twenty-three times.
Again Augustus does not tell us specifically who these magistrates were. Suetonius adds
that the other magistrates were men qui aut abessent aut sufficerent (“who either were
absent or could not afford them,” Aug. 43.1). In either of these scenarios, Augustus would
have won most of the glory from these acts for himself, while still offering a beneficium
to the magistrate in whose name the games were staged. Concerning Augustus’ financial
aid to senators, Suetonius tells us the following:
Senatorum censum ampliavit, ac pro octingentorum milium

summa duodecies H.S. taxavit, supplevitque non
habentibus. (Suet. Aug. 41.1)
33
It is not certain which Aemilius Paullus this is, but it may be the same Paullus who in 34 BCE had
dedicated the temple rebuilt by his father during the 50s BCE when the former was suffect consul
(Haselberger 2002: 66 citing Dio Cass. 49.42.2). It could also be his son who was consul in 1 CE and
married Julia the Younger (“Aemilius Paullus (4), Lucius,” OCD).
35
He increased the property requirements for senators, and he

determined that the total should be 1.2 million instead of
800,000 [sesterces], and he supplied the rest for those not
having enough.
These monetary gifts allowed favored or neutral senators to increase their prestige or at
least maintain their status, which would have allowed them more opportunities for
acquiring honor while also making it more difficult for those senators whom Augustus
did not favor to maintain their position in society and their accustomed lifestyle. Thus it
was also grounds for Augustus to purge the senate. Augustus’ censorial control over the
size of the senate will be discussed in more detail below (p. 51–2).
Augustus did not just bestow honor upon his favorites and neutral senators and
thus connect himself to them through amicitia; in fact, while establishing the Principate,
he also attempted to reconcile hostile senators with him, in contrast to his triumviral
actions of proscribing his enemies. On this matter Suetonius writes:
Clementiae civilitatisque eius multa et magna documenta

sunt. Ne enumerem quot et quos diversarum partium venia
et incolumitate donatos, principem etiam in civitate locum
tenere passus sit … (Suet. Aug. 51)
The examples of his clemency and politeness are many and
great. Not to recount them [all], there were so many of the
different parties who were forgiven with kindness and
safety, and he even permitted them to hold the highest
office in the state …
Dio gives us an example of one of these men:
καὶ ἐπί τε τούτῳ ἔπαινον ἔσχε, καὶ ὅτι Λούλιον ἀνθ’ ἑαυτοῦ
Σήστιον ἀνθείλετο, ἀεί τε τῷ Βρούτῳ συσπουδάσαντα καὶ
ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς πολέμοις συστρατεύσαντα, καὶ ἔτι καὶ
μνημονεύοντα αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰκόνας ἔχοντα καὶ ἐπαίνους
36
ποιούμενον· τό τε γὰρ φιλικὸν καὶ τὸ πιστὸν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς οὐ

μόνον οὐκ ἐμίσησεν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐτίμησε. (Dio Cass. 53.32.4)
And he [Augustus] won praise both because of this [i.e. the
practice of having more than two consuls a year], and
because he chose in his place [as consul in 23 BCE] Lucius
Sestius, who had always assisted Brutus zealously and
campaigned in all his battles, and even still remembered
him and had statues of him and praised him. For he
[Augustus] not only did not hate the man because of his
friendship and faithfulness, but even honored him.
While he may not have been as munificent to these elites as he was to his favorites,
nevertheless, these still very gracious acts would have made an impression not only on
those directly receiving the benefits, but on all members of the senate, and would have
earned Augustus even more praise. Thus they would have helped erase the memory of the
proscriptions during the Second Triumvirate, and instead promoted a more embracing
Augustus.
C. Sharing Honors with Members of the Equites
The creation of the Principate also introduced new members to the Roman elite.
The power of the equites had grown throughout the Late Republic; Augustus relied
heavily on these men and created new opportunities for individuals from this class to gain
political power. After advising Octavian not to worry about enrolling too many men into
the senatorial and equestrian orders, Dio’s Maecenas adds: “For the more men of good
repute you have [aligned] with you, the more easily will you, yourself, govern everything
in a time of need” (ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν πλείους εὐδóκιμοι ἄνδρες συνῶσί σοι, τοσούτῳ ῥᾷον
αὐτóς τε ἐν δέοντι πάντα διοικήσεις, 52.19.4). Here Dio’s Maecenas suggests that in
return for giving men status and thus opportunities, Augustus as princeps would aquire
37
new clients.34 It is also interesting to note that once these clients had aligned with
Octavian, it would have been easier for the emperor to rule in a time of need because he
would be able to persuade his subjects that he was not treating them as slaves or inferiors
(Dio Cass. 52.19.5).35
Concerning equestrian access to the magistracies under Augustus, Dio reveals the
following:
τάς τε ἀρχὰς ἅπασι τοῖς δέκα μυριάδων οὐσίαν ἔχουσι καὶ

ἄρχειν ἐκ τῶν νόμων δυναμένοις ἐπαγγέλλειν ἐπέτρεψε.
(Dio Cass. 54.17.3)
He [Augustus] allowed all those holding property worth ten
myriads [400,000 sesterces] and able to rule by law to
campaign for the magistracies.
This property requirement for those who would be senators is the same as the one
Suetonius mentions, although the required value of the property differs. Dio also states
that any financial deficiencies were provided by Augustus for certain men living well (i.e.
in an manner pleasing to Augustus) (54.17.3).36 While Suetonius only mentions property
requirements for senators, Dio asserts that all those whom the law allowed to hold office
could run as long as they possessed enough property, and any such men would have been
members of the equites. Both Dio (54.30.2) and Suetonius (Aug. 40.1) mention that when
there were not enough candidates for the office of tribune of the plebs, equestrians would
be nominated for the position, and that after their terms they could decide whether to
34
According to the LSJ, σύνειμι can mean “attend” or “be a follower of” (II.3).
35
καὶ τοὺς ἀρχομένους πείσεις ὅτι οὔτε ὡς δούλοις σφίσιν οὔθ’ ὡς χείροσί πῃ ἡμῶν οὖσι χρῇ.
36
καί τισι τῶν εὖ βιούντων ἐλάττω, τότε μὲν τῶν δέκα, αὖθις δὲ τῶν πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι [After raising the
minimum to 400,000 sesterces, Augustus raised it to 1,000,000 sesterces], κεκτημένοις ἐχαρίσατο ὅσον
ἐνέδει.
38
remain equites or become senators.37 While in the case of the tribunate Augustus may
have been acting pragmatically, due to the loss of men from the senatorial class during
the civil wars, the equites who did become senators would have owed their new status to
Augustus. The equestrians who decided to stay equestrian also would have owed
whatever fame or renown they had received in office to the princeps. This greater access
to the magistracies for the equites is echoed in Syme’s (1956: 372) note that from 32–29
BCE there were four novi homines holding the consulship and five nobiles, whereas from
25–19 BCE, it was eight and five, respectively. Figures like these convinced Syme that
“there were far too many novi homines” (350) to restore the Republic.
In addition to access to magistracies and membership in the senate, Augustus
created new positions specifically for equites. Suetonius describes some of these offices:
Quoque plures partem administrandae rei publicae

caperent, nova officia excogitavit: curam operum
publicorum, viarum, aquarum, alvei Tiberis, frumenti
populo dividundi, praefecturam urbis, triumviratum legendi
senatus et alterum recognocendi turmas equitum,
quotiensque opus esset. (Suet. Aug. 37.1)
And so that whenever there was a need more might take
part in administering the state, he invented new offices:
[ones concerning] the care of public works, roads, waters
[aqueducts], the channel of the Tiber, the dispersal of grain
to the people; the Praefect of the City; the three man
council for choosing the senate; and another three man
council for reviewing the bands of equites.
37
Dio Cass. 54.30.2: τὴν δὲ δημαρχίαν ὀλίγων σφόδρα διὰ τὸ τὴν ἰσχύν σφων καταλελύσθαι αἰτούντων,
ἐνομοθέτησεν ἐκ τῶν ἱππέων τῶν μὴ ἔλαττον πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι μυριάδας κεκτημένων προβάλλεσθαι τοὺς ἐν
ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ἕνα ἕκαστον, κἀκ’ τούτων τὸ πλῆθος τοὺς ἐνδέοντας αἱρεῖσθαι ἐφ’ ᾧ τε, εἰ μὲν καὶ βουλεύειν
μετὰ τοῦτ’ ἐθέλοιεν, εἰ δὲ μή, ἐς τὴν ἱππάδα αὖθις ἐπανιέναι ἐξεῖναι. Suet. Aug. 40.1: Comitiis tribuniciis,
si deessent candidati senatores, ex equitibus Romanis creauit, [i]ta ut potestate transacta, in utro uellent
ordine manerent.
39
Many of these offices are also mentioned in Dio as well. After Dio’s Maecenas details the
roles of two of the best of the knights (ἱππέων δύο τοὺς ἀρίστους, 52.24.1) as
commanders of Augustus’ bodyguard—the Praetorian Guard—and of other troops within
Italy as Praetorian Praefects (52.24.1-3), he continues thus:
καὶ οὗτοι μὲν διὰ βίου, ὥσπερ που καὶ ὁ πολίαρχος ὅ θ’

ὑποτιμητής, τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐχέτωσαν· νυκτοφύλαξ δὲ ἕτερος,
καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ σίτου τῆς τε ἀγορᾶς τῆς λοιπῆς ἕτερος ἔκ τε
τῶν ἱππέων τῶν πρώτων μετ’ ἐκείνους καὶ ἐς τακτὸν
χρόνον ἀποδεικνύσθωσαν, καθάπερ οἱ ἐκ τοῦ βουλευτικοῦ
προχειριζόμενοι. (Dio. Cass. 52.24.6)
Let these men [the Praetorian Praefects] hold the office
throughout their life, just as do both the urban prefect and
the sub-censor;38 and let another from among the foremost
knights after those men [the Praetorian Prefects] be
appointed night-watchman, and another the man in charge
of the grain and the rest of the market for a fixed time, just
like those elected from the senatorial order.
Although Maecenas is comparing term lengths, the fact that these positions were
prominent enough to be compared with senatorial positions reveals the honor they could
bestow upon their possessors. In his next sentence, Dio has Maecenas mention that the
public funds, both in Rome and across the empire, also should be controlled by knights
instead of the senate (52.25.1).39 A position similar to one of these was held by the
grandfather of the future emperor Vitellius, whom [the grandfather] Suetonius describes
as eques certe R. et rerum Augusti procurator (“certainly a Roman knight and overseer of
Augustus’ estate,” Vit. 2). The potential for power and honor in these equestrian positions
is evident from this family: a man from the first generation served as a procurator of
38
These were both prominent political positions for the leading citizens (προηκόντων, Dio Cass. 52.21.1).
39
τάς τε διοικήσεις τῶν χρημάτων, τῶν τε τοῦ δήμου καὶ τῶν τῆς ἀρχῆς λέγω, καὶ τὰς ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ τῇ τε
ἄλλῃ Ἰταλίᾳ καὶ τὰς ἔξω πάσας οἱ ἱππῆς διαχειριζέτωσαν.
40
imperial property; a man from the second generation was consul and censor (Vitellius’
father, Lucius: Suet. Vit. 2);40 and a man from the third generation reached the position of
emperor. All of these equestrian positions were appointed by Augustus. Unlike certain
magistrates who would owe Augustus for campaigning for their successful election, these
equites would completely owe their political careers and the honors that might have come
with it to Augustus. Through these offices Augustus also increased the number of
experienced men whom he could trust to help him run the Principate.
As mentioned earlier (pp. 18–9), Augustus bestowed gifts to create loyalty and
obligation among the Roman elites. A passage from Suetonius illustrates the extent of
this practice:
Exegit et ipse in vicem ab amicis benivolentiam mutuam,

tam a defunctis quam a vivis. (Suet. Aug. 66)
He also demanded in turn reciprocated good-will from his
friends, as much from the deceased [i.e., being named in
their wills] as from the living.
Here both in vicem and mutuam emphasize the reciprocal nature of the expected favors,
very much like those exchanged in a patron-client amicitia relationship, which is perhaps
alluded to here by the use of amicis. At the same time, exegit can express the idea that
Augustus coerced these friends to do things beyond what would be expected from them
in one of these relationships. Dio gives an example of this type of reciprocity when he
discusses Sextus Pacuvius/Apudius’41 declarations of devotion to Augustus:
40
L(ucius) ex consulatu Syriae praepositus, Artabanum Parthorum regem summis artibus non modo ad
conloquium suum, sed etiam ad ueneranda legionum signa pellexit. mox cum Claudio principe duos
insuper ordinarios consulatus censuramque gessit.
41
Dio states that there is a dispute about the name of the man (ὡς ἕτεροι λέγουσιν Ἀπούδιος, 53.20.2).
41
ἐν γὰρ τῷ συνεδρίῳ ἑαυτόν τέ οἱ τὸν τῶν Ἰβήρων τρόπον

καθωσίωσε καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις συνεβούλευε τοῦτο ποιῆσαι ...
καὶ ὁ μὲν καὶ θῦσαι ἐπὶ τούτῳ πάντας ἐποίει, ἔν τε τῷ
ὁμίλῳ ποτὲ κληρονόμον ἔφη τὸν Αὔγουστον ἐξ ἴσου τῷ
υἱεῖ καταλείψειν, οὐχ ὅτι τι εἶχεν, ἀλλ’ ὅτι καὶ προσλαβεῖν
ἠθέλησεν, ὃ καὶ ἐγένετο. (Dio Cass. 53.20.2–4)
For in the senate he dedicated himself to him [Augustus] in
the manner of the Iberians42 and was advising the others to
do this … And [after leaving the curia and walking up and
down the street] he also was causing all to sacrifice to him
[Augustus], and in the crowd he once said he would name
Augustus as an heir with a share equal to that of his son,
not because he was possessing much property, but because
he just wanted to receive [more], and that is what
happened.
Here Dio describes a man who sought to enter an amicitia relationship with Augustus by
offering what Augustus expected from his friends in the hopes that he would be able to
receive benefits from it. Augustus likely rewarded Pacuvius/Apudius not only for
expressing loyalty in life and (at least) in preparation for death, but also for actively
attempting to persuade others to devote themselves to him, much as a client would.43
Furthermore, Suetonius notes that while Augustus expected to be named in wills, he was
accustomed to decline his portion of the inheritance in favor of surviving offspring (Aug.
66.4), which would have further tied the family to him.44 Despite this expectation of
loyalty and dedication through reciprocity, the amount of honors and benefits Augustus
was willing to share with many members of the elite, from his favorites to his former
42
Citing Valerius Maximus (2.6.11), Carey (1968: 247) notes that “the Celtiberians thought it wrong to
survive a battle when their leader for whose preservation they had vowed their life had perished.”
43
Saller (1982: 127) notes that publicly expressing beneficia was one of a client’s duties.
44
Legata uel partes hereditatium a quibuscumque parentibus relicta sibi aut statim liberis eorum
concedere aut, si pupillari aetate essent, die uirilis togae uel nuptiarum cum incremento restituere
consueuerat.
42
enemies, must have been appealing to a class so devastated by decades of civil wars, as
Dio affirms:
οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτως ὡς τὸ γενναῖον ἐν τοῖς ἐμφυλίοις πολέμοις

ἀναλίσκεται. (52.42.5)
For nothing is as destroyed in civil wars as the noble
class.45
D. Patron of the Body of the Senate as a Whole
Augustus not only gave to individual members of the Roman elite, he also gave to
the most conspicuous collective body of elites, the senate. To Augustus the greatest gift
he bestowed upon the senate was the restoration of the Republic. In a speech to the senate
in which he returned the control of the state to its members as part of the Settlement of
27, Dio has Augustus emphasize his own role in the achievement of liberating the state:
καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅ τι τῶν πάντων ἀπέτρεψέ με κινδυνεύουσιν

ὑμῖν ἐπικουρῆσαι … ἀλλ’ ἐπέδωκα ἀφειῶς ὑμῖν ἐμαυτὸν ἐς
πάντα τὰ περιεστηκότα, καὶ ἔπραξα καὶ ἔπαθον ἅπερ ἴστε.
ἐξ ὧν αὐτὸς μὲν οὐδὲν κεκέρδαγκα πλὴν τοῦ τὴν πατρίδα
περιπεποιῆσθαι, ὑμεῖς δὲ καὶ σώζεσθε καὶ σωφρονεῖτε.
ἐπειδὴ δὲ καλῶς ποιοῦσα ἡ Tύχη καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην ἄδολον
καὶ τὴν ὁμόνοιαν ἀστασίαστον δι’ ἐμοῦ ὑμῖν ἀποδέδωκεν,
ἀπολάβετε καὶ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν καὶ τὴν δημοκρατίαν,
κομίσασθε καὶ τὰ ὅπλα καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ ὑπήκοα, καὶ
πολιτεύεσθε ὥσπερ εἰώθειτε. (Dio Cass. 53.5.3–4)
And there was nothing that turned me away from aiding
you when you were in danger … but unsparingly I gave
myself to you against all the calamities which arose, and
you know all the things I did and suffered. From these I
myself have not profited except from the preservation of
the fatherland, and you are safe and sound. Since Fortune
working favorably has given to you both peace without
fraud and concord without faction through me, take up both
45
Cf. Tac. Ann. 1.2.
43
your freedom and the republic, recover both the arms

[armies] and the subject nations, and govern for yourselves
as you have been accustomed.
In the Res Gestae, Augustus describes the situation as follows:
In consulatu sexto et septimo, postqua[m b]el[la civil]ia

exstixeram, per consensum universorum [po]tens re[ru]m
om[n]ium, rem publicam ex mea potestate in senat[us
populi]que R[om]ani [a]rbitrium transtuli. (Aug. RG 34)
In my sixth and seventh consulship [28–27 BCE], after I
had stopped the civil wars, having power over everything
through the agreement of the whole [body of citizens], I
transferred the republic from my power to the authority of
the senate and Roman people.
In both of these passages, Augustus presents himself as a patron of the senate by noting
that he served as its protector during the civil war and that he returned its former powers.
The fact that Augustus also claims in his speech that he did not profit from his toils
(though clearly he had, since he had obtained the power to restore the state to the senate,
not to mention his great wealth from Egypt) is also important. This could be seen not
only as an example of good will from Augustus and as the ideal of selflessness to the
state for everyone to follow, but it could also be employed to persuade the members of
the senate to act reciprocally and to give the princeps awards or loyalty, which in fact did
happen, as will be seen below (pp. 47–51).
The emphasis on his role as the protector of the senate and the restorer of the
Republic was not Augustus’ only method for portraying himself as a patron in 27 BCE.
In the Res Gestae, he notes that he did the deeds “which the senate wished to be done by
me” (ἃ δὲ τότε δι’ ἐμοῦ ἡ σύνκλητος οἰκονομεῖσθαι ἐβούλετο, Aug. RG 6). This
44
statement not only helps to diminish the idea that Augustus was a tyrant, but also
explicitly portrays the emperor doing favors for the senate just as a patron would for his
client, or even perhaps as a client would for his patron.
Saller (1982: 27) notes that in the traditional senatorial patron-protégé
relationship,46 the patron not only helped his protégé obtain office, but he also was
supposed to advise him,47 and the protégé was expected to follow his political advice
throughout his career. When returning power to the senate, Augustus gave advice to the
body like a patron would have:48
καίτοι καὶ καθ’ ἕκαστον τῶν μειζόνων οὐκ ἂν ὀκνήσαιμι

ὑμῖν ἐν κεφαλαίοις ὅσα χρὴ πράττειν ὑποθέσθαι. (Dio
Cass. 53.10.1)
And indeed concerning each of the more important matters
I would not hesitate to advise you in the chief points
[about] the things that it is necessary to do.
Augustus’ lack of hesitation in giving advice as well as the seemingly simple nature of
said advice—such as to protect and follow the established laws and to honor good men
while punishing evil men—reflect both sides of the patron-protégé relationship. The
experienced Augustus is serving as a mentor to the now inexperienced senate. Dio’s
Augustus again echoes this sentiment with his mentor-like tone at the end of his advice:
46
The word “protégé” is used here in place of “client” because it is Saller’s terminology. It also helps
distinguish the relationship between two members of the senatorial class from those between a senator and
his other clients.
47
An example of this support, which Saller (1982: 27) also cites, is found in Pliny the younger who
discusses the role the patron Verginius Rufus played in his [Pliny’s] career (Ep. 2.1.8): Sic candidatum me
suffragio ornavit; sic ad omnes honores meos ex secessibus accucurrit, cum iam pridem eiusmodi officiis
renuntiasset ([After Rufus had shown him the respect usually held for an older man] “Thus he provided me
as a candidate with his support; thus out of retirement he hurried to all of my aid while I was in office,
when he had renounced for a long time services of such a kind …”).
48
Despite the fact that governing the state was the traditional role of the senate, due to its prolonged
absence from this role, the senate could have been viewed as a protégé entering office.
45
ἓν οὖν ἔτι τοῦτο εἰπὼν παύσομαι, ὅτι ἂν μὲν οὕτω

πολιτεύσησθε, αὐτοί τε εὐδαιμονήσετε καὶ ἐμοὶ χαριεῖσθε,
ὅστις ὑμᾶς στασιάζοντας κακῶς λαβὼν τοιούτους
ἀπέδειξα, ἂν δ’ ἀδυνατήσητε καὶ ὁτιοῦν αὐτῶν πρᾶξαι, ἐμὲ
μὲν μετανοῆσαι ποιήσετε, τὴν δὲ δὴ πόλιν ἔς τε πολέμους
πολλοὺς καὶ ἐς κινδύνους μεγάλους αὖθις ἐμβαλεῖτε. (Dio
Cass. 53.10.7-8)
Therefore I will cease speaking after this one point: that if
you govern in this way, you will both be prosperous and
gratify me, I who, having come upon you in terrible
discord, made you such [as you are now]. But if you are
unable to do any of this at all, you will cause me [to] regret
[my decision], and indeed you will throw the city into both
many wars and great dangers again.
The idea that the senate could either please Augustus or disappoint him makes clear that
he held a position of power over the body much like a patron would hold over a protégé.
Just as the protégé could be considered ingratus by not acknowledging his patron’s aid
and by not heeding his advice, Dio seems to suggest that the same was true for the
senate’s possible actions. Through this patron-like speech, Dio’s Augustus was able to
mask his true intentions of not laying aside his power and manipulate the senate into
wanting him not to relinquish all his power (53.11.1–4).
This “autocratic” power (αὐτὸν αὐταρχῆσαι), as Dio (53.11.4) called it,49 allowed
Augustus to continue to act as a patron and bestow more gifts on the senate. Both
Suetonius (Aug. 47.1) and Dio (53.12.2) state that Augustus gave control of the more
peaceful provinces to the senate.50 Suetonius also notes that Augustus fixed the seating
system at public shows and facto igitur decreto patrum (“then by a decree of the fathers
49
Cf. αὐτοκράτωρ in 51.21.7, which was the common Greek translation of Imperator.
50
Suet. Aug. 47.1: Prouincias ualidiores et quas annuis magistratuum imperiis regi nec facile nec tutum
erat, ipse suscepit, ceteras proconsulibus sortito permisit. Dio Cass. 53.12.2: τὰ μὲν ἀσθενέστερα ὡς καὶ
εἰρηναῖα καὶ ἀπόλεμα ἀπέδωκε τῇ βουλῇ.
46
[senators]”) the first rows were reserved for the senators (Aug. 44.1), which would have
helped preserve the honor of the senate in two ways: the senate would have retained their
traditional best seats for the shows and the resolution so guaranteeing had been enacted
by their decree.51
The use of senatorial ratification here and elsewhere in Augustan patronage
echoes the advice that Dio has Maecenas give to Augustus:
ἔπειτα δὲ ἄν πάντα τὰ νομοθετούμενα δι’ αὐτῶν ποιῇ, καὶ

μηδὲν τὸ παράπαν ἄλλο ἐπὶ πάντας ὁμοίως φέρῃ πλὴν τῶν
ἐκείνης δογμάτων. (Dio Cass. 52.31.2)
And then everything you do should be made law by the
senators, and you absolutely should not pass a law binding
upon all the citizens unless it is a decree of that body [the
senate].
By having the senate ratify all laws, Augustus would have upheld his image of protecting
the Roman traditions since the senate would appear to be fulfilling its traditional role in
the government. Dio also shows us Maecenas advising Augustus to continue to introduce
envoys in front of the senate (52.31.1) and to allow them to continue to act as judges in
trials of other senators (52.31.3–4).52 Dio later notes that Augustus did grant these
privileges to the senate along with the continuation of elections, but adds that “indeed
nothing was done which was not also pleasing to him” (οὐ μέντοι καὶ ἐπράττετό τι ὃ μὴ
καὶ ἐκεῖνον ἤρεσκε, 53.21.6). The granting of these privileges would have served as
51
Rawson (1987: 107) notes that the tradition of the senators sitting in the front rows of theaters had been
established by 194 BCE if not earlier. By remaining in the most prestigious seats, the public reputation of
the senate would have been maintained, and the importance of their role in society would be confirmed.
52
52.31.1” πρῶτον μὲν τὰς πρεσβείας τάς τε παρὰ τῶν πολεμίων καὶ τὰς παρὰ τῶν ἐνσπόνδων καὶ
βασιλέων καὶ δήμων ἀφικνουμένας ἐς τὸ συνέδριον ἐσάγῃς. 52.31.3–4: τούς τε βουλευτὰς...ὑπό τε τὸ
βουλευτήριον ὑπάγῃς μηδὲν προκαταγνούς, καὶ ἐκείνῳ πᾶσαν τὴν περὶ αὐτῶν διαψήφισιν ἀκέραιον
ἐπιτρέπῃς.
47
further proof of Augustus’ respect for the institution of the senate, thus making it easier
for him to seem to be following tradition even when he controlled the policies of the
senate as princeps senatus.
As Saller (1982: 127) notes, it was a client’s duty to publicize the deeds of his
patron. The many instances in which the senate awarded Augustus with honors fits this
model. Augustus proudly proclaimed many of the honors he received in the Res Gestae.
For example, after stating that he gave back the power of the Republic to the senate and
the people, he continues as follows:
Quo pro merito meo senat[us consulto Au]gust[us

appe]llatus sum et laureis postes aedium mearum v[estiti]
publ[ice coronaq]ue civica super ianuam meam fixa est, [et
clu]peus [aureu]s in [c]uria Iulia positus, quem mihi
senatum pop[ulumq]ue Rom[anu]m dare virtutis
clement[iaequ]e iustitiae et pieta[tis caus]sa testatu[m] est
pe[r e]ius clupei [inscription]em. (Aug. RG 34)
For my service, by decree of the senate I was named
“Augustus,” and the door posts of my house were publicly
dressed with laurels, and a civic crown was fixed over my
door, and a golden shield was placed in the Julian senate
house. The inscription of this shield testified that the senate
and Roman people gave it to me on account of my virtue,
clemency, righteousness, and piety.
Here Augustus emphasizes that these honors were given both because of what he had
done for the senate and for certain personal virtues, which he also politicized (e.g.
clementia and pietas). This again expresses the reciprocal nature of his relationship with
that body. Two of these honors especially stand out. Cooley (2009: 262) notes that the
laurels stood for everlasting victory and peace which would have further emphasized
Augustus’ role as protector. Perhaps even more impressive was the civic crown. Cooley
48
(2009: 264) reports that although during the Late Republic the civic crown was awarded
to generals who had “saved” Rome, such as Julius Caesar, originally it was granted to a
Roman who had saved the life of another citizen. Citing Polybius (6.39.7) and Cicero
(Planc. 30.72), she adds that the one who was saved was obligated to obey his savior
(264). Through coins inscribed with OB CIVIS SERVATOS or CIVIBUS SERVATEIS
(Cooley 2009: 265), it is probable that Augustus sought to emphasize his preservation of
the citizens (as well as Rome) in hopes that all would be obligated to obey him.
Other honors given by the senate which Augustus mentions in the Res Gestae are
the following: fifty-five decrees of thanksgiving equaling 890 days (RG 4),53 vows for
good health along with the celebration of games (RG 9),54 the addition of his name to the
hymn of the Salii and the sacrosanct status and power of the tribunicia potestas (RG
10),55 the consecration of altars (RG 11, 12),56 the naming of the day he returned to Rome
from the east the Augustalia (RG 11),57 and many more including being proclaimed pater
patriae, an honor which Augustus places in a position of emphasis at the very end of his
53
Qui[nquagiens et q]uinquiens decrevit senatus supp[lica]ndum esse dis immortalibus. Dies a[utem, pe]r
quos ex senatus consulto [s]upplicatum est, fuere DC[CCLXXXX].While the figure of 890 is heavily
reconstructed in the Latin, it is supported by the Greek: ὀκτα[κ]όσιαι ἐνενή[κοντα].
54
Vota p[ro salute mea susc]ipi p[er con]sules et sacerdotes qu[in]to qu[oque anno senatus decrevit]. Ex
iis] votis s[ae]pe fecerunt vivo me [ludos aliquotiens sacerdotu]m quattuor amplissima colle[gia,
aliquotiens consules. The senate’s role also is supported by the Greek translation: εὐχὰς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐμῆς
σωτηρίας ἀναλαμβάνειν διὰ τῶν ὑπάτων καὶ ἱερέων καθ’ ἑκάστην πεντετηρίδα ἐψηφίσατο ἡ σύνκλητος.
55
Nom[en me]um [sena]tus c[onsulto inc]lusum est in saliare carmen, et sacrosanct[s in perp]etu<u>m
[ut essem et q]uoad viverem tribunicia potestas mihi e[sset per lege]m st[atutum est].
56
Aram [Fortunae] Red[ucis a]nte aedes Honoris et Virtutis ad portam Cap[enam pro] red[itu me]o
senatus consacravit…. …aram [Pacis A]u[g]ust[ae senatus pro] redi[t]u meo consa[c]randam [censuit]
ad campum Martium. Cf. the Greek: βωμὸν Ε[ἰρ]ήνης Σεβαστῆς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐμῆς ἐπανόδου ἀφιερωθῆναι
ἐψηφισατο ἡ σύνκλητος ἐν πεδίωι Ἄρεως....
57
In urbem ex [Syria redieram, et diem Augustali]a ex [c]o[gnomine] nos[t]ro appellavit. Cf. the Greek
version: ἐκ Συρίας εἰς Ῥώμην ἐπανεληλύθειν, τήν τε ἡμέραν ἐκ τῆς ἡμετέρας ἐπωνυμίας προσηγόρευσεν
Αὐγουστάλια.
49
work (RG 35).58 The juxtaposition throughout the Res Gestae of Augustus as protector
and the gifts he received by decree or on behalf of the senate again emphasizes that
Augustus acted like a patron and the senate publicly performed the roles of his client.
In their accounts of Augustus, as well, both Dio and Suetonius describe the many
honors and powers which the senate bestowed upon him. Among the powers decreed by
the senate and noted by Dio are the following: the title of Augustus (53.16.6);59 a position
free from the constraints of the laws and “certain other honors” (ἄλλα τινά; 53.28.2-3);60
and, as part of the Settlement of 23 BCE, the tribunician power, the ability to call
meetings of the senate, proconsular powers (maius imperium), and greater authority in
provinces than the enjoyed by governors appointed there, all of these were granted for
life (53.32.5).61 Commenting on the nature of these powers Dio adds:
καί μοι δοκεῖ ταῦθ’ οὕτω τότε οὐκ ἐκ κολαμείας ἀλλ’ ἐπ’
ἀληθείας τιμηθεὶς λαβεῖν. τά τε γὰρ ἄλλα ὡς ἐλευθέροις
σφίσι προσεφέρετο. (Dio Cass. 53.33.1)
And it seems to me that in this way he received these
[powers] at that time not because of flattery but because he
was truly honored, for he conducted himself towards the
other Romans as though they were free men.
To Dio the honors which the senate granted to Augustus were not superficial attempts to
appease him, but rather genuine acts of recognition, the kind which would have been
expected from patrons and provided by clients of patrons. It is also possible that by using
58
Sena[tus et e]quester ordo populusq[ue] Romanus universus [appell]av[it me p]atr[em p]atriae.
59
τὸ τοῦ Αὐγούστου ὅνομα καὶ παρὰ τῆς βουλῆς καὶ παρὰ τοῦ δήμου ἐπέθετο.
60
πάσης αὐτὸν τῆς τῶν νόμων ἀνάγκης ἀπήλλαξαν.
61
ἡ γερουσία δήμαρχόν τε αὐτὸν διὰ βίου εἶναι ἐψηφίσατο, καὶ χρηματίζειν αὐτῷ περὶ ἑνός τινος ὅπου ἂν
ἐθελήσῃ καθ’ ἑκάστην βουλήν, κἂν μὴ ὑπατεύῃ, ἔδωκε, τήν τε ἀρχὴν τὴν ἀνθύπατον ἐσαεὶ καθάπαξ
ἔχειν...καὶ ὑπηκόῳ τὸ πλεῖον τῶν ἑκασταχόθι ἀρχόντων ἰσχύειν ἐπέτρεψεν.
50
the term “ἐλευθέροις” Dio may be suggesting that Augustus treated the other Romans not
as free men, but freedmen.62 Temin (2004: 528) notes that there was a well-known
association between freedmen and their former masters in which both parties would work
for each other’s benefit. Temin (2004: 528–9) is more concerned with the economic
relations between freedmen and their former masters: the now patron’s duty was to help
integrate the former slave into the economy in return for the new client’s efforts to help
raise the former master’s reputation and income. This can, however, be applied to Dio’s
portrayal of the relationship between Augustus and the senate. As he makes clear in his
speech to the senate discussed earlier (pp. 42–5), Augustus freed the senators from the
evils of civil war and the threat of tyranny and offered his advice on how they should
rule. This could be seen as Augustus attempting to integrate the senate into the political
system. Likewise, the powers given to Augustus by the senate could be viewed as
attempts to improve Augustus’ reputation and increase his political assets. Suetonius
illustrates the senate’s client-like concern for Augustus’ reputation by noting that they
would not accept his plan of sharing the consulship with two colleagues because they
already felt that satis maiestatem eius imminui, quod honorem eum non solus sed cum
altero gereret (“his dignity was diminished enough because he was holding this honor
not alone but with another,” Aug. 37.1).63
62
According to the LSJ, the noun ἐλευθερία can mean “manumission” (1.b).
63
It is interesting that while the senate stood firmly against the creation of a third consul, they did allow the
implementation of suffect consuls. While the addition of more consuls probably would have lowered the
amount of honor the consulship held, Suetonius seems to suggest that despite the increase in the number of
those holding the consulship in a year, the suffect consul still held more honor than a third yearly consul
would have, most likely because there had only been two consuls at any given time throughout Roman
history, yet suffect consuls had existed since the Early Republic. Cf. Liv. A.U.C. 2.2.3.
51
In a discussion of the admiration Augustus won for his services, Suetonius
includes an interesting remark:
Omitto senatus consulta, quia possunt videri vel necessitate

expressa vel verecundia. (Aug. 57.1)
I omit the decrees of the senate because they may seem to
have been expressed either by necessity or because of
reverence.
The fact that Suetonius admits that the decrees may have been inspired by a sense of
necessity suggests that there was some sort of amicitia relationship between the senate
and Augustus that would have required reciprocal actions between the two parties, which
the various examples of gift-giving discussed above (pp. 42–51) would have helped
fulfill. Suetonius omitted these because they were given because of duty, not affection,
and he was discussing the affection that existed for Augustus.
Augustus’ role as patron of the senate was also evident in his control over its
membership. He states in the Res Gestae that three times he revised the membership of
the senate (senatum ter legi, 8).64 While this could be seen as a means of preventing rivals
from gaining honor and power, it is important to recall Augustus’ selective clemency
towards his former enemies (discussed earlier, pp. 35–6).65 In fact, both Dio (52.42.1) and
Suetonius (Aug. 35.1) suggest that Augustus’ revisions of the senate were aimed at
returning the body, bloated during the civil wars by many men unworthy of senatorial
64
Using Dio (52.42.1, 54.13.1, 54.14.4) the first purge took place in 29 BCE and the two others in 18 BCE.
65
There must have been some tension between Augustus and the senate during the first, and possibly
second and third, purge, since the senators surely would have had in their minds Octavian’s single response
of “you must die” (moriendum esse, Suet. Aug. 15) to those who had fought against him in the Battle of
Perusia in 41-40 BCE, among other acts of distrust he committed during the triumvirate which had earned
him the hatred of the people (in eadem hac potestate multiplici flagrauit inuidia, Suet. Aug. 27.3)
52
honor, to its earlier size and esteem.66 By stating that the bloating came after the death of
Caesar, Suetonius may be relating Augustan propaganda that Antony and Lepidus were
the reason for all the unworthy senators. Dio (54.14.4) notes that during the final purging,
Augustus allowed the former senators who felt they were unjustifiably stricken from the
roll to continue to attend public events among the senators, to dress as senators, and to
run for public offices.67 He then relates that many of these men were able to work their
way back into the senate (Dio Cass. 54.14.5).68 Τhis process could be seen as a test of
these senators’ merits since Augustus would not have allowed anyone “unfit” to hold
office to have such an opportunity (Dio Cass. 53.21.7).69 Since Augustus had the final say
on who was fit or unfit to hold magistracies, this also could be viewed as an opportunity
and incentive for senators to assimilate into the new regime. In addition, the chance to
redeem their status would mean they owed their future social standing and political
relevance to Augustus, thus tying them even closer to the princeps. In the senatorial
purges, which, due to their original intent and employment, in themselves would have
promoted Augustus as the supervisor of the senate’s morality (the censor), we see again
Augustus’ patron-like concern for the well-being of the body as a whole.
66
Dio Cass. 52.42.1: πολλοὶ μὲν γὰρ ἱππῆς πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ πεζοὶ παρὰ τὴν ἀξίαν ἐκ τῶν ἐμφυλίων πολέμων
ἐβούλευον, ὥστε καὶ ἐς χιλίους τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς γερουσίας αὐξηθῆναι. Suet. Aug. 35.1: Senatorum
affluentem numerum deformi et incondita turba—erant enim super mille, et quidam indignissimi et post
necem Caesaris per gratiam et praemium adlecti, quos orciuos uulgus uocabat—ad modum pristinum et
splendorem redegit.
67
ἐπειδή τε πολλοὶ καὶ ὣς διεγεγράφατο, καί τινες αὐτὸν δι’ αἰτίας, οἷα ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ φιλεῖ συμβαίνειν, ὡς
καὶ ἀδίκως ἀπεληλαμένοι εἶχον, τότε τε αὐτοῖς καὶ συνθεάσασθαι καὶ συνεστιάσασθαι τοῖς βουλεύουσι, τῇ
αὐτῇ σκευῇ χρωμένοις, συνεχώρησε, καὶ ἐς τὸ ἔπειτα τὰς ἀρχὰς αἰτεῖν ἐπέτρεψε.
68
καὶ αυτῶν οἱ μὲν πλείους ἐπανῆλθον χρόνῳ ἐς τὸ συνέδριον.
69
τοὺς δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ δήμῳ τῷ τε ὁμίλῳ κατὰ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ποιούμενος ἐπεμελεῖτο ὅπως μήτ’ ἀνεπιτήδειοι
μήτ’ ἐκ παρακελεύσεως ἢ καὶ δεκασμοῦ ἀποδεικνύωνται.
53
Augustus’ patronage of the senate even extended to the point that the senate house
was called Julian and contained many items promoting Augustus. Dio notes that the
curia had been built by Caesar, but that it was Augustus who dedicated it (51.22.1).70 Yet
Augustus claimed that he built it (feci, RG 19). In the senate house hung a golden shield
enumerating his virtues (Aug. RG 34), among other things:71
ἐνέστησε δὲ ἐς αὐτὸ τὸ ἄγαλμα τὸ τῆς Νίκης τὸ καὶ νῦν ὄν,

δηλῶν, ὡς ἔοικεν, ὅτι παρ’ αὐτῆς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκτήσατο· ἦν
δὲ δὴ τῶν Ταραντίνων, καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ἐς τὴν Ῥώμην κομισθὲν
ἔν τε τῷ συνεδρίῳ ἱδρύθη καὶ Αἰγυπτίοις λαφύροις
ἐκοσμήθη. (Dio Cass. 51.22.1-2)
And in it he set up the statue of Victory, which still exists
now, indicating, as it seems, that he acquired his rule from
her; and indeed it was from Tarentum, and thence it was
brought into Rome and set in the senate house and adorned
with Egyptian spoils.72
Augustus also relates that the title of pater patriae given to him by the senate, the equites,
and the people was inscribed in the curia Iulia (RG 35).73 In fact, the very building in
which the senate convened acted as a constant reminder of Augustus’ patron-like
relationship with the senate: from benefactor (through his construction of the building), to
recipient of their reciprocal gifts (the golden shield), to protector (the statue of Victory
decked out in the spoils of one of Augustus’ signature victories), and even to father-like
figure74 (the inscription with the title pater patriae). As Haselberger (2007: 76) notes
70
τὸ βουλευτήριον τὸ Ἰουλίειον, τὸ ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ τιμῇ γενόμενον, καθιέρωσεν.
71
Cf. pp. 47–8 above.
72
The statue of Victory represented Augustus’ victory over Cleopatra, and indirectly over Antony, which
was made all the more clear by the spoils draping it. Cleopatra’s statue in the Forum Iulium surely would
have begun to serve as a reminder of Augustus’ visctory as well.
73
idque…inscribendum et in c[u]ria [Iulia]….
74
Miles (1986:23-4) notes that while the titles of pater or parens patriae should not be confused with the
epithets pater or parens, the Romans had a tradition of proclaiming a Roman hero who saved an army or
the life of a citizen as pater along with presenting them with the civica corona. He adds that “the first
occurrence of the actual phrase parens or pater patriae is in Cicero (Rab. perd. 27), who says that we can
54
about Augustus’ building projects within the forum, of which the curia was a major piece
(i.e. that he blurred the lines between what was Roman and what was Julian due to the
constant Julian images), here, too, it seems to have been true that in his relationship with
the senate, the lines between patron and client blurred until it was hard to distinguish
what was senatorial and what was Augustan.
E. Conclusion
Having learned firsthand from the example of his adoptive father of the negative
consequences of exhibiting power greater than that of the rest of the Roman elites,
Augustus instead moderated his overt displays of power through a traditional Roman
institution, a patron-client type of amicitia. By acting as a republican patron, Augustus
was able to exert and reinforce his position of authority in a way that was both acceptable
and familiar to the other elites, one that could defend the princeps against accusations
that he was attempting to become rex. While working diligently to portray himself as an
equal with the other members of the upper class, he aided them in acquiring many
honors, both old and new, in a manner consistent with that of a republican patron. He
thus shifted a fatal system of perpetual competition for political power into a safe contest
in which each individual attempted to tie himself to Augustus with bonds of reciprocal
obligation. In many cases these bonds took the form of personal loyalty. Although the
goal of this competition between elites was to bind oneself as close to Augustus as
truly call Marius, ‘patrem patriae, parentem…vestrae libertatis atque huiusce rei publicae,’ but falls short
of an unambiguous assertion that Marius ever received such titles” (23-4). He then further notes that Cicero
received the title after stopping the conspiracy of Catiline and Caesar was granted it in 45 or 44 BCE. It is
also interesting and not coincidental to note that in his history, Livy describes Romulus as parens urbis
(1.16.3) and Camillus, whom he felt was a second founder of Rome, as parens patriae (5.49.7). Augustus’
associations with Romulus will be discussed later (p. 82, 84).
55
possible and receive the most honor possible, Augustus was careful not to exclude from
honors members of the Roman elite other than his intimates, even allowing certain former
enemies of his to obtain offices and other beneficia.
Augustus also expanded his use of patronage to include the senate as a corporate
client. While many of the honors he received through senatorial decrees may have been
introduced by those among, or hoping to join his intimates, Augustus also portrayed
himself as a patron-like figure to the body of the senate. Through the reciprocal
exchanges between the senate and himself he was able to gain political powers, honors,
and auctoritas. The gathering of these traditional means of power and authority, along
with the loyalty and stability gained from his amicitia with individual members of the
senatorial and equestrian classes, aided Augustus in solidifying his position as princeps
of the Roman state.

56
III. THE ROMAN PLEBS
The Roman plebs presented a different set of challenges for Augustus. With the
individual Roman elites Augustus had to present himself as an equal and partner
(especially with the senators), but with the plebs Augustus had to promote the image that
he was their protector, concerned for their well-being.75 As with the upper class,
Augustus used the elements of traditional patronage to attach the lower class to him; this
would have helped keep the senators in check by both limiting the number of possible
supporters available to the other elites and warning these elites that an attack on the
princeps would entail hostility from the people.76 In order to promote his image as both a
partner with the senate and a champion of the people, Augustus adopted powers that had
symbolic significance for the members of the lower class.77 His promotion of himself as a
princeps with tribunicia potestas, combined with his great gifts to the people, allowed
Augustus to foster successfully a positive relationship with the Roman plebs along the
model of a republican patron.
A. Web of Patronage
Before examining Augustus’ promotion of himself as a protector, it is important
to note that the coercion he applied to members of the upper class may have helped the
75
This role as protector is similar to the patron-protégé relationship Augustus held with the senate as a
corporate client (pp.42–5).
76
While Julius Caesar certainly was loved by the people, Yavetz (1969: 55) argues that due to constant
campaigning Caesar did not have enough time to lay a proper foundation for his regime. Yavetz (1969: 92;
1984: 11) also presents a more detailed description of how Augustus was able to dissuade senators from
attacking him. There also was the history of figures like Clodius and Milo who used their clients as thugs
which certainly would have made the idea of hostility from the plebs conceivable.
77
Yavetz (1969: 78) citing Appian (BC 3.47) illustrates the fact that one could risk the good will of the
people by working with the senate, as Octavian did against Antony in 44 BCE.
57
princeps gain the favor of the plebs. As Veyne (1992: 250) notes, at the end of the
Republic there were great opportunities to develop extensive clienteles by manipulating
the plebs. Augustus seized this opportunity through his reworking of Rome’s
administrative system. Of the offices created by Augustus which Suetonius (Aug. 37.1)
mentions, those dealing with public works (curam operum publicorum), the roads
(viarum), the aqueducts (aquarum), and the distribution of grain to the people (frumenti
populo dividundi) would have been especially important for the well-being of the
people.78 Augustus would have received credit as the creator of these positions concerned
with the public interest, which in itself was an act of largesse.
Augustus, in his reorganization of the administration, also continued to promote
the traditional offices of the cursus honorum, even though the powers associated with
these offices had been greatly reduced.79 Syme (1956: 383) notes that those attaining
office at this time would then have offered patronage and also adds that some, such as
Tiberius, would have inherited preexisting, built up personal followings.80 As Saller
(1982: 75) explains, these networks of patronage established a system where senators and
leading equites could work as brokers dispensing Augustus’ beneficia to others and thus
increasing the number of people who owed direct and indirect loyalty to him. This
78
The potential for gaining a clientele from these positions, especially the officials in charge of grain, is
evident in the great number of followers obtained by Gaius Gracchus in 123 BCE (Plut. C. Gracch. 5.2)
and Clodius in 58 BCE (Dio Cass. 38.13.1) from their management of the grain supply. Saller (1982: 130)
also notes that equestrian officials often were able to assign those who worked under them.
79
I.e. the maintenance of public buildings no longer belonged exclusively to the aediles; Augustus holding
maius imperium over the consuls and proconsuls; etc.
80
Syme mentions specifically those achieving the consulate, but other positions, such as the aedileship,
despite the reduction of power, would have opened many opportunities for patronage as well, as is shown
by Caesar’s gain in popularity during his term as aedile in 65 BCE due to his building and games (Suet. Iul.
10.2). Furthermore, as with the equestrian officials, senatorial magistrates often selected their own
subordinate officers, which allowed them to confer their own beneficia onto others (Saller 1982: 130).
58
distribution of quasi-imperial power to brokers also would have bound these members of
the upper class more closely to Augustus (Saller 1982: 75).
This idea of a system of brokerage seems to conflict with Yavetz’s (1969: 96–7)
notion that “there was a clear conflict between [Augustus’] influence and the patronage
exercised by individual senators,” and thus that Augustus would have attempted to
minimize the senators’ clienteles. Yavetz sees no other reason behind Augustus limitation
on the manumission of slaves than to obstruct aristocratic senators from having vast
numbers of clients. Yavetz (1969: 97) abruptly concludes: “Augustus succeeded in
curbing the influence of all who attempted to obtain clients in one way or another from
the common people.” Augustus certainly would have wanted to weaken the client base of
hostile or indifferent members of the upper class (if he could not usurp it); indeed, the
implementation of a brokerage system would have promoted the patronage of those
individual senators and equites most loyal to him. This would have further enforced the
point that loyalty to Augustus was now the best way for elites to gain status and power,
and having a large clientele was an indicator of this status and power. This practice also
would have helped bind the common people to the princeps through indirect loyalty,
which, as Yavetz (1969: 96) notes, was one of Augustus’ main goals. Furthermore,
Temin (2004: 531) has argued that while the proportion of slaves a master could
emancipate was lowered by Augustus, this actually reinforced the structure of a system
that was supposed to reward only the best slaves with citizenship.81 Indeed, Suetonius
says as much:
81
This limitation was set by the lex Fufia Caninia in 2 BCE.
59
Magni praeterea existimans sincerum atque ab omni

colluvione peregrine ac servilis sanguinis incorruptum
servare populum, et civitatem Romanam parcissime dedit,
et manumittendi modum terminavit. (Aug. 40.3)
Moreover, thinking it very important to keep the [Roman]
people pure from all foreign filth and unspoiled from
servile blood, he [Augustus] both very rarely awarded
Roman citizenship and limited the extent of manumission.
For Suetonius, Augustus’ control over how many slaves could be emancipated served as
a form of protection of traditional Roman status, not as a method of reducing the number
of clients attached to members of the upper class.
The concept of gaining the favor of the masses through loyalty owed from and to
men with great auctoritas among the plebs was neither initiated by Augustus nor
restricted only to members of the senatorial and equestrian orders. While advising his
brother, Marcus, on how to be elected as consul, Quintus Tullius Cicero writes:82
Deinde habeto rationem urbis totius, collegiorum,

montium, pagorum, vicinitatum; ex his principes ad
amicitiam tuam si adiunxeris, per eos reliquam
multitudinem facile tenebis (Cicero Comment. pet. 30). 83
Next consider the plan of the whole city, the organizations,
the hills, the districts, the neighborhoods; if you join the
prominent men from these places to you in friendship,
through them you will hold the remaining crowd easily.
Earlier in this letter, Quintus explains the role prominent men could play in gaining
popular favor for the candidate:
82
Tullius Cicero’s authorship of this work is doubted (“Tullius Cicero (1), Quintus,”
OCD).
83
Saller (1982: 15) argues that a patronage relationship can be assumed when amicitia is the term used to
describe the connection between men of different classes.
60
Sunt enim quidam homines in suis vicinitatibus et

municipiis gratiosi, sunt diligentes et copiosi qui, etiam si
antea non studerunt huic gratiae, tamen ex tempore
elaborare eius causa cui debent aut volunt facile possunt.
(Cicero Comment. pet. 24) 84
For there are certain men, popular in their neighborhoods
and their towns who are attentive and prosperous. Even if
they have not applied their influence before, nevertheless
they easily are able to work immediately for someone to
whom they are indebted and favorable.
As Lott (2004: 99) notes, the neighborhood associations reorganized by Augustus in 7
BCE played an integral role in the coopting of the urban plebs. Augustus’ control over
these associations would have been accomplished through the elected officials of the
neighborhoods, the magistri vici. 85 Lott (2004: 82) also argues that these reforms would
have provided both a real and symbolic line of vertical communication between the plebs
and the princeps, and that much of Augustus’ intent in enacting the neighborhood
reforms was to strengthen his standing with the plebs while also weakening their political
power by dividing the city into a compartmentalized structure that “prevented any
collective action” (2004: 118). Both this line of communication between the princeps and
plebs and his control over the way the neighborhoods were arranged suggest Augustus’
status as a patron of the people.
As was the case with certain senators and equites, the magistri vici would have
been indebted to Augustus because he allowed them to gain status through holding
administrative positions. The patron-like role of these officers was made visible by the
84
This passage clearly expresses the reciprocal nature of the relationship between the politician and local
prominent men, thus suggesting a patron-client relationship.
85
The neighborhood reforms of 7 BCE discarded the existing four districts of Rome and instead divided up
the city into fourteen districts (Lott 2004: 81).
61
fact that these officials performed on a local level the same acts of giving gifts in return
for loyalty that Augustus was implementing across the entire empire. In fact, most of the
monuments and decorations of Rome’s neighborhoods were not funded by the imperial
family but by the magistri vici themselves (Lott 2004: 101). The interconnection between
Augustus and these neighborhood officials is evident in the monuments of their
neighborhoods. The civic crown and laurels (see above, pp. 47–8) were key visual images
on every compital altar. These images linked the altars not only to Augustan ideology,
but also perhaps to the princeps’ residence on the Palatine, and thus making the emperor
a symbolic resident of each neighborhood (Lott 2004: 121). Lott (2004: 124) also notes
that the clustering of compital dedications chronologically in 2 BCE, the year in which
Augustus received the title of pater patriae and dedicated the temple to Mars Ultor in his
forum, indicates that the neighborhoods, and by extension the officers who funded the
monuments, wished for their monuments to be connected with events that were important
to Augustus. We, for example, see that L. Lucretius Zethus, a magister vici from a
neighborhood on the northern part of the Campus Martius, dedicated an altar in 1 CE to
the same gods whom Augustus had celebrated in his Ludi Saeculares of 17 BCE (the
Fates, the godess of childbirth, Mother Earth, Jupiter, Juno, Apollo, and Diana (Galinsky
1996: 102)),86 an event conducted not far from the magister’s neighborhood (Lott 2004:
124). These demonstrations of the relationship between Augustus, the magistri vici, and
Rome’s neighborhoods would have benefitted the princeps in two ways: first, the
neighborhood officers would have expressed their loyalty to Augustus, further
86
Galinsky (1996: 102) notes that the gods being celebrated in Augustus’ Ludi Saeculares replaced the
gods who had been celebrated in past Saecular Games: Pluto and Proserpina.
62
reinforcing the idea that one obtained social status through him; second, Augustus’
accomplishments and agenda would have been promoted to the masses by the most
influential men around them. This in turn could have created a ripple effect that enhanced
the emperor’s achievements and influence in a more immediate way.
B. The Promotion of Tribunicia Potestas
In order for Augustus to gain the favor of the plebs, he had to convince them that
he was acting as their protector. Both Yavetz (1969: 57) and Veyne (1992: 255), among
others, have noted that Augustus strove to be seen as working for the people’s well-being.
One of Augustus’ methods for presenting himself as a patron of the plebs was to
emphasize the tribunician power which he had obtained. While discussing Tiberius’
request to have the senate grant tribunician power to Drusus, Tacitus notes that to
Augustus this potestas was summi fastigii vocabulum (“the designation for the supreme
dignity”) because it allowed the first emperor to have a title other than rex or dictator that
expressed his power over the other authorities (ne regis aut dictatoris nomen adsumeret
ac tamen appellatione aliqua cetera imperia praemineret, Ann. 3.56). Augustus even
used the acquisition of this power as a dating mechanism. Indeed, after Augustus
received the tribunician power in 23 BCE, he relinquished his position as consul, an
office he had held successively since 31 BCE, to L. Sestius.87 In fact, the princeps only
sought the consulship twice more in his life: in 5 BCE and 2 BCE, the years in which he
introduced his adopted sons, Gaius and Lucius, into the senate and gave them other
87
The former supporter of Brutus (See above, p. 36).
63
important honors including the title principes iuventutis (Dio 55.9.9–10).88 The freeing up
of the consulship for other senators certainly would have prevented jealousy among the
other members of the senate, but the true strength of the tribunicia potestas was its sway
over the plebs. Yavetz (1984: 8) asserts that Augustus used the dignity and tradition of
the tribunicia potestas to emphasize his role as the champion of the people.89 Yavetz
(1969: 94) also expresses the idea that Augustus became the sole leader of the plebs
through his tribunician power, displacing the actual tribunes in the process.
How and why did this power have such standing? This lies in the origins of the
office itself. The plebeian tribunes were created during the First Secession traditionally
dated to 494 BCE. With the Volsci marching on Rome Livy, writing in the time of
Augustus, tells us:
fremebant se foris pro libertate et imperio dimicantes domi

a civibus captos et oppressos esse, tutioremque in bello
quam in pace et inter hostis quam inter civis libertatem
plebis esse. (Liv. A.U.C. 2.23.2)
They [the plebs] were complaining that while fighting for
liberty and empire abroad, they were enslaved and
oppressed by fellow-citizens and that the freedom of the
plebs was safer in war among the enemies than in peace
among their fellow-citizens.
While the plebs were convinced to fight and defeated the Volsci as well as the Sabines,
the senate’s hesitation to disband the army because of fear that the plebs would again
88
τῷ δ’ ἐφεξῆς ἔτει δωδέκατον ὑπατεύων ὁ Αὔγουστος εἰς τοὺς ἐφήβους τὸν Γάιον ἔταξε καὶ ἐς τὸ
βουλευτήριον ἅμα εἰσήγαγε καὶ πρόκριτον ἀπέφηνε τῆς νεότητος ἴλαρχόν τε φυλῆς γενέσθαι ἐπέτρεψε.
[The text from the rest of 5 BCE until 2 BCE is missing] καὶ μετ’ ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ ὁ Λούκιος τὰς τιμὰς ὅσαι
τῷ Γαΐῳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἐδέδοντο ἔλαβεν.
89
Here Yavetz clarifies that he is reiterating Dessau’s (1929: 278) view.
64
agitate convinced the plebs to secede (Liv. A.U.C. 2.32.1).90 Livy writes that the
secession ended thus:
Agi deinde de concordia coeptum concessumque in

condiciones, ut plebi sui magistratus essent sacrosancti,
quibus auxilii latio adversus consules esset, neve cui
patrum capere eum magistratum liceret. (Liv. A.U.C.
2.33.1)
Then a motion for reconciliation was initiated on the
conditions that the plebs would have their own sacrosanct
magistrates, who would be able to protect [the plebs] from
the consuls, and no patrician would be allowed to hold this
office.
From this beginning the tribunes served as strong advocates for plebeian rights, such as in
445 BCE when C. Canuleius and his colleagues both passed a plebiscitum that allowed
intermarriage between plebs and patricians and strove to have one of the consuls elected
from the plebeians (Liv. A.U.C. 4.1.1–2).91
Livy is not the only author who notes the role of the plebeian tribune as a
protector of the plebs. In chapter sixteen of book six of his Histories, Polybius, writing in
the second century BCE, discusses how the Roman people, so as not to be abused by the
patricians, limited the power of the senate. One of their main instruments in doing so was
the tribune of the plebs and his veto power. Importantly, Polybius also notes the
following: ὀφείλουσι δ᾽ ἀεὶ ποιεῖν οἱ δήμαρχοι τὸ δοκοῦν τῷ δήμῳ καὶ μάλιστα

90
Timor inde patres incessit, ne, si dimissus exercitus foret, rursus coetus occulti coniurationesque fierent.
Itaque, quamquam per dictatorem dilectus habitus esset, tamen, quoniam in consulum verba iurassent,
sacramento teneri militem rati, per causam renovati ab Aequis belli educi ex urbe legiones iussere. Quo
facto maturata est seditio.
91
nam principio anni et de conubio patrum et plebis C. Canuleius tribunus plebis rogationem promulgavit,
qua contaminari sanguinem suum patres confundique iura gentium rebantur, et mentio primo sensim inlata
a tribunis, ut alterum ex plebe consulem liceret fieri, eo processit deinde, ut rogationem novem tribuni
promulgarent, ut populo potestas esset, seu de plebe seu de patribus vellet, consules faciendi. Cf. Cic. Rep.
2.63 and Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 11.53.
65
στοχάζεσθαι τῆς τούτου βουλήσεως (“the tribunes always are bound to do the will of the
people and most of all to strive to accomplish their wishes,” 6.16.5). Kondratieff (2003:
272) has noted that there are numerous historical examples of tribunes responding
directly to expressions of popular will.92 Four tribunes were even honored with statues for
their popular service during their terms in office: Ti. Gracchus (133 BCE), G. Gracchus
(123/2 BCE), P. Clodius Pulcher (58 BCE), and L. Antonius Pietas (44 BCE)
(Kondratieff 2003: 309).93 It should be noted that these four all served their terms in the
Late Republic, when the power and populatrity of the office reached new levels. As
Yavetz (1969: 41) has argued, citing Cicero (De leg. agr. 2.10) and Plutarch (C. Gracch.
18.2), no one would speak badly of the Gracchi after their deaths because the people were
so devoted to them that they sanctified the places where they were murdered and would
make pilgrimages to these sites and their statues as if they were temples to the gods or
heroes. While these men were certainly exceptional with respect to the honors they
received, nevertheless, the power of their office as well as its connection to the will of the
people would have been evident to all Romans. The power of the office also would
become politically significant for Augustus.
Indeed, precisely because of this standing and political potestas, Augustus favored
the tribunician power over any other magistracy or power available (Yavetz 1969: 56). In
the Res Gestae Augustus mentions his possession of this power:
92
Kondratieff (2003: 275) further adds that this requirement that populares tribunes be adaptable to the
mood of the people indicates a reciprocal nature in their relationship: from doing the will of the people the
tribunes were rewarded with the people’s loyalty.
93
These popular tribunes were all controversial figures of the Late Republic, as evidenced by the hostile
accounts given by Velleius Paterculus of Ti. Gracchus (2.2–3), C. Gracchus (2.5–7), Clodius (2.45), and L.
Antonius (2.74).
66
[Consul f]ueram terdeciens cum [scribeb]a[m] haec, [et

eram se]p[timum et t]ricen[simu]m tribuniciae potestatis
(Aug. RG 4).
When I was writing this I had been consul thirteen times,
and I was [the possessor] of tribunician power for thirty-
seven years.94
The fact that this power is mentioned along with the highest office of the traditional
cursus honorum indicates how important it was to Augustus. The most important position
for the senatorial order is juxtaposed with the most important power for the plebs. The
position of this section early in the Res Gestae, as well as its function as a transition from
Augustus’ early military career to the administrative positions held and declined by him,
also indicate that the princeps believed his rule rested upon his terms as consul from 31–
23 BCE and upon the tribunicia potestas he held from 23 BCE until his death.
Augustus’ high estimation of the tribunician power is perhaps more evident later
in the Res Gestae:
[Consulibus M(arco) V]in[icio et Q(uinto) Lucretio] et

postea P(ublio) Lentulo et Cn(aeo) L[entulo et terti]um
[Paullo Fabio Maximo] e[t Q(uinto) Tuberone senatu
populoq]u[e Romano consentientibus] ut cu[rator legum et
morum summa potestate solus crearer, nullum magistratum
contra morem maiorum delatum recepi. Quae tum per me
geri senatus] v[o]luit, per trib[un]ici[a]m p[otestatem
perfeci, cuius potes]tatis conlegam et [ips]e ultro
[quinquiens a sena]tu [de]poposci et accepi (Aug. RG 6).
While Marcus Vinicius and Quintus Lucretius were consuls
[19 BCE], and later when Publius Lentulus and Gnaeus
Lentulus were consuls [18 BCE], and thirdly when Paullus
Fabius Maximus and Quintus Tubero were consuls [11
BCE], although the senate and Roman people were
agreeing that I should be made sole overseer of the laws
94
This is an example of Augustus using the tribunician power as a dating mechanism (see above, p. 63)
67
and customs with supreme power, I received no magistracy

offered against ancestral custom. The things which the
senate wanted me to do then, I completed through
tribunician power, and I, on my own initiative, requested
and accepted a colleague from the senate to share this
power five times.
This passage illustrates that there was really no need for Augustus to assume any special
position or power since he already had all the potestas he needed.95 It should further be
noted that, while Augustus promoted his tribunician power, he also limited the political
power of the office itself by his acquisition of the power and by making the office a
stepping-stone to higher offices for equestrians (Yavetz 1969: 95-6). Augustus’ ability to
both hold this power and decrease the trust of the plebs for those in the actual office
despite his status as a patrician is also remarkable. There may, however, have been a
precedent for a patrician holding the tribunicia potestas. Citing Dio (42.20.3), Livy (Per.
116), and Appian (BC. 2.106), Yavetz (1969: 54–55) has argued that around 48 Caesar
had the equivalent of tribunician power. There also was the case of Clodius who, opposite
to Augustus, was patrician by birth and plebeian by adoption so that he could become the
tribune of the plebs (Cic. Dom. 35).96 Even if Augustus was the first patrician to obtain
this power, his popularity and gifts would have made his acquisition of it more palatable
to the Roman plebs due to its appearance of guarding the wellbeing of the plebs. He was
able, however, to avoid problems due to his patrician status. By making the office another
95
While emphasizing the strength of Augustus’ tribunician power, it is important to note that this passage
also attempts not to alienate the senators by illustrating Augustus’ practice of not accepting any exceptional
honors and by stating that Augustus was performing the senate’s will and sharing the power. He also shared
the power of the censor when he purged the senate (RG. 8).
96
Quid? sacra Clodiae gentis cur intereunt, quod in te est? Quae omnis notio pontificum, cum adoptarere1,
esse debuit: nisi forte ex te ita quaesitum est, num perturbare2 rem publicam seditionibus velles et ob eam
causam adoptari, non ut eius filius esses, sed ut tribunus plebis fieres et funditus everteres civitatem.
respondisti, credo, te ita velle. Pontificibus bona causa visa est.
68
rung on the cursus, Augustus further tied to himself members or potential members of the
senatorial order because of the political opportunities he provided them. More
importantly, he promoted himself as the true protector of the people, since those who
attained the actual office of tribune of the plebs were now striving to be members of the
body from which the plebs needed protection, the senate.
C. Gifts to the People
It would be wrong to assume that all those who had held the office of tribune of
the plebs were viewed as patrons of the common people. What made Augustus different
from the others, however, was the grand scale in which Augustus could act and the
number of gifts he could give to the people. Veyne (1992: 215) notes that in republican
Rome, largesses were given to the people by those seeking office and in return the people
gave their support in the elections. These gifts symbolized the fact that the patron’s
authority rested on the condition that both parties would benefit (Veyne 1992: 216). Both
Syme (1956: 379-80) and Veyne (1992: 233) have discussed Augustus’ use of his huge
fortune to provide gifts to the people. Veyne adds that this wealth allowed Augustus to
run the state as a patron; he (1992: 256) also notes that the expense figures in the Res
Gestae are very precise and more like a bookkeeper’s notes than a report on state
expenses. Two examples of these figures are the list of distributions Augustus claims to
have given to the people in Res Gestae 15 (see below, p. 72) and the 600,000,000, the
260,000,000, and the 400,000,000 sesterces Augustus speaks of in RG 16.97 Veyne (1992:
97
ea [s]u[mma s]estertium circiter sexsiens milliens fuit quam [p]ro Italicis praedis numeravi, et ci[r]citer
bis mill[ie]ns et sescentiens quod pro agris provincialibus solvi … milit[i]bus quos emeriteis stipendis in
sua municipi[a dedux]i praem[i]a numerato persolvi, quam in rem sestertium quater milliens cir[cite]r
impendi.
69
256) writes that in the Res Gestae “Augustus is not speaking as a head of state proud of
the public expenditure he has ordered, but as a patron of the state proud of the largesse98
he has made to the people or the state from his private fortune.”99 Veyne does have an
argument that Augustus is acting more as a patron than a head of state. After all,
Augustus clearly states there that he aided the treasury four times from his own money
(quarter [pe]cunia mea iuvi aerarium, RG 17) as well as supported the military fund
from his own resources (HS milliens et septing[e]nti[ens ex pa]t[rim]onio [m]eo detuli,
RG 17).
While Yavetz (1969: 42) is correct in rejecting the idea that popularity with the
masses could only be obtained through acts of largesse and accepting the view that the
urban plebs would have supported one supplier of gifts over others (43), it is important to
remember the points made by Syme (1956: 379-80) and Veyne (1992: 233) concerning
Augustus’ massive fortune and the fact that Augustus was presenting himself as a
protector of the people using his tribunician power. Even with Yavetz’s cautions in mind
about the effectiveness of gifts to the plebs, Dio’s Maecenas’ advice to Octavian, after
telling the princeps that he should decline excessive honors from the senate or anybody
else, does show that good deeds, which could be seen as beneficia, played an important
part in winning the favor of the people:
τήν τε οὖν ἄλλην λαμπρότηα σαυτῷ διὰ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἔργων

παρασκεύαζε, καὶ εἰκόνας σου χρυσᾶς μὲν ἢ καὶ ἀργυρᾶς
μηδέποτε ἐπιτρέψῃς γενέσθαι (οὐ γὰρ μόνον δαπανηραὶ
This is Veyne’s emphasis.

98
Veyne is clearly rejecting Mommsen’s (1887: 998) notion that the fiscus was the private property of the
99
emperor and that, because of this, the state belonged to the princeps.
70
ἀλλὰ καὶ εὐεπιβούλευτοι καὶ ὀλιγοχρόνιοί εἰσιν), ἄλλας δὲ

ἐν αὐταῖς ταῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ψυχαῖς καὶ ἀκηράτους καὶ
ἀθανάτους ἐξ εὐεργεσιῶν δημιούργει. (Dio Cass. 52.35.3)
And prepare another splendor for yourself through your
good deeds, and never allow gold or silver images of you to
be made (for they are not only expensive but also
treachery-inducing and short-lived) but fabricate other pure
and eternal images in the minds themselves of men with
your good services.
Whether or not this advice was actually given to Augustus, he did take this course of
action and attempted to gain the favor of the plebs through the granting of largesses, both
ad hoc (money, favorable laws, good deeds, etc.) and monumental (buildings, statues,
etc.).
One of the most conspicuous methods of granting largesses employed by
Augustus was the giving of monetary gifts. Suetonius treats the subject:
Liberalitatem omnibus ordinibus per occasiones frequenter

exhibuit…. Congiaria populo frequenter dedit, sed diuersae
fere summae; modo quadringenos, modo trecenos,
nonnumquam ducenos quinquagenosque nummos. (Suet.
Aug. 41.1–2).
He [Augustus] displayed generosity to all classes on many
occasions…. He gave handouts frequently to the people,
but they were usually different amounts; sometimes 400
sesterces, sometimes 300, and sometimes 250.
Suetonius (Aug. 101.2) also records that Augustus left 40 million sesterces in his will to
the Roman people.100 Although this amount was disbursed throughout many groups such
as the Praetorian Guard and soldiers, 3.5 million was allotted to the tribes and thus the
Roman plebs. Augustus also discusses his gifts in the Res Gestae:
legauit populo R. quadringenties, tribubus tricies quinquies sestertium, praetorianis militibus singula
100
milia nummorum, cohortibus urbanis quingenos, legionaris trecenos nummos….

71
Plebei Romanae viritim HS trecenos numeravi ex

testamento patris mei et nomine meo HS quadringenos ex
bellorum manibiis consul quintum dedi, iterum autem in
consulatu decimo ex [p]atrimonio meo HS quadringenos
congiari viritim pernumer[a]vi, et consul undecimum
duodecim frumentationes frumento pr[i]vatim coempto
emensus sum, et tribunicia potestate duodecimum
quadringenos nummos tertium viritim dedi. Quae mea
congiaria p[e]rvenerunt ad [homi]num millia numquam
minus quinquaginta et ducenta. Tribuniciae potestatis
duodevicensimum, consul XII, trecentis et viginti millibus
plebis urbanae sexagenos denarios viritim dedi.… Consul
tertium dec[i]mum sexagenos denarios plebei quae tum
frumentum publicum accipieba[t] dedi; ea millia hominum
paullo plura quam ducenta fuerunt. (Aug. RG 15)
To each of the Roman plebs I paid 300 sesterces in

accordance with the will of my father and in my own name
when in my fifth consulship [29 BCE] I gave 400 sesterces
from the spoils of wars, and again I paid out 400 sesterces
from my inheritance in my tenth consulship [24 BCE] to
each man as a gift, and when consul the eleventh time [23
BCE] after buying grain privately I distributed twelve
rations of grain, and in my twelfth year with tribunician
power [12 BCE] I gave 400 sesterces a third time. These
gifts of mine never reached fewer than 250,000 men.
During my eighteenth year with tribunician power and my
twelfth consulship [5 BCE] I gave 60 denarii each to
320,000 urban plebs…. When I was consul my thirteenth
time [2BCE] I gave 60 denarii to the plebs who were then
receiving public grain rations; this group was a little larger
than 200,000 men.101
Besides the many examples of monetary largesse displayed in this chapter,
Augustus also mentions another source of economic aid he offered to the common
people: the control of the grain supply. Augustus certainly understood the importance of
grain for the common people. For example, in 28 BCE when he was celebrating his
victory at Actium, as part of the festivities “he distributed to the populace quadruple the
101
It should be noted that all of these recipients may have been different groups of plebs.
72
[normal allowance of] grain” (τῷ πλήθει τετραπλάσιον τὸν σῖτον ἔνειμε, Dio Cass.
53.2.1). Both Dio (55.26.3) and Suetonius (Aug. 40.2) record that Augustus sold grain at
a low price or gave it out for free during times of shortage, 102 and Augustus himself
proudly declared:
[Non sum] depreca[tus] in s[umma f]rum[enti p]enuria

curationem an[non]ae, [qu]am ita ad[min]ist[ravi, ut intra]
die[s] paucos metu et periclo praesenti civitatem
univ[ersam liberarem impensa et] cura mea. (Aug. RG 5)
I did not refuse the management of the grain supply during

a very great shortage [22 BCE], and I managed it in such a
way that I freed the entire city from fear and present danger
within a few days because of my expenditure and attention.
Dio also describes that during the grain crisis in 22 BCE, the Roman people asked
Augustus to become dictator and the superintendent of the grain (ὁ ἐπιμελητὴς τοῦ
σίτου). While he declined the dictatorship, the princeps created a system of grain
distribution that was run by two ex-praetors instead of him being curator (54.1.3–4).103
Even after the creation of this system Augustus would hand out grain in times of need:
[Ab illo anno q]uo Cn(aeus) et P(ublius) Lentuli c[ons]ules

fuerunt, cum deficerent [ve]ct[i]g[alia, tum] centum milibus
h[omi]num tum pluribus multo frume[ntarios et
n]umma[rio]s t[ributus ex horr]eo et patr[i]monio m[e]o
edidi. (Aug. RG 18)
From the year in which Gnaeus and Publius Lentulus were
consuls [18 BCE], when the [public] revenues were
deficient, I gave grain rations and sesterces taken from my
102
Dio Cass. 55.26.3: ἐπέδωκε μὲν γὰρ καὶ προῖκα ὁ Αὔγουστος τοῖς σιτοδοτουμένοις τοσοῦτον ἕτερον
ὅσον ἀεὶ ἐλάμβανον. Suet. Aug. 40.2: ac ne plebs frumentationum causa frequentius ab negotiis
auocaretur, ter in annum quaternum mensium tesseras dare destinauit; sed desideranti consuetudinem
ueterem concessit rursus, ut sui cuiusque mensis acciperet.
103
καὶ ὃς τοῦτο μὲν ἀναγκαίως ἐδέξατο, καὶ ἐκέλευσε δύο ἄνδρας τῶν πρὸ πέντε του ἀεὶ ἐτῶν.
ἐστρατηγηκότων πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σίτου διανομὴν κατ’ ἔτος αἱρεῖσθαι, τὴν δὲ δικτατορίαν οὐ προσήκατο.
73
granary and estate, sometimes to 100,000 men, sometimes

to many more.
These gifts both of money and grain to the city of Rome as well as other good deeds such
as cancelling all state debts accumulated before Actium (Dio Cass. 53.2.3)104 and making
baths and barbers free to the people on certain days (Dio Cass. 54.25.4) all promoted
Augustus as being concerned for the common people’s financial well-being.105
As Brunt (1988: 439) notes, clients expected protection from their patrons in their
relations with other people. Indeed, some of Augustus’ administrative actions could have
been viewed as acts of patronage to the common people since they were implemented to
protect the inhabitants of the city. Suetonius suggests that the reason for Augustus’
cancellation of public debts was not just a matter of financial protection, but also a matter
of judicial protection, since these debts were a major cause of false accusations at law
(praecipuam materia calumniandi, Aug. 32.2). The forms of protection Augustus granted
the city also took a more physical form. After some roads had become unsafe due to
bandits and slave traders who would capture travelers and sell them as slaves, Augustus
grassaturas dispositis per oportuna loca stationibus inhibuit, ergastula recognouit
(“curbed those would-be attackers with guard stations distributed throughout the affected
areas, and he inspected the slave workhouses,” Suet. Aug. 32.1). After fires destroyed
parts of the city in 6 CE, he created a division of night watchmen to protect the city from
104
Julius Caesar also made use of the grain dole despite lowering the number on it (Suet. Iul. 41.3) and
dealt with debt as well (Suet. Iul. 42.2).
105
Dio Cass. 53.2.3: καὶ τὰς ἐγγύας τὰς πρὸς τὸ δημόσιον πρὸ τῆς πρὸς τῷ Ἀκτίῳ μάχης γενομένας, πλὴν
τῶν περὶ τὰ οἰκοδομήματα, ἀπήλλαξε, τά τε παλαιὰ συμβόλαια τῶν τῷ κοινῷ τι ὀφειλόντων ἔκαυσε. Dio
Cass. 54.25.4: τῷ τε δήμῳ προῖκα τά τε λουτρὰ καὶ τοὺς κουρέας τὴν ἡμέραν ἐκείνην παρέσχε.
74
fires (Dio Cass. 55.26.4–5).106 While the protection offered by these reforms was not as
personal as if each plebeian’s patron had offered to help, the road guards and vigiles
would have had a wider range of protection than if they had relied on a personal patron.
These actions also would have made it clear that Augustus was willing to offer protective
benefits for all of the Roman people in return for their devotion.
Augustus also provided many shows and other forms of entertainment to the
Roman plebs. He completely devotes chapter twenty-two of the Res Gestae to describing
the games he put on for the people: he staged gladiatorial games three times in his own
name and five times in the names of his sons or grandsons. These featured a total of
around 10,000 fighting men. He also twice presented athletic games on behalf of himself
and three times for his grandson.107 Augustus also adds that he produced ludi four times
in his own name and twenty-three times on behalf of other magistrates, and continues as
follows:
[Pr]o conlegio XV virorum magis[ter con]legii collega

M(arco) Agrippa lud[os s]aeclares C(aio) Furnio C(aio)
Silano co(n)s(ulibus) [feci.108 C]onsul XIII ludos
Mar[tia]les pr[imus fec]i quos p[ost i]d tempus deinceps
ins[equen]ti[bus] annis [s(enatus) c(onsulto) et lege
fe]cerunt consules. [Ven]ation[es] best[ia]rum Africanarum
meo nomine aut filio[ru]m meorum et nepotum in ci[r]co
aut in foro aut in amphitheatris popul[o d]edi sexiens et
viciens, quibus confecta sunt bestiarum circiter tria m[ill]ia
et quingentae (Aug. RG 22).
106
ἐπειδή τε ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ πολλὰ τῆς πόλεως πυρὶ διεφθάρη, ἄνδρας τε ἐξελευθέρους ἑπταχῇ πρὸς
τὰς ἐπικουρίας αὐτῆς κατελέξατο, καὶ ἄρχοντα ἱππέα αὐτοῖς προσέταξεν, ὡς καὶ δι’ ὀλίγου σφᾶς διαλύσων.
οὐ μέντοι καὶ ἐποίησε τοῦτο.
107
See pp. 22–3.
108
Augustus’ position as the leader of the college that guarded the Sibylline Books would have allowed him
access to the books and to exert influence on how to interpret what was the best course for Rome.
75
On behalf of the college of fifteen, as leader (of this

college), I produced the Ludi Saeculares with Marcus
Agrippa as my colleague in the consulship of Gaius Furnius
and Gaius Silanus [17 BCE]. During my thirteenth
consulship [2 BCE] I was the first to present Ludi
Martiales, which after this time successively in the
following years the consuls presented by decree of the
senate and by law. In my name or in the name of my sons
and grandsons I presented for the people twenty-six times
hunting shows with African beasts in the circus, the forum,
or amphitheaters, in which about 3,500 beasts were killed.
Besides providing varying forms of entertainment (e.g. plays, etc.), the ludi were also
great religious events. Perhaps even more impressive than these games and festivals was
Augustus’ staged naval battle on a site created on the other side of the Tiber in which
triginta rostratae naves triremes a[ut birem]es, plures autem minores inter se
conflixerunt; q[uibu]s in classibus pugnaverunt praeter remiges millia ho[minum tr]ia
circiter (“thirty beaked ships, both triremes and biremes, and even more smaller ships
fought against each other; in these fleets, besides the rowers, around 3,000 men fought,”
Aug. RG 23). Suetonius (Aug. 43.1) writes that sometimes Augustus would provide plays
in different neighborhoods (vicatim) at the same time with the actors speaking in all the
dialects of the neighborhoods, 109 and that festos et sollemnes dies profusissime,
nonnumquam tantum ioculariter celebrabat (“he used to celebrate festivals and holidays
very lavishly and often playfully,” Aug. 75.1). His summary statement on Augustus’ use
of entertainment is unambiguous: Spectaculorum et assiduitate et uarietate et
magnificentia omnes antecessit (“All of his spectacle surpassed [previous spectacles] in
frequency of occurrence, variety, and magnificence,” Aug. 43.1). This would have been
109
fecitque nonnumquam etiam uicatim ac pluribus scaenis per omnium linguarum histriones….
76
especially true for the spectacle meant to celebrate the dawning of a new age with
Augustus as a new founder of Rome: the Ludi Saeculares.
All of the spectacles produced by Augustus could have been viewed as gifts to the
people since they provided a break in the monotony of everyday life. In the Res Gestae
Augustus made it clear that he was giving or producing these for the people (populo).110
Indeed, the gift aspect of gladiatorial games is evident in the standard term for the games:
munus gladiatorium (RG 23). The quantity and quality of these gifts would not have gone
unnoticed by the Roman plebs nor would have Augustus’ evident concern for the body.
Futrell (1997: 32) notes that games were exploited by many Roman politicians due to
their innate popularity.111 Even Dio hints at this idea when he writes of a dancer, Pylades,
telling Augustus: “It is beneficial for you, Caesar, that the people devote themselves to
us” (συμφέρει σοι, Καῖσαρ, περὶ ἡμᾶς τὸν δῆμον ἀποδιατρίβεσθαι, 54.17.5). Besides the
spectacles being examples of Augustus’ largesse to the people, as Yavetz (1969: 20–1)
notes, the theaters and circuses were a platform for the common people to express their
opinions through their cheers and other reactions throughout the performances. Futrell
(1997: 46) notes that “they [the plebs] had a unique opportunity for immediate vocal
contact with their heads of state, and they used it.” This line of communication for the
plebs would have been in keeping with the image of Augustus as their attentive patron.
Suetonius even suggests that Augustus may have been aware of this:
110
He states this twice in 22 and once in 23.
111
Veyne (1992: 252) also notes that these spectacles actually served as festivals for Augustus in the guise
of public games. Although focusing on the provinces, Futrell (1997: 93) argues that Augustus purposefully
linked spectacles with the Imperial ideology. This would have helped promote loyalty towards Augustus.
77
uerum quotiens adesset, nihil praeterea agebat, seu uitandi

rumoris causa, quo patrem Caesarem uulgo reprehensum
commemorabat, quod inter spectandum epistulis libellisque
legendis aut rescribendis uacaret. (Suet. Aug. 45.1)
Indeed, whenever he [Augustus] was present he did nothing
[else but watch], either to avoid rumor or because he
remembered that his father, Caesar, was censured by the
crowd because while watching, he used to read or write
letters and petitions.
In Dio’s scenario of Agrippa and Maecenas giving advice on running the city,
Maecenas tells Augustus: “Adorn this city at great expense and make it splendid with
every type of festival” (τὸ μὲν ἄστυ τοῦτο καὶ κατακόσμει πάσῃ πολυτελείᾳ καὶ
ἐπιλάμπρυνε παντὶ εἴδει πανηγύρεων, 52.30.1). Whether or not Maecenas’ advice
influenced Augustus, he in fact not only provided lavish festivals, but also undertook
numerous building projects in order to beautify the city and to make it worthy of being
the capital of an empire. By beautifying the city and giving it many cultural benefits, such
as permanent buildings for games, public parks, and new and restored temples, the
princeps probably would have been able to gain the favor of the people as well, since this
effort was a great display of concern for all the people of Rome. Augustus writes the
following about his building projects:
Curiam et continens ei Chalcidicum templumque Apollinis

in Palatio cum porticibus, aedem divi Iuli, Lupercal,
porticum ad circum Flaminium, quam sum appellari passus
ex nomine eius qui priorem eodem in solo fecerat,
Octaviam, pulvinar ad circum maximum, aedes in Capitolio
Iovis Feretri Iovis Tonantis, aedem Quirini, aedes Minervae
et Iunonis Reginae et Iovis Libertatis in Aventino, aedem
Larum in summa sacra via, aedem deum Penatium in Velia,
aedem Iuventatis, aedem Matris Magnae in Palatio feci.
(Aug. RG 19)
78
I built the senate house and the Chalcidicum surrounding it

and the temple of Apollo on the Palatine with its porticoes,
the temple of the deified Julius, the Lupercal, the portico at
the Flaminian Circus, which I permitted to be named
Octavian after the name of the man who had built an earlier
portico on the same site, the pulvinar at the Circus
Maximus, the temples of Jupiter Feretrius and Jupiter
Tonans on the Capitoline, the temple of Quirinus, the
temples of Minerva, Juno the Queen, and Jupiter Libertas
[all three] on the Aventine, the temple of the Lares at the
top of the Sacred Way, the temple of the Penates on the
Velia, the temple of Youth, and the temple of the Great
Mother on the Palatine.
Augustus continues in the next chapter with a list of buildings and public works which he
restored, completed, or improved, including: the Capitoline temple (refeci), the theater of
Pompey (refeci), aqueducts (refeci), the Julian forum and basilica (perfeci), eighty-two
temples in 28 BCE (refeci), the Flaminian Way (munivi), and all the bridges except the
Mulvian and Minucian (munivi) (RG 20).112 As Haselberger (2007: 34) notes, the building
projects which Augustus considered worthy of mentioning were utilitarian or public
religious buildings that were made of materials meant to last, especially for the temples
glorifying the imperial gods.113 These buildings would have stood as lasting monuments
of Augustus’ concern for the people of Rome and the city itself because they either would
have helped maintain the pax deorum or improved the daily lives of the people.
112
Capitolium et Pompeium theatrum utrumque opus impensa grandi refeci sine ulla inscriptione nominis
mei. Rivos aquarum compluribus locis vetustate labentes refeci, et aquam quae Marcia appellatur
duplicavi fonte novo in rivum eius inmisso. Forum Iulium et basilicam quae fuit inter aedem Castoris et
aedem Saturni, coepta profligataque opera a patre meo, perfeci et eandem basilicam consumptam
incendio, ampliato eius solo, sub titulo nominis filiorum m[eorum i]ncohavi, et, si vivus non perfecissem,
perfici ab heredibus [meis ius]si. Duo et octoginta templa deum in urbe consul sex[tu]m ex [auctori]tate
senatus refeci nullo praetermisso quod e[o] tempore [refici debeba]t. Consul septimum viam Flaminiam
a[b urbe] Ari[minum refeci pontes]que omnes praeter Mulvium et Minucium.
113
This focus on religious buildings is part of a greater system for renewing Roman religion, see p. 81.
79
As they hosted performances enjoyed by the masses, it is clear that the Theater of
Marcellus, Pompey’s theater (restored by Augustus), the facility for sea battles, and a
wooden stadium complex in the Campus Martius114 (not mentioned in the Res Gestae;
Haselberger 2007: 34) could have been viewed as gifts to the Roman plebs. Zanker
(1988: 137) notes that four columns taken from M. Aemilius Scaurus’ luxurious palace
after the princeps had torn it down were reused for the Theater of Marcellus and stood as
an ever-present reminder of Augustus’ benefaction.115 The implications of such a
construction would have been that this was yet another way for Augustus to promote part
of his imperial ideology: that the state (represented here by a public building) was more
important than personal wealth. The completion of the Julian and Augustan forum (Aug.
RG 21) also could have been viewed as demonstrating concern for the Roman people, for
as Suetonius tells us: Fori extruendi causa fuit hominum et iudiciorum multitudo, quae
uidebatur non sufficientibus duobus etiam tertio indigere (“The reason he built his forum
was because of the large number of men and trials; since the two [forums already in the
city] were not sufficient, there also seemed to be a need for a third,” Aug. 29.1). The
Augustan forum was also a way for Augustus to promote himself. The fact that it housed
the second largest temple in all of Rome (the temple of Mars Ultor), which also held the
Roman standards that Augustus had regained from Parthia, surely made an impression on
the people (Dyson 2010: 128). Favro (1992: 72) views the Augustan forum as an atrium
of a house complete with images of great Romans and members of Augustus’ family.
Zanker (1988: 210–1) observes that the juxtaposition of famous Romans with famous
Haselberger could be referring to Statilius Taurus’ amphitheater.
114
Scaurus’ palace was adorned with the scaena frons from the wooden theater he constructed as aedile in
115
58 BCE.
80
historical members of the Julian family (some of whom were not worthy of being
compared to Roman heroes) would have helped express the unique importance of the
Julian family in the history of Rome. The Roman heroes being exalted (e.g. Sulla,
Marius, Pompey, etc.) were also imperialistic generals who triumphed, in other words,
Romans similar to Augustus (Zanker 1988: 211). As with the senate house, see p. 54, the
lines between Roman and Augustan/Julian, in this case history, were once again blurred
in the forum of Augustus.
Haselberger (2007: 94) notes that the projects of 28 BCE, Augustus’ restoration
of eighty-two temples, were meant to extend to every part of the population of Rome.
Zanker (1988: 108–9) observes that while Augustus did restore eighty-two temples in 28
BCE to comply enthusiastically with his renewal of religion program started in 29 BCE,
for the most part these temples were only slightly spruced up and simply received new
coatings of stucco for their tufa columns. At the same time, they kept their existing
wooden or terra-cotta roofs.116 He then notes the contrast between these temples and the
glorious new marble ones, which had been dedicated to gods more closely associated
with Augustus, such as Palatine Apollo (see p. 83) and Mars Ultor (located in the
Augustan forum), and built by him (feci, RG 19). By making the temples of his preferred
gods more splendid, Augustus was able to emphasize their greater importance in the new
state, much like with the gods celebrated in the Ludi Saeculares (p. 62). Augustus also
may have emphasized in the Res Gestae certain temples which were more closely
associated to him. Indeed, some of the temples he claims to have built (feci, RG 19) were
Zanker (1988: 109) also doubts that all the repairs to the eighty-two temples were finished in 28 BCE, as
116
Augustus claims.
81
actually reconstructions, such as the temple of Quirinus and the temple of Juno Regina.
Dyson (2010: 126) notes that by restoring the temple of Quirinus, Augustus was
emphasizing his connections with the early history of Rome, especially Romulus.117
Perhaps the most important temples for the plebs which Augustus restored were those to
Minerva, Juno Regina, and Jupiter Libertas because of their location on the Aventine. As
Dyson (2010: 75) notes, the Aventine was an important hill to the plebeians because it
was the location of the First Secession (p. 64), and this may have been why the supporters
of Gaius Gracchus assembled upon it after the senate had passed their senatus consultum
ultimum. All of these temples along with the others Augustus specifically mentions in the
Res Gestae expressed a concern for all the people of Rome because they would have been
viewed as integral pieces for maintaining the pax deorum, a key justification for the
princeps’ plan to renew Roman religion; and the fact that some of the nicest temples
promoted the new gods of the state (i.e. the gods closely associated with the emperor) and
would have been directly attributed to Augustus’ munificence would not have hurt.118
Perhaps the temple that best demonstrated Augustus’ connection with the gods
and the Roman people was the temple of Apollo on the Palatine. Suetonius writes about
the temple as follows:
Templum Apollinis in ea parte Palatinae domus excitauit,

quam fulmine ictam desiderari a deo haruspices
pronuntiarant. Addidit porticus cum bibliotheca Latina
Graecaque. (Suet. Aug. 29.3)
117
Cf. n. 74 on p. 54. See also, p. 84.
118
Despite the fact that building these temples does not necessarily have to be seen as a “populist” act, since
elites would have benefitted from the restoration of the temples as well, Augustus’ popularity among the
plebs surely received a boost from projects like this.
82
He built the temple of Apollo in this part of his Palatine

home which the haruspices had proclaimed was struck by
lightning as an indication of the god’s desire for it. He
added porticoes to it with Greek and Latin libraries.
Dio also notes that when he became pontifex maximus, Augustus “made part of his
[house] public land because the high priest was required to live in a public residence”
(μέρος τι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ, ὅτι τὸν ἀρχιέρεων ἐν κοινῷ πάντως οἰκεῖν ἐχρῆν, ἐδημοσίωσεν,
54.27.3). The report that his house had been chosen by the gods to contain one of their
temples would have helped underline his association and favor with the gods, and the
transfer of part of this temple/residence, complete with libraries, into the hands of the
people could have been viewed as a generous beneficium from the princeps.119
About Augustus’ home Dio notes that it “gained some prestige from the hill as a
whole because of Romulus’ previous habitation there (τινα καὶ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Ῥωμύλου
προενοίκησιν φήμην ἡ οἰκία αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ παντὸς ὄρους ἔλαβε, 53.16.5). This certainly
would have helped support Augustus’ desired image as a new founder of Rome.120
Furthermore, Augustus’ residence was supposed to promote a traditional sense of
frugality. Suetonius tells us:
In ceteris partibus uitae continentissimum constat ac sine

suspicione ullius uitii. habitauit primo iuxta Romanum
forum supra Scalas anularias, in domo quae Calui oratoris
fuerat; postea in Palatio, sed nihilo minus aedibus modicis
Hortensianis, et neque laxitate neque cultu conspicuis, ut in
quibus porticus breues essent Albanarum columnarum et
sine marmore ullo aut insigni pauimento conclauia. (Suet.
Aug. 72.1)
119
Haselberger (2007: 86) notes that this temple/residence would have possessed an autocratic image very
similar to that of Hellenistic kingship, and the temple would have subversively promoted the idea of sole
rule. Cf. Zanker (1988: 51).
120
Cf. p. 77.
83
In other parts of his life, he was very moderate and without

suspiscion of any vice. Frist he dwelled near the Roman
forum above the ringmakers’ stairs in a house which the
orator Calvus had owned. Later he dwelled on the Palatine
no less moderately than its previous owner, Hortensius, and
in a house no larger nor more refined than his first. The
house had short porticoes with Alban columns and rooms
without any marble or engraved floors.
As with his building projects, Augustus’ house was meant to promote imperial
ideologies.121
The temple attached to the Palatine was not the only private property Augustus
gave to the people. Augustus tells us that he built the Temple of Mars Ultor on private
land (in private solo) and the Theater of Marcellus on land mostly purchased from private
individuals (in solo magna ex parte a p[r]i[v]atis empto, RG 21). Suetonius writes that
Augustus built his Mausoleum between the Tiber and the Via Flaminia, circumiectasque
siluas et ambulationes in usum populi iam tum publicarat (“and then he made public the
surrounding groves and walkways for the use of the people,” Aug. 100.4). Augustus also
would have been the one who distributed the gardens left in Caesar’s will: populo hortos
circa Tiberim publice et uiritim trecenos sestertios legauit (“he [Caesar] left to the people
the gardens around the Tiber for public use and 300 sesterces to each man,” Suet. Iul. 83).
Even if Augustus was following the will of Caesar, it is evident from the authors of the
Ankara inscription of the Res Gestae that he received credit for this gift: opera fecit
nova:… [nemus trans T]iberim Caesarum (“he [Augustus] built new works:…the grove
121
While there is no evidence for Augustus associating himself with other prominent politicians, besides
Romulus of course, through his residency, the Palatine was home to many prominent politicians, including
populist tribunes: both Gracchi (133 BCE, 123/2 BCE), M. Fulvius Flaccus (122 BCE), M. Livius Drusus
(91 BCE), P. Clodius Pulcher (58 BCE), and M. Caelius Rufus (52 BCE) (Kondratieff 2003: 263–4).
Perhaps, the plebs would have associated the Palatine with these popular leaders.. If so, Augustus’
reputation with the plebs surely would have benefitted from this association.
84
of the Caesars,” RG App. 2).122 Haselberger (2007: 34) also notes that the Nemus
Caesarum in Trans Tiberim was a public park. Such parks—along with the aqueducts,
roads, and bridges mentioned in the Res Gestae and the sundial made from the first
obelisk set up in the Campus Martius (Plin. Nat. 36.15.72)123—all could arguably have
improved the lives of every Roman citizen by providing areas for leisure, fresh water,
efficient transportation, and the ability to structure their day. The Romans would have
been grateful to the man who was responsible for these benefits.
Augustus’ building program was greatly aided by Agrippa. Agrippa was a key
member of Augustus’ web of patronage, “offering all his wisdom and virtue for the
profits of Augustus” (πᾶσαν αὐτῷ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ σοφίαν καὶ ἀνδρείαν ἐς τὰ
λυσιτελέστατα παρέχων, Dio Cass. 54.29.2). Dio describes his contributions to Augustus’
largesses thus:
τὸν δῆμον εὐεργεσίαις ὡς δημοτικώτατος προσεποιήσατο.

καὶ τότε γοῦν κήπους τέ σφισι καὶ τὸ βαλανεῖον τὸ
ἐπώνυμον αὐτοῦ κατέλιπεν, ὥστε προῖκα αὐτοὺς λοῦσθαι,
χωρία τινὰ ἐς τοῦτο τῷ Αὐγούστῳ δούς. (Dio Cass.
54.29.3-4)
He [Agrippa] won over the people through his very popular
good deeds. And then he left behind his gardens and the
bathhouse named after him to them, so that they might
bathe for free, giving some estates to Augustus for this
purpose [i.e. to fund the bathhouses].
Perhaps Agrippa’s greatest benefactions for the people were his building projects, which
fit into Augustus’ plan of making the city worthy of an imperial capital. After describing
122
This reconstruction is also supported by the Greek version: ἄλσος Καισάρων.
123
Ei, qui est in campo, divus Augustus addidit mirabilem usum ad deprendendas solis umbras dierumque
ac noctium ita magnitudines, strato lapide ad longitudinem obelisci….
85
Agrippa’s adornment and dedication of the Saepta Julia in 26 BCE in the Campus
Martius, Dio adds that Agrippa was also “advising and collaborating with him [Augustus]
in the most humane, most glorious, and most useful projects” (τὰ φιλανθρωπότατα καὶ τὰ
εὐκλεέστατα τά τε συμφορώτατα καὶ συμβουλεύων οἱ καὶ συμπράττων, 53.23.4). The
adornment of the Saepta would have emphasized Agrippa and Augustus’ concern for the
Republic because of its function as the location for casting votes in the traditional
governance of the state.
Yet Agrippa’s public works began much earlier than 26 BCE. Agrippa’s
construction of the Aqua Julia took place in either 40 (Dio 48.32.3) or 33 BCE (Fron.
Aq.1.9). The repair of the Aqua Marcia was in 34 (Dio 49.42.2) or 33 BCE (Fron. Aq.
1.9). Frontinus may have ascribed the erection and restoration of these aqueducts to 33
BCE because that was the year in which Agrippa, as aedile, undertook the repairs of
public buildings and streets, the cleaning of the sewers, and an addition of dolphins to the
Circus Maximus that indicated the number of laps completed (Dio 49.43.1).124 Like
Augustus’, Agrippa’s projects promoted important imperial events as, for example, the
dolphins represented Agrippa’s, and thus Augustus’, victory over Sextus Pompeius at
Naulochus in 36 BCE (Zanker 1988: 71). Pliny the Elder adds that Agrippa also built 500
124
During this year Agrippa also presented many gifts to the people, including olive oil and salt for
cleansing themselves, the free use of baths for the year, and tickets for money or food (Dio Cass. 49.43.2-
4): τῷ δ’ ὑστέρῳ ἔτει ἀγορανόμος ὁ Ἀγρίππας ἑκὼν ἐγένετο, καὶ πάντα μὲν τὰ οἰκοδομήματα τὰ κοινὰ
πάσας δὲ τὰς ὁδούς, μηδὲν ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου λαβών, ἐπέσκευσε, τούς τε ὑπονόμους ἐξεκάθηρε, καὶ ἐς τὸν
Τίβεριν δι’ αὐτῶν ὑπέπλευσε. κἀν τῷ ἱπποδρόμῳ σφαλλομένους τοὺς ἀνθρώπους περὶ τὸν τῶν διαύλων
ἀριθμὸν ὁρῶν τούς τε δελφῖνας καὶ τὰ ᾡοειδῆ δημιουργήματα κατεστήσατο, ὅπως δι’ αὐτῶν αἱ περίοδοι
τῶν περιδρόμων ἀναδεικνύωνται. καὶ προσέτι καὶ ἔλαιον καὶ ἅλας πᾶσι διέδωκε, τά τε βαλανεῖα προῖκα δι’
ἔτους καὶ τοῖς ἀνδράσι καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶ λοῦσθαι παρέσχε· καὶ τοὺς κουρέας ἐν ταῖς πανηγύρεσιν, ἃς
πολλὰς καὶ παντοδαπὰς ἐποίησεν ὥστε καὶ τοὺς τῶν βουλευτῶν παῖδας τὴν Τροίαν ἱππεῦσαι, ἐμισθώσατο,
ἵνα μηδεὶς μηδὲν αὐτοῖς ἀναλώσῃ. καὶ τέλος σύμβολά τέ τινα ἐς τὸ θέατρον κατὰ κορυφὴν ἔρριψε, τῷ μὲν
ἀργύριον τῷ δὲ ἐσθῆτα τῷ δὲ ἄλλο τι φέροντα, καὶ ἄλλα πάμπολλα ὤνια ἐς τὸ μέσον καταθεὶς διαρπάσαι
σφίσιν ἐπέτρεψεν.
86
fountains throughout the city during his aedileship, many of which were adorned with
beautiful statues (Nat. 36.24.121). 125 These springs would have beautified the city and
granted greater access to the water brought in through the aqueducts.
To Shipley (1933: 21), Agrippa’s position as an aedile (which, as he had held the
consulship in 37 BCE, was a step backwards on the cursus honorum) allowed him to
undertake his public works “in a less ostentatious and more democratic way” because he
was working as an elected official. Yavetz (1969: 89) argues that Agrippa’s term in office
was meant to express Augustus’ interest in the plebs. Veyne (1992: 254-5) notes that 33
BCE was the last year in which Augustus was to have triumviral powers and that the
aedileship of Agrippa “possessed decisive political importance and was to leave an
indelible memory” of Augustus so that public opinion of him would be high enough for
him to wage war against Antony and Cleopatra. For Lott (2004: 72), Agrippa’s
preference to build as an aedile instead of a triumphator serves as an affirmation of
Augustus’ “intentions directed at the city’s residents in their neighborhoods” because it
was Agrippa’s duty to improve the physical space of the city and the worship of gods
important to those living in the vici.
The preference for building as an aedile instead of as a triumphator promoted a
sense of restoration instead of a sense of creating something new since the aedile was
concerned with upkeep of the city. Thus, despite the term occurring before the restoration
of the Republic and even the defeat of Antony, this would have paralleled the promotion
Agrippa vero in aedilitate adiecta Virgine aqua ceterisque conrivatis atque emendatis lacus DCC fecit,
125
praeterea salientes D, castella CXXX, complura et cultu magnifica, operibus iis signa CCC aerea aut
marmorea inposuit, columnas e marmore CCCC, eaque omnia annuo spatio.
87
of the future Principate itself: Octavian/Augustus was the restorer of the Republic, not the
creator of a monarchy. It is also important to note that Agrippa’s greatest victory to date
had been achieved over another Roman, Sextus Pompeius. Through Agrippa’s term as
aedile, Octavian was able to emphasize an adherence to tradition while still promoting
himself, since Agrippa was performing the accustomed duties of the traditional office
while making illusions to events that were important to Octavian, such as Naulochus
represented by the dolphins in the circus. At times Agrippa would have featured Octavian
more overtly in performing his duties. For example, a fragmentary inscription notes that
Agrippa performed some type of public work for the Vicus Salutaris in 33 BCE by order
of Octavian (Lott 2004: 72). Moreover, scholars have defined the function of the aediles
as patronage of the urban plebs.126 Thus Agrippa’s preference for the aedileship also
seems to parallel another aspect of the future Principate: patronage was promoted as
much as, if not more than, military glory. So, as was the case when he declined his
triumph in 14 BCE, Agrippa’s term as aedile established a model for conduct in the
developing political scene.
In 25 BCE Agrippa completed the Basilica of Neptune (ἡ στοὰ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος),
a colonnade for the Saepta and likely another reference to Naulochus (see above, p. 88)
(Zanker 1988: 143), which Shipley (1933: 14) called the Porticus Argonautarum because
of its paintings of the Argonauts (ἡ γραφὴ τῶν Ἀργοναυτῶν), as well as the Laconian
sudatorium (τὸ πυριατήριον τὸ Λακωνικόν), and the Pantheon (τὸ Πάνθειον, Dio Cass.
53.27.1–2). All of these were located on the Campus Martius. Dio adds that in 19 BCE he
126
See “aediles,” in OCD.
88
extended another aqueduct: “After leading in[to the city] the water source called the
Aqua Virgo, he named it the Augusta” (τό τε ὕδωρ τὸ Παρθένιον καλούμενον τοῖς ἰδίοις
τέλεσιν ἐσαγαγὼν Αὔγουστον προσηγόρευσε, 54.11.7). Shipley (1933: 14) suggests that
the introduction of the Aqua Virgo probably enabled the Thermae Agrippae,127 the
Stagnum,128 the Euripus,129 and the Horti Agrippae to function.130 Haselberger (2007: 118)
has argued that the Laconian sudatorium was part of the thermae, and so the construction
should be dated to 25 BCE, with full functionality achieved after the addition of the Aqua
Virgo. Agrippa also began the construction of the Diribitorium,131—which Dio calls “the
largest building ever under a single ceiling” (οἶκος μέγιστος τῶν πώποτε μίαν ὀροφὴν
σχόντων, 55.8.4) and which Zanker (1988: 142) argues “became [part of] a vast
monument [the entire Saepta Iulia] to the Roman people”—and the Porticus Vipsaniae
on the Campus Martius.132 The former was finished in 7 BCE and the latter some time
after that (Dio Cass. 55.8.3-4).133 Haselberger (2007: 126-8) notes that the Campus
Martius—now filled with its theaters, monuments, porticoes, temples, tombs,134 trees and
waterworks—would have created an area with “both a metropolitan and sacral-idyllic
127
This was the bath complex which Agrippa, upon his death, opened for free to the Roman people.
128
This was the water basin next to the Baths, which as Haselberger (2007: 124) notes, seems to have been
a large outdoor pool with walls and marble steps.
129
This channel was a drainage canal that Haselberger (2007: 124) describes as an “idyllic water course,
flanked by monuments as well as promenades.”
130
These were Agrippa’s gardens, also known as the Nemus Agrippae, and like the bathing complex, they
were made public after his death.
131
This was the hall located just south of the Saepta Julia, where the votes were counted.
132
Agrippa made arrangements for his portico to contain a map of the empire, which Haselberger (2007:
164) suggests would have allowed even the poorest of inhabitants to “know what it meant to be the master
of the civilized world.”
133
ὅ τε Ἀγρίππας οἰκοδομούμενον κατέλιπε, καὶ τότε συνετελέσθη· ἡ δὲ ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ στοά, ἣν ἡ Πῶλλα ἡ
ἀδελφὴ αὐτοῦ ἡ καὶ τοὺς δρόμους διακοσμήσασα ἐποίει, οὐδέπω ἐξείργαστο.
134
Both Agrippa’s tomb and Augustus’ Mausoleum were located on the Campus Martius, although the
latter served as the burial location for both men (Dio Cass. 54.28.5): καὶ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ μνημείῳ
ἔθαψε, καίτοι ἴδιον ἐν τῷ Ἀρείῳ πεδίῳ λαβόντα.
89
feel.” He adds that a person in the Campus Martius would have been “able to see and
experience…all the horse races [due to the Circus Flaminius located just south], weapons
training, ball and hoop games, exercise grounds and bathing spots, stage dramas in three
theaters, as well as green spaces and water features” (Haselberger 2007: 128). While the
Campus Martius was open to every Roman, Zanker (1988: 141), by noting that this area
would allow the common people to experience the pleasures associated with aristocratic
villas, illustrates how much of a popular work this building project was. With all these
amenities in one area, all the people of Rome would have viewed this “villa for the
masses” (Zanker 1988: 139) as a great gift from Agrippa and, ultimately, Augustus.
Indeed, “The agency of Agrippa allowed the Campus Martius to become all the more
‘Augustan’” (Haselberger 2007: 118), while at the same time permiting Augustus to
share the costs and glory from the projects with a humble and loyal man. This would
have safely aided his attempts to present himself as an equal to the other senators while
still receiving credit for these works.
One final example of an Agrippan building project carried out in connection with
Augustus’ plan to gain the favor of the plebs was the Horrea Agrippiana. Shipley (1933:
14) and Haselberger (2002: 140) note that there is no evidence available to date the
completion of this building. Archaeological evidence shows that this was a multi-storied
granary (Haselberger 2002: 140). Haselberger (2007: 162) also describes it as “a
monumental warehouse with four wings,” while Zanker (1988: 143) notes it had
Corinthian columns. The Horrea Agrippiana was located south of the Roman forum on
an important retail street, the Vicus Tuscus, and could have served as a key component in
90
Augustus’ reorganization and distribution of the grain supply begun in 22 BCE.
Haselberger (2007: 162) suggests that through its association with Agrippa this granary
would have emphasized the regime’s (i.e. Augustus’) role of providing the populace with
food.
Along with beautifying the city and expressing the princeps’ interest in the
Roman people, the building projects of both Agrippa and Augustus would have provided
jobs for a population that, as noted above (p. 80), was too large to have its needs met by
two forums. Yavetz (1969: 47) argues that the efforts of Caesar to provide jobs for the
plebs through the Basilica Julia, the Forum Julium, Curia Iulia, and Basilica Aemilia
should not be underestimated, although the numbers of those employed in these projects
are difficult to evaluate in detail. One can imagine how many jobs would have been
created by the works supervised by Agrippa and Augustus, who completed Caesar’s
basilica and forum (Aug. RG 20), although Thornton and Thornton (1989: 18), using
calculations based on the construction of a simple, contemporary temple (Maison
Carrée), argue that the amount of labor needed for Augustus’ projects would not have
been as massive as suggested in the Res Gestae. They (1989: 44) also believe that
Augustus would have spread out his projects one after another to efficiently make use of
the labor force and that overall because most of the work was actually restoration only
about 20–40% of the workers needed for new buildings would have been hired.
Temin (2004: 516) has noted that even with the existence of slavery in Rome,
“free hired labor was the rule, not the exception” in the early Roman Empire, and that
91
slaves were not the dominant work force in either the city or the surrounding countryside
(2004: 526). Roman laborers were also paid for their work and not bound to specialized
jobs through hereditary lines, thus allowing them to be employed extensively in the city
improvement initiatives of Augustus’ Principate (Temin 2004: 518).135 Temin (2004:
537) has shown that the Augustan building program had a sporadic nature due to the
finite number of projects it contained, and that thus the projects would have had to attract
free workers somehow; and classicists, as Temin notes often assume that these workers
would have required high wages in order to attract them away from other potential jobs.
While it is true that the construction jobs would have been temporary and limited by the
number of projects at any given time, the term “sporadic” does not really describe the
nature of Augustus’ massive building program accurately. After all, we know that the
Diribitorium took at least five years to construct, and the construction of the Porticus
Vipsania took even longer (see p. 90). Perhaps this is because some projects were held
off until another was completed as Thornton and Thornton (1989: 44) suggest. But, given
these two buildings as examples, it may also be the case that the buildings dedicated in 26
and 25 BCE were begun during Agrippa’s aedileship in 33 BCE, especially considering
all the other improvements to the city that were completed during that term according to
our ancient sources, not to mention possible disruptions caused by war, floods, etc.
Whether the wages were high or not, the jobs associated with these projects could have
been viewed as expressions of the princeps’ financial concern for members of the lower
class much as Gaius Gracchus had shown by providing the plebs work though his road
This is not to say that slave labor was not utilized in these building programs, as correctly noted by
135
Temin (2004: 518). Still, the majority of workers were probably free men.
92
construction program in 123 BCE, an act which played a large role in the aquisition of
such a devoted following of plebs (Plut. C. Gracch. 7.1–8.1).136
In order to gain the support of the plebs Augustus also gave gifts to the
neighborhoods whose leaders, as discussed earlier (pp. 60–3), would have been members
of his web of patronage. There is evidence that Augustus gave statues of gods such as
Mercury and Volcan to neighborhoods in 11, 10, 9, and 8 BCE (Lott 2004: 79). While
announcing the reforms of 7 BCE, Augustus toured the neighborhoods and distributed
statues of the Lares Augusti (Lott 2004: 104).137 These gifts would have played an
important role in the neighborhoods and thus would have been valued by the residents of
those neighborhoods. To Lott these gifts established a powerful link between the plebs
and the princeps. When Augustus bestowed gifts upon specific neighborhoods, he was
acting in the same manner that a patron and resident of the vicus would (2004: 80). The
combined efforts of Augustus’ patron-like deeds and the labors of the magistri vici to
promote the imperial accomplishments through associated images on neighborhood
monuments would have illustrated the idea that Augustus was in fact the true patron of
each vicus.
136
ἐσπούδασε δὲ μάλιστα περὶ τὴν ὁδοποιίαν....ἐπὶ τούτοις τοῦ δῆμου μεγαλύνοντος αὐτὸν καὶ πᾶν ὁτιοῦν
ἑτοίμως ἔχοντος ἐνδείκνυσθαι πρὸς εὔνοιαν.
137
Lott (2004: 103) also notes that “the use of the epithet augustus for the revived cults of Rome’s
neighborhoods shows first that the emperor viewed his relationship with the neighborhoods as part of the
broader ideology of the principate and second that the neighborhoods were after 7 BCE an integral part of
the new system of governance and maintenance of the capital,” and that the epithet augustus was a symbol
for the connection between the people and the princeps. As Zanker (1988: 101) notes, the renewal of
religion also was a key part of Augustus’ efforts to heal the state. In focusing on the gods, Augustus was
also able to compare himself to Romulus, who had set up the initial gods upon his founding of Rome
(sacra diis aliis Albano ritu, Graeco Herculi, ut ab Euandro instituta erant, facit, Liv. A.U.C. 1.7.3).
93
Augustus made great efforts to demonstrate that he, as a patron-like figure, could
offer, and indeed did provide, the people of Rome with many benefits. Suetonius
describes these efforts in some detail:
nec plus peruenturum ad heredes suos quam milies et

quingenties professus, quamuis uiginti proximis annis
quaterdecies milies ex testamentis amicorum percepisset,
quod paene omne cum duobus paternis patrimoniis
ceterisque hereditatibus in rem publicam absumpsisset.
(Suet. Aug. 101.3)
He [Augustus] proclaimed that his heirs would not receive
more than 150 million sesterces, although during the last
twenty years he had accepted 1.4 billion sesterces from the
wills of his friends, because he had directed nearly all of
this money along with his two paternal inheritances138 and
other inheritances into the republic.
It is interesting that Suetonius tells us that Augustus “proclaimed” (professus) these
figures. In other words, the princeps was reminding his audience of the amount he gave
to them. The appendix of the Res Gestae adds the following total: “The sum of money
which he gave to the treasury, or the Roman plebs, or the disbanded soldiers:
600,000,000 denarii” (summa pecun[i]ae, quam ded[it vel in aera]rium [vel plebei
Romanae vel di]missis militibus: denarium sexien[s milliens], Aug. RG App. 1). The
difference in the numbers can be explained by the fact that in Suetonius, Augustus
mentions both what he gave and spent on the state (absumpsisset), while the Res Gestae
only notes what he gave (dedit). There is no doubt that a great deal of the money he spent
was consumed by his gifts to the people. Yet Augustus seems to have focused on acts of
largesse that emphasized his ability to provide the necessities of the people. This is
Here Suetonius means both the inheritance of his biological father and that of his adoptive father
138
(Caesar).
94
evident in a story recorded by both Suetonius (Aug. 42.1) and Dio (54.11.7): in response
to a lack of wine, Augustus commented that Agrippa had assured that no one would die
of thirst because of his construction of aqueducts.139 This anecdote also promotes the
imperial ideology that the citizens should live in a traditionally moderate manner (see p.
84). Even if he did not fulfill every one of the common people’s wishes, through his gifts
of money and other financial services, his reforms to help protect the inhabitants of
Rome, his funding of games and other forms of entertainment, and his and Agrippa’s
efforts to improve the city with better and more numerous amenities, Augustus presented
himself as the patron of the plebs in order to tie them to him through a sense of favor and
reciprocal obligation.140
D. Gifts from the People
Saller (1982: 70) notes that because a Roman emperor’s position was so much
higher than that of his subjects, in order to fulfill a client’s reciprocal relationship with
him, they acknowledged their gratitude for his deeds. This practice began, or at least was
portrayed by the princeps to have begun, with Augustus. In chapter nine of the Res
Gestae Augustus tells us:
139
Suet. Aug. 42.1: sed ut salubrem magis quam ambitiosum principem scires, querentem de inopia et
caritate uini populum seuerissima coercuit uoce: satis prouisum a genero suo Agrippa perductis pluribus
aquis, ne homines sitirent. Dio Cass. 54.11.7: καὶ οὕτω γε ἐκεῖνος ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ἔχαιρεν ὥστε σπάνεώς τοτε
οἴνου γενομένης, καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων δεινὰ διαβοώντων, ἱκανώτατα ἔφη τὸν Ἀγρίππαν προνενοηκέναι ὥστε
μὴ δίψῃ ποτὲ αὐτοὺς ἀπολέσθαι.
140
Yavetz (1969: 90) also notes that Augustus allowed only himself to be in the position of patron of the
plebs by having those who tried to win the favor of the masses as a whole regarded as enemies of the state.
An example is Marcus Egnatius Rufus who, as aedile, created a fire brigade from his slaves and men he
hired. The people responded to this by electing him praetor in 24 BCE before he was eligible. This in turn
inspired Augustus to punish him for ingratiating himself to the people without Augustus’ help (Dio
53.24.4–6). Cf. Vell. Pat. (2.91.2) who adds that Rufus then began to conspire against Augustus.
95
[Pri]va[ti]m etiam et municipatim universi [cives

unanimite]r con[tinente]r apud omnia pulvinaria pro
vale[tu]din[e mea s]upp[licaverunt]. (Aug. RG 9)
Privately and as municipalities all the citizens unanimously
and repeatedly have prayed for my health at all public
feasts.141
Suetonius adds another way in which the people prayed for Augustus’ health, recording
that omnes ordines in lacum Curti quotannis ex uoto pro salute eius stipem iaciebant
(“once a year all of the orders used to throw a small offering devoted to his good health
into the Lacus Curtius,” Aug. 57.1). While it is not clear under whose initiative these acts
of graditude were performed, both obviously recognize Augustus’ importance to the
plebs. Another example of the people displaying their gratitude towards the princeps is
suggested by Dio when he notes that in 8 BCE Augustus “accepted that Circus games
would be celebrated permanently on his birthday” (ἐς δὲ δὴ τὰ γενέθλια ἱπποδρομίαν
ἀίδιον ἔλαβε, 55.6.6).142 Dio then adds that the people wanted to change the name of
September, the month in which he was born, to August in honor of the princeps, but that
Augustus chose instead to have Sextilis named after him because it was the month in
which he had first become consul and won many of his victories (55.6.6–7).143 Once
again, in these two instances the source of the initiative is unknown. Whether it was
through his own initiative, the persuasion of members of his web of patronage, or the
people acting for themselves, Augustus’ importance to the people was celebrated through
these honors.
141
Cooley (2009: 146) notes that “pulvinaria refer to public feasts given on religious occasions.”
142
These were probably the Ludi Augustales.
143
καὶ τὸν μῆνα τὸν Σεξτίλιον ἐπικαλούμενον Αὔγουστον ἀντωνόμασε· τῶν γὰρ ἄλλων τὸν Σεπτέμβριον
οὕτως, ἐπειδήπερ ἐν αὐτῳ ἐγεγέννητο, προσαγορεῦσαι ἐθελησάντων ἐκεῖνον αὐτοῦ προετίμησεν, ὅτι καὶ
ὕπατος ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ πρῶτον ἀπεδέδεικτο καὶ μάχας πολλὰς καὶ μεγάλας ἐνενικήκει.
96
The way in which the Roman people most commonly displayed their gratitude
was by offering powers and titles. One of these powers was the tribunicia potestas that
was so important to Augustus. Dio believed that the senate bestowed this honor upon
Augustus in 23 BCE (53.32.5),144 and the princeps himself tells us:
Et sacrosanctu[s in perp]etu<u>m [ut essem et, q]uoad

viverem, tribunicia potestas mihi e[sset, per lege]m
st[atutum est] (Aug. RG 10).145
It was established by law that I be sacrosanct in perpetuity
and that I have tribunician power for as long as I live.
Here Augustus emphasizes that he received his power from the people since it had been
passed by a vote and not decreed by the senate, or at least not just decreed by the
senate.146 While the Digesta Iustiniani (14.6.9.4) does refer to a senatus consultum dating
to the time of Antoninus Pius as a lex, Smith (1843: 579–80) defines a lex as properly
introduced by a magistrate and passed in the comitia curiata or comitia centuriata. He
then adds that a plebscitum introduced by a tribune and passed in the comitia tributa also
could improperly be called a lex. Yet, even if Augustus was referring to the acquisition of
this power from a decree by the senate, he uses ambiguous language that more often than
not suggested its passage through an assembly.147 Augustus’ emphasis on this power
originating with the people also would have helped his presentation of himself as patron
144
See p. 49 for other privileges allotted in the Settlement of 23 BCE.
145
Some manuscripts have sanctum in the place of statutum, but the Greek version seems to support the
latter over the former: νόμωι ἐκυρώθη. Cooley (2009: 148) notes that Augustus separates the sacrosanctity
of the tribunes and their power since he had received sacrosanctitas in 36 and the potestas in 23 BCE.
146
On this subject, Suetonius writes only that tribuniciam potestatem perpetuam recepit (“he accepted
perpetual tribunician power”) without any named source for the power (Aug. 27).
147
The OCD also confirms that a lex was a statute passed by an assembly.
97
of the plebs: the people offered him this power that carried with it a responsibility for
protecting them.
Immediately after mentioning his receipt of tribunician power, Augustus notes
that the people also offered him the office of pontifex maximus even though they did not
have the authority to do so,148 but that he declined until the man holding the office, the
former triumvir, Lepidus, died in 12 BCE (RG 10).149 This was not the only honor offered
by the people which Augustus did not accept. As noted earlier (p. 73), in 22 BCE
Augustus accepted management of the Roman grain supply. He describes other titles
offered at the same time as follows:
[Dic]tat[ura]m et apsent[i e]t praesent[i mihi delatam et a

popu]lo et a se[na]tu, [M(arco) Marce]llo e[t] L(ucio)
Arruntio [co(n)s(ulibus),] non rec[epi]…. Consul[atum]
quoqu[e] tum annuum e[t perpetuum mihi] dela[tum non
recepi]. (Aug. RG 5)
In the consulship of Marcus Marcellus and Lucius
Arruntius [22 BCE] I did not accept the office of dictator
offered by the people and the senate to me both when I was
absent and when I was present….150 I also did not at that
time accept the year’s consulship or consulship in
perpetuity that was offered to me.
The dictatorship had been illegal since the death of Caesar, and Augustus did not want to
be associated with this aspect of his adoptive father’s career. As for the consulship in
perpetuity, Augustus had no need for the office/power given the Settlement of 23 BCE
148
After the lex Domitia of 104 BCE, the pontifex maximus was elected by a comitia made of all the
colleges of priests (“pontifix,” in OCD).
149
[Pontif]ex maximus ne fierem in vivi [c]onle[gae mei l]ocum,[ populo id sace]rdotium deferente mihi
quod pater meu[s habuer]at, r[ecusavi. Qu]od sacerdotium aliquo[t] post annos, eo mor[t]uo d[emum qui
civilis tu]m[ultus] occasione occupaverat….
150
Cf. Suet. Aug. 52.
98
(see above, pp. 67–8). A title, or perhaps here a form of address, which both Suetonius
and Dio record Augustus as not only declining but actively opposing was that of “master”
(dominus; δεσπότης). Suetonius describes Augustus’ feelings towards the term thus:
domini appellationem ut maledictum et obprobrium semper exhorruit (“He always
shuddered at the address of ‘master’ as if some abuse had been spoken,” Aug. 53.1). Dio
says the following:
δεσπότης δέ ποτε ὁ Αὔγουστος ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ὀνομασθεὶς

οὐχ ὅπως ἀπεῖτε μηδένα τούτῳ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν τῷ προσρήματι
χρήσασθσαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάνυ διὰ φυλακῆς αὐτο ἐποιήσατο.
(Dio Cass. 55.12.2)
When Augustus was called “master” by the people, he not
only declared that no one should use this address for him,
but he also made sure this happened through careful watch.
While Augustus continued to follow his policy of not receiving any outwardly excessive
honors or positions, the fact that he had the opportunity to accept these types of
recognition was a clear display of the gratitude and possible loyalty expressed to him by
the people of Rome. Still as seen in the case of Caesar possibly being hailed as king by
Antony, no matter how theatrical this display was or was not, even being offered too
many honors could be risky for a Roman because of jealousy and traditional hatred for
anything resembling a desire for kingship (Suet. Iul. 79).151
Perhaps the two most important titles Augustus received were from all the citizens
of Rome. The first title was that of “Augustus.” Dio notes that in 27 BCE “the name of
Augustus was bestowed [upon him] by the senate and the people” (τὸ τοῦ Αὐγούστου
151
neque ex eo infamiam affectati etiam regii nominis discutere ualuit, quanquam et plebei regem se
salutanti Caesarem se, non regem esse responderit et Lupercalibus pro rostris a consule Antonio admotum
saepius capiti suo diadema reppulerit atque in Capitolium Ioui Optimo Maximo miserit.
99
ὅνομα καὶ παρὰ τῆς βουλῆς καὶ παρὰ τοῦ δήμου ἐπέθετο), although Augustus wanted to
be called “Romulus” on his own initiative before he considered that this might cause
people to believe that he wanted to be king (53.16.6-7). 152 In light of the fact that
Augustus seems to have relied so much on a new kind of patronage in his re-founding of
Rome, the princeps’ desire to be called Romulus is interesting in that, as pointed out by
Brunt (1988: 400), ancient authors such as Cicero (Rep. 2.16), Dionysius of
Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 2.9.2), and Plutarch (Rom. 13) viewed Romulus, the founder of
Rome, as the creator of patronage in his city. To Eck (2007: 55–7), “Augustus” is the
most important honor the princeps received because it allowed him to possess a name
that no one had ever had before and it created the new family of “Caesars”. Scullard
(1976: 218) also believes this title was very important for the emperor because it allowed
the princeps to leave behind the persona of Octavian and his Triumvir past and move
forward as Augustus, the leader of the Principate.
The second title Augustus records in the last chapter of the Res Gestae. He clearly
saw the grant as the high point of his career:
Tertium dec[i]mum consulatu[m cum gereba]m, sena[tus et

e]quester ordo populusq[ue] Romanus universus
[appell]av[it me p]atr[em p]atriae… (Aug. RG 35).
When I was consul for the thirteenth time [2 BCE], the
senate, the equestrian order, and the Roman people
collectively declared me pater patriae.
152
100
Suetonius tells us that the plebs were the first to offer this title to Augustus (prima plebs),
but that he declined it until the senate agreed to hail him thus as well (Aug. 58.1).153 This
initiative by the plebs to grant Augustus that for which he prayed (Suet. Aug. 58.2) once
again displayed their gratitude towards Augustus.154 One must question how much the
plebs did this on their initiative since the title was so esteemed by Augustus. Certain
plebs easily could have been prompted by one of Augustus’ intimate whose clients they
were.
When Augustus’ residence burned down, a new opportunity arose for the plebs to
act as clients of Augustus: by providing financial aid. It is clear that in a patron-client
relationship the client was supposed to aid financially (συνεκδίδοσθαι) his patron when
his daughter was getting married, to pay ransom (καταβάλλειν λύτρα) for his patron if he
or his children were taken prisoner, to pay the fines (λυέσθαι τίμημα) accrued by a patron
in court, and to share the costs (μετέχειν ἀναλώματα) of their patrons’ offices and
campaigning (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.10.2). Furthermore, the client was supposed to offer
this financial aid as if he were offering thanks (ποιῶν χάριτας) instead of making loans
(ποιῶν δανείσματα, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.10.2).
Suetonius tells us that after the fire:
153
Patris patriae cognomen uniuersi repentino maximoque consensu detulerunt ei: prima plebs legatione
Antium missa; dein, quia non recipiebat, ineunti Romae spectacula frequens et laureata; mox in curia
senatus, neque decreto neque adclamatione, sed per Valerium Messalam is mandantibus cunctis:’quod
bonum,’ inquit, ‘faustumque sit tibi domuique tuae, Caesar Auguste! sic enim nos perpetuam felicitatem rei
p. et laeta huic precari existimamus: senatus te consentiens cum populo R. consalutat patriae patrem.’
154
cui lacrimans respondit Augustus his uerbis—ipsa enim, sicut Messalae, posui—: ‘compos factus
uotorum meorum, p. c., quid habeo aliud deos immortales precari, quam ut hunc consensum uestrum ad
ultimum finem uitae mihi perferre liceat?’
101
In restitutionem Palatinae domus incendio absumptae

ueterani, decuriae, tribus atque etiam singillatim e cetero
genere hominum libentes ac pro facultate quisque pecunias
contulerunt, delibante tantum modo eo summarum aceruos
neque ex quoquam plus denario auferente. (Suet. Aug.
57.2)
The veterans, the decades, and the tribes, as well as anyone
else from the remaining class of men and whoever was
individually capable, gladly gathered money for the
restoration of his Palatine home which had been consumed
by fire; [Augustus] gathered the heaps of money and from
each he did not take more than one denarius.
It is possible that the people began to collect money without Augustus’ bidding, as
libentes may suggest, because he had gone to great efforts to offer them benefits and they
felt that they needed to repay these patron-like acts with a client-like deed. Dio records
the same incident, claiming that Augustus only took an aureus from communities and a
denarius from individuals offering sums of money to him (55.12.4).155 The fact that
Augustus took only one coin from each of the entities offering much more is interesting.
Despite the financial obligations owed by clients, Dionysius of Halicarnassus tells us that
patrons were not to accept money gifts (προσίεμαι οὐδεμίαν χρηματικὴν δωρεάν) from
their clients (Ant. Rom. 2.10.4). While the reconstruction funds at first examination may
appear to be more similar to the financial aid expected from clients than to monetary
gifts, it should be kept in mind that Augustus’ large fortune made this collection of
money nothing more than a gift from the people since he was not in need of the money.
Thus he was able to act like a patron in two ways. By taking a coin from each entity
ἐμπρησμοῦ δέ ποτε τὸ παλάτιον διαφθείραντος, καὶ πολλῶν αὐτῷ πολλὰ διδόντων, οὐδὲν ἔλαβεν ἢ
155
μόνον παρὰ μὲν τῶν δήμων χρυσοῦν παρὰ δὲ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν δραχμήν.
102
Augustus acknowledged their duty as client-like figures. At the same time, he still
followed the accepted tradition of not accepting money that he did not need.
Similarly, on the first day of every year the Roman people gave Augustus money
so that he could create statues of himself. But he only made statues of the gods and
“returned the money not only to the senators but also the common people after adding as
much [money as there was] or more to it” (προσθεὶς ἂν ἕτερον τοσοῦτον ἢ καὶ πλέον
ἀντεδίδου, οὐχ ὅπως τοῖς βουλευταῖς ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, Dio Cass. 54.35.3). The fact
that these people, whose body included senators, would give money to Augustus for the
creation of statues, instead of commissioning statues themselves as was the tradition
before the Principate, indicates that the people in Rome were at least somewhat
dependent on the princeps or at least willing to take part in a staged performance
honoring the emperor. With that said, there were still statues of Augustus in Rome. In
another New Year’s practice which he fails to explicitely cite, Lott (2004: 115) has
suggested that Augustus’ custom of taking money collected every New Year’s for his
welfare and turning it into valuable statues for the neighborhoods “reaffirm[ed] the
reciprocal link between princeps and urban plebs.” It is not clear whether Lott is referring
to the same practice described by Dio, but the money mentioned in Dio was clearly
intended for statues of Augustus (ἐς εἰκόνας αὐτοῦ), not the princeps’ well-being.
Whether or not this is the same practice, it is clear that Augustus would not have accepted
this donation of money as a gift, but instead would either have returned the money or
used it for the benefit of the people of Rome, such as the creation of lares statues.
103
E. Conclusion
Brunt (1988: 439) notes that Roman clients expected protection from their patrons
in their relationships with other members of society as well as expressions of special
favor. Capitalizing on the popularity of the office of tribune of the plebs and its historical
functions of performing the will of the people and ensuring the well-being of the
plebeians, Augustus was able to present himself as a protector of the plebs by assuming
and then advertising his use of tribunician power. By seizing this protective role which,
up to that point, had been the exclusive right of the tribunes, the princeps’ assumption of
the tribunicia potestas weakened the actual office of the tribune of the plebs to the extent
that Augustus had to fill vacancies with equites.156 Thus Augustus’ position was further
strengthened. Augustus’ administrative changes to the grain and water supply also helped
assure the well-being of the people. His cancellation of debts in order to prevent wrongful
lawsuits, along with his creation of a police force for the roads and night watchmen
likewise supported his image as protector of the people.
Augustus expressed his favor to the plebs through various types of gifts. He
showed financial concern for the plebs with monetary gifts as well as money-saving
services such as free grain and barbers. Another beneficium the princeps extended to the
people as a demonstration of his concern for them were the great and numerous
spectacles and other forms of entertainment he put on for the city. Augustus’ efforts to
beautify the city, which included the projects of Agrippa, were perhaps the greatest
benefactions he gave to all the people of Rome. His focus on religious and utilitarian
156
See p. 38.
104
buildings, as well as the creation of many areas that effectively served as public parks,
would have been viewed as great endeavors to improve the lives of the inhabitants of the
city. These projects also created jobs which would have aided the Roman plebs.
As noted above, Augustus did not act alone when working to gain the favor and
loyalty of the plebs. He relied on a web of lesser patrons to act as brokers to help increase
the base of people who owed personal loyalty to him (Saller 1982: 75). These inferior
patrons consisted of members of the senate, equites, and even plebs who were prominent
in their neighborhoods.
These efforts to portray himself as a protector of the plebs, one who bestowed
favors upon them himself or through others conspicuously connected to the princeps,
were reciprocated by the people of Rome in the manner of clients through expressions of
gratitude. These took the form of powers and titles offered or voted to Augustus, such as
the ever important tribunician power and the title of pater patriae. His repeated attempts
to portray himself as a patron-like figure and the client-like reactions and loyalty he
inspired among the plebs aided Augustus’ efforts in founding the Principate by stabilizing
and confirming his position as princeps.

105
IV. CONCLUSION
Having seen all that could go wrong for ambitious men who based their political
power on their control over Roman armies, Octavian decided to conceal this aspect of his
imperium.157 He then added legal auctoritas by first holding the consulship and later
combining many powers of different offices and positions through the Settlements of 27
BCE and 23 BCE. As Crook (1996a: 79) has noted, Augustus’ collection of previously
separate legal powers in his person was too un-republican for the princeps to be
comfortable. In order to make his political and militaristic auctoritas acceptable to other
Romans, Augustus overshadowed it with the social auctoritas associated with the
traditional, republican institution of the patron-client relationship. The different levels of
status between the Roman elites and the Roman plebs forced Augustus to apply and
emphasize different aspects of patronage for each social stratum.
In order not to offend men equal to him in social status (i.e. those of the senatorial
order), Augustus promoted this equality and implemented amicitia, the inter-senatorial
equivalent to the patron-client relationship, with individual senators. He used his
auctoritas to aid mainly those among his intimates in acquiring magistracies, military
commands, religious offices, and other honors, but he was prudent enough not to
overlook the other senators, even some of those who had fought against him in the civil
wars (e.g. Sestius). This allowed him to project the idea that in the new state the best and
perhaps only way to advance in society was to bind oneself to Augustus in this reciprocal
Except in the opening of the Res Gestae, but by the time it was written [14 CE] the Principate had had
157
enough time to solidify.

106
relationship in which the princeps was seeking loyalty and supporters. In order to expand
further his amicitia among individual senators, Augustus began to bestow upon the sons
of senators the preliminary military commands and the right to sit in on meetings of the
senate so that the next generation of senators would owe the beginning of their careers to
him. By introducing his own family members to Roman political life in the same manner,
albeit with more opportunities, Augustus was able to portray both an equality with and a
paternal concern for the senatorial families while also providing the state with
indoctrinated and experienced administrators.
During the Principate, the equites continued to increase in influence and power
until they could realistically be considered members of the Roman political elite. Similar
to his treatment of the senatorial order, Augustus also attempted to bind members of the
equestrian order to himself as clients by providing them with honors. He allowed
equestrians to run for magistracies and become members of the senate. He also created
special administrative positions, to which he would then appoint equestrians. With the
equestrians Augustus was again seeking loyalty and supporters. Having loyal
administrators, magistrates, and military commanders owing at least part of their careers
to him allowed the princeps to seem less autocratic since he now had others working
towards the same goals not because they were being forced by law or threat, but because
it was the wish of their patron.
Augustus also presented himself as the patron of the corporate body of the senate.
He did this by claiming that he had restored the Republic and portraying himself as
107
working for the senate. Augustus’ patron role is also evident in the manner in which he
gave advice to the senate on how it should run the government. Besides his
characterization of the senate as a protégé, Augustus added that the senate could make
him regret his decision to restore the Republic if they did not take his advice. Augustus
also bestowed gifts upon the senate—such as legislation mandating what seats its
members had at the theater—and controlled its membership through three different
censuses. In return, along with loyalty, the senate offered other gifts and honors to
Augustus. One notable gift the senate bestowed upon Augustus was allowing him to hang
a golden shield with the inscription pater patriae in the curia Julia, which already had a
statue of Victory inside decked in the spoils of Augustus’ conquest of Egypt. This
conglomeration of Augustan images in the senate house, in which Augustus attempted to
ensure that all meetings of the government were held, would have reminded the senators
that the princeps was their patron.
When dealing with the Roman plebs, Augustus also presented himself as their
patron. He did this by obtaining tribunician power. The traditional role of this power in
defending the plebs against the patricians and its function in performing the popular will
helped Augustus promote himself as the protector of the people. Augustus also bolstered
his image as protector through deeds like creating night watchmen to help prevent fires in
the city. In addition, while holding the tribunician power Augustus gave many gifts, such
as the construction of public buildings, to the people to keep them happy and indebted to
him as their patron. As with the senate, the collective plebs offered reciprocal gifts to
Augustus. In order to maintain his image of equality with the other Roman senators,
108
Augusts was selective in which honors he received. While he did accept the titles
“Augustus” and “pater patriae,” he declined perpetual consulship and the dictatorship.
Furthermore, Augustus implemented a brokerage system in which influential members of
the Roman elite or even just the neighborhoods would use their own clientele to aid the
princeps in receiving the support and loyalty of the masses.
In these ways Augustus became the patron of both the Roman upper and lower
classes. While he could easily justify his position as princeps with his command over the
armies or the legal positions and powers he possessed, as his status as patron progressed,
Augustus no longer needed to. Furthermore, the acts of reciprocity from his client-
citizens only increased Augustus’ political standing and auctoritas. But in the end, the
Roman citizens now followed and supported the princeps because it was their duty.
109
V. WORKS CITED
Badian, E. 2005. “Munus,” in S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds., The Oxford

Classical Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Balsdon, J.P.V.D. and M.T. Griffin. 2005. “Tullius Cicero (1), Quintus,” in S.
Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Brunt, P.A. 1988. The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Cadoux, T.J., R.J. Seager, E. Badian. 2005. “Aemiulius Paullus (4), Lucius,” in S.
Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Cary, E. 1968. Dio’s Roman History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cooley, A. 2009. Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, M.H. 2005. “Lex,” in S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds., The Oxford
Classical Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crook, J.A. 1996a. “Political History, 30 B.C. to A.D. 14,” in The Cambridge Ancient
History 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 70–112.
———. 1996b. “Augustus: Power, Authority, Achievement,” in The Cambridge Ancient
History 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 113–146.
Dessau, H. 1929. “Mommsen und das Monumentum Ankyranum,” Klio 22: 278.
Dyson, S. 2010. Rome: A Living Portrait of an Ancient City. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press.
Eck, W. 2007. The Age of Augustus. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Favro, D. 1992. “‘Pater Urbis’: Augustus as City Father of Rome,” Journal of the
Society of Archaeological Historians 51, 1: 61-84.
Futrell, A. 1997. Blood in the Arena: The Spectacle of Roman Power. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Galinsky, K. 1996. Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Haselberger, L. 2002. Mapping Augustan Rome. Portsmouth, RI: JRA.
110
———. 2007. Urbem Adornare: Rome’s Urban Metamorphosis under Augustus. Trans.
A. Thein. Portsmouth, RI: JRA.
Kondratieff, E.J. Popular Power in Action: Tribunes of the Plebs in the Later Republic.
Ann Arbor: UMI.
Lott, J.B. 2004. The Neighborhoods of Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Miles, G. 1986. “The Cycle of Roman History in Livy’s First Pentad.” The American
Journal of Philology 107, 1: 1–33.
Momigliano, A. and T. Cornell. 2005. “Pontifex,” in S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth,
eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mommsen, T. 1887. Römisches Staatsrecht. Leipzig.
Rawson, E. 1987. “Discrimina Ordinum: The Lex Julia Theatralis.” Papers of the British
School at Rome 55: 83–114.
Saller, R. 1982. Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Scullard, H.H. 1976. From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to
A.D. 68. London: Methuen & Co.
Sherwin-White, A.N. and A. W. Lintott. 2005. “Aediles,” in S. Hornblower and A.
Spawforth, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Shipley, F. 1933. “Agrippa’s Building Activities in Rome,” Washington University
Studies Language and Literature 4: 1–93.
Smith, W. 1843. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. New York: Harper &
Brothers.
Syme, R. 1956. The Roman Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Temin, P. 2004. “The Labor Market of the Early Roman Empire.” Journal of
Interdisciplinary History 34.4: 513–538.
Thornton, M.K. and R.L. Thornton. 1989. Julio-Claudian Building Programs: A
Quantitative Study in Political Management. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci.
Veyne, P. 1992. Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism.
Trans. B. Pearce. London: Penguin.
Yavetz, Z. 1969. Plebs and Princeps. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
111
———. 1984. “The Res Gestae and Augustus’ Public Image,” in F. Millar and E. Segal,
eds., Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1–36.
Zanker, P. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Trans. A. Shapiro. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Patronus Patriae Augustus Manipulation o

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Patronus Patriae Augustus Manipulation o

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

4

I owe my deepest graditude to my thesis advisor, Dr. Alison Futrell, who

confusing without them.

For My Parents, My Grandmother, and Alex

After all you’ve invested in me, I offer this thesis to you.

II. THE ROMAN ELITES ……………………………………………….. 11

III. THE ROMAN PLEBS ……………………………………………….. 57

IV. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………… 107

V. WORKS CITED ……………………………………………………… 111

add to the scholarly discussion of Augustus’ self-promotion as well as acknowledge that

Augustan patronage was not confined to one specific sphere of society.

and hubristically, Octavian/Augustus attempted to downplay the amount of power he held

conglomeration of powers he received was “un-republican.” Crook (1996b: 121) later

acceptable to the Romans in general.

Syme (1956) devotes a chapter (369–86) to Augustus’ patronage, but he only

supporters which he calls a “court.” While Augustus is mentioned frequently, Saller

discussion of beneficia could be more specific and detailed.

obtained through the reciprocal actions of the patron-client relationship.

II. THE ROMAN ELITES

Augustus carefully crafted this network of amicitia by presenting himself as an equal to

institution of the senate and the Republic in general.

A. Creating the Illusion of Equality

As Saller (1982: 1) notes, a patron-client relationship must be asymmetrical.

ἥ τε γὰρ ἰσογονία ἰσομοιρίας ὀριγνᾶται, καὶ τυχοῦσα μὲν

the rest of the senators. In the Res Gestae he writes:

[p]rinceps s[enatus fui usque ad e]um d[iem quo

I have been the foremost member of the senate through

post id tem[pus a]uctoritate [omnibus praestiti, potest]atis

Suetonius gives many examples of the princeps’ efforts to maintain the

appearance of having an equal status with the senators. Suetonius notes:

Officia8 cum mutua exercuit, nec prius dies cuiusque

personal opinion to be a crime (Aug. 54.1).11

In Dio’s presentation of Agrippa and Maecenas attempting to persuade Octavian

so that the senators might trust the future emperor:

σαυτῷ δὲ δὴ μήτε ἔξαλλóν τι μήθ’ ὑπερήφανον μήτε παρὰ

And concerning yourself, do not permit that something

chapter of the Res Gestae Augustus proclaims:

[Bis] ovans triumpavi et tri[s egi] curulis triumphos et

was a factor in his ultimately fatal relations with the senate:

Praegravant tamen cetera facta dictaque eius, ut et abusus

fastigio decerni sibi passus est: sedem auream in curia et

In a subsequent section, Suetonius continues his discussion of the deterioration of

Caesar’s relationship with the senate:

This is a couch on which images of the gods were usually placed.

Verum praecipuam et exitiabilem sibi inuidiam hinc

Caesar’s example, Suetonius tells us:

Die senatus numquam patres nisi in curia salutavit et

B. Sharing Honors with Members of the Senate

passage of Seneca the Younger’s:

Hic princeps suo beneficio tutus nihil praesidiis eget, arma

methods of helping senators—could have led to their loyalty—tolerance of his position in

senators for both civil and military duties:

Liberis senatorum, quo celerius rei publicae adsuescerent,

Augustus’ new order was in their best interest.

Ιn addition to allowing and encouraging Roman elites to win honor through

administrative positions as follows:

ἂν δὲ δὴ τούτοις μὲν μηδὲν ἐπιτρέπῃς, τοῖς δὲ φαύλοις καὶ

If you do not entrust anything to these men [senators], but

be involved in administration. Dio describes one of these reforms (from 23 BCE)

concerning the creation of the suffect consulship:

ἐπεὶ γὰρ αὐτός, ἐξ οὗπερ τὰ πράγματα κατέστη, καὶ τῶν

two consul elected January 1.

emperors’ religious benefactions. Suetonius provides some details on Augustus’ religious