This week's reading is intended to give you insight into the fall of the Republic and the creation of a new kind of government in Rome, known as the Principate (rule of the princeps, "first citizen"), that is the beginning of the political structure we call the Roman Empire. Two of the sources, Caesar and Augustus, present first-person accounts, though of different natures, of their role in history. The third, by Tacitus, written at a time when emperors were blatantly (and more honestly!) acknowledged as autocrats, presents a retrospective view of Augustus' Principate and the trouble his successor, Tiberius, had filling his predecessor's shoes. You are reading these selections especially to get a sense of the self-representation of Caesar and Augustus, the key players in this pivotal period of history.

1. Caesar, Civil War. We are at the threshold of the final collapse of the Roman Republic, a system of government that had lasted for nearly 400 years, though it had become quite shaky over the course of the 1st century B.C. Caesar begins his history of the Civil War (which he began) in 49 B.C. when matters had reached the point of no return. You are reading this selection to get an understanding of the situation from Caesar's point of view, of how he justified his actions, what the issues were, what they can tell us about what values were important to a Roman noble, and how the history of the Republic had reached a point where these values conflicted disastrously with any allegiance to "the state."

Some brief background. The key players are Caesar and Pompey. They had been close allies. In 59, together with Crassus, they formed an alliance called the "First Triumvirate" ("Three Men"), in order to get what they wanted (e.g. consulships and important military commands), thus subverting the Republican system of government. But after Julia, Caesar's daughter who had been married to Pompey died in 54, followed by Crassus' death the next year (recall the story of his head being used as a prop in a production of Euripides' Bacchae off in Parthia!), relations between Caesar and Pompey started deteriorating. Caesar's enemies, in particular, Cato (the Younger), were able to draw Pompey away from Caesar. Both Pompey and Caesar had important commands of legions in foreign campaigns (Caesar in Gaul, Pompey in Spain). Things came to a head when Caesar, off in Gaul with his legions, was near the end of his command, but wanted a renewal and was not going to give up his legions. There were proposals that both should give up their commands to avert civil war, but every attempt to deal with the situation with moderation was vetoed by an anti-Caesarian in the Senate. Finally, Pompey was ordered to command the legions in Italy, and to do "what was necessary to save the State." Caesar and Pompey worked at some compromise; but the Senate rejected all efforts. Caesar sent a letter to Pompey, proposing that both resign their commands in order to avert civil war; but if the offer was rejected, he would have to do what he had to (the "dispatch" referred to in the opening of the Civil War, delivered by Curio).

There are many names that will be thrown at you. Don't worry about keeping them all straight, since the important issue for discussion is how Caesar is presenting himself and the issues, and his relationship with Pompey. However, here are some of the players involved (in order of appearance) to help you keep straight whose side they are on.

Lucius Lentulus: consul, 49 B.C., bitter opponent of Caesar

Scipio: a supporter of Pompey (his father-in-law and co-consul with him in 52)

Marcus Calidius: supporter of Caesar

Cato: key player in the events, huge opponent of Caesar, supporter of Pompey

Juba: king of Numidia and Gaetania in north Africa, supporter of Pompey

Curio: supporter of Caesar (Caesar had previously paid off his debts!)

Issues and Questions to think about as you do the reading:

How does Caesar regard the problem?

How does he justify his behavior (hint: how important is honor and prestige to him?) What is impelling him to march on Rome?

Does the way he sees things remind you at all of the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon in the Iliad?

Is the conflict presented as irreconcilable?

Is this account objective? Is Caesar aiming to present it as objective? (Think about the use of the 3rd person in narrating the story.)

Augustus, Res Gestae. Like Caesar's Civil War, this is a fascinating first-hand piece of evidence that lets us into the period of transition between Republic and Empire, and, in this case, shows us above all how an individual was able to create a sole rulership of Rome where previously in the history of the Republic, the rule of one man was anathema (look the word up in the dictionary if you don't know what it means!), and rex, king, was a dirty word. Augustus had this inscription set up recounting his deeds (Res Gestae literally means, "things done," or "accomplishments") at the end of his life. Think about how, on the one hand, he tries to construct an image of himself that fits himself into the Republican tradition (i.e. he is not a monarch and has no more formal powers than a leader in the Republican system of government) and, on the other, presents himself as the most powerful person in Rome and in the Empire, i.e. sole ruler.

A crucial aspect of Roman culture, society and politics was the patron-client relationship, a relationship of mutual obligation in which a social superior linked himself to an inferior (socio-economically speaking). The patron (the word derives from pater, the word for father) supported and protected those below him; in return for which he expected allegiance, support, votes, etc. As you read the Res Gestae, look for how Augustus won allegiance from the diverse peoples of the empire and of Rome through a patron-like relationship. (Does it remind you at all of the way that Hellenistic monarchs in the inscriptions you read are doing good deeds for the cities and give him thanks and support in return?) Also think about whether you can see any pattern to his references to what offices and honors he has accepted or rejected during his reign. Is he more concerned to show that he is ruling constitutionally (and the next question is, was he?) or to demonstrate his absolute power or authority?

Here are some explanations of terms, points, etc. that he brings up that are important for understanding how Augustus is defining his power and authority and representing himself, and some issues to think about. Don't worry about keeping everything straight!

chap. 1. imperium: a broad power of acting in military, political and judicial capacities (depending on what office or position one held). How is Augustus referring to his behavior in 44?

chap. 2: "my father," i.e. Julius Caesar, who adopted Octavian (=Augustus) in his will.

chap. 4: imperator = general; fasces: symbol of authority; triumph: celebration of a commander's military victories, and a crucial means of expressing a noble's power

chap. 5: dictatorship: an emergency office, intended to be held for a limited period of time; Caesar got everyone worried by calling himself dictator ad perpetuum (dictator for life)

chap. 6: tribunician power: since 23 Augustus had made use of tribunician power (tribunicia potestas) to run the state, without holding the office of tribune.

chap. 34: when Augustus says "I transferred the republic from my power to the dominion of the Senate and the people" (referring to 27 B.C.), he is in effect saying, "I restored the Republic." Is this true? Why does he say it? He also says, "I excelled all in influence [the word is auctoritas], although I possessed no more official power than others," etc. Here he is contrasting constitutional power (no more than others) with influence (unsurpassed). Auctoritas is a term that pretty much sums up where real power lay in both the Republic and the Empire. Control of the state in the Republic lay in the hands of the nobility (the Senate) because of their collective auctoritas, not because of their formal powers. From Augustus to Nero (the Julio-Claudians), emperors claimed to be no more than principes, "first citizens," men who didn't possess any extraordinary formal powers but who were preeminent in auctoritas; their rule was called the "Principate;" is this pure fiction and hypocrisy?

Tacitus, Annals. Tacitus was a Roman historian who in this passage is characterizing the very rule that Augustus himself described as a "restoration of the Republic" and the "Principate," as mentioned above, a rule resting not so much on formal powers as on auctoritas. There are two things you want to be looking for in this excerpt:

1) what is Tacitus' view of the Principate, as he places it in historical context in the first paragraph?

2) What happens when Augustus dies? Is there a position or Emperor or King into which Tiberius steps? Do people know on what basis Tiberius will rule and where the Senate fits into the picture? Is the Senate important any longer? Is it important for the ruler to make the Senate think that it is important?