In what ways, if any, did the Augustan building programme help to
consolidate imperial power?
In a sense, we are faced with an embarrassment of evidence surrounding Augustus building programmes, but even when confronted by such a relatively large and varied mound of evidence, we can still detect certain patterns in the way in which Augustus imperial power was consolidated by his building programmes. The building programmes conferred legitimacy upon his rule by associating him with traditional Roman values and customs and also invested him with a divine mandate to rule. Augustus intense reform of Romes infrastructure and administration provided him with a concrete basis for his power, which was always expressed in imperial terms as opposed to merely dictatorial.
One of the primary ways in which the Augustan building programme sought to consolidate imperial power was by conferring the legitimacy which was associated with tradition. By emphasising the ways in which Augustan power, as expressed in building works, was actually a direct continuation and fulfilment of Romes heritage, Augustus imperial power seemed less usurped and more authentic to Romes previous experience. As one might expect from a building programme on such a scale throughout his regime, there are many examples of this emphasis on tradition, and it will only be possible to discuss a few. The Theatre of Marcellus represents one such example, where the Republican style of building was allowed to continue despite the regime change. Yet it was actually not the realities of any such continuity which consolidated imperial power so much as Augustus manipulation of the appearance of tradition. In his public aims of leading Rome to rediscover the values and customs of the past which might have been lost, Augustus building works represented a monumentalisation of the past which actually was a monument to the Caesars themselves. In particular, the Roman Forum shows this, with the erection of the line of works from the Temple of the Deified Julius Caesar, through the triumphal arches and the Basilica Julia to the completion of the Temple of the Concordia Augusta in 10 BC. The largely random and unsystematic tradition of translating military success into status through buildings was totally transformed under Augustus, and his imperial power was proclaimed through monolithic projects aimed at glorifying himself only.
Even the less glamorous projects contributed towards this accretion of legitimacy. For example, Frontinus did not understand why Augustus would create aqueducts to import Alsietinian water, since it was known as unwholesome (Frontinus I.11). Perhaps this was part of a symbolic extension of Augustus power across all regions. While not as practical as most of his works seem to have been, perhaps in it we can see glimpses of a total vision for Rome which encompasses all areas and peoples in Italy. Returning to the theme of legitimacy being established through the manipulation of traditions, the Campus Martius had always been the setting for electoral and military rivalry within the aristocracy, but Augustus transformed the area into a centrepiece of his imperial capital. The Saepta of Marcus Agrippa was one of the first Roman buildings on a large scale to be planned in marble, while ultimately Augustus Mausoleum came to dominate one end of the Campus. It could be argued that this represents an expression rather than a consolidation of Augustus imperial power, but it is still significant that Augustus took a space which had long been a site of plurality of faction and turned it into one which was dominated by the Caesars alone. This usurpation and direct manipulation of tradition can also be seen in Augustus fabrication of traditions and history. The Res Samuel Taylor Gestae record how apparently the Janus Quirinus gate was shut after major victories, and this had happened only twice throughout Roman history until it happened a further three times in the time of Augustus (Res Gestae 13). Yet actually, this tradition had been made up by Augustus to lend a portentous sense of grandeur to his reign 1 . When his building projects were not fabricating history outright, they were distorting it in order to lend the legitimacy of tradition to Augustuss imperium. There is also a sense in which religious activity, in particular that of temple-building, helped to consolidate imperial power. Augustus involvement in the construction of projects related to religion was not just his own personal proclamation of his legitimacy to rule on account of some divine mandate, it was also (to a certain extent) popular and aristocratic recognition of that mandate through the medium of religious activity. Horace, in his third Ode, is ostensibly talking about Zeus, but actually his words seem to be fitted to a more earthly divinity: Victor in giant battle-field, he moves all nature with his brow. This man his planted walks extends beyond his peers; an older name one to the people's choice commends; One boasts a more unsullied fame; One plumes him on a larger crowd of clients. Propertius joins in this acclamation of Augustus as divine (4.6), constantly emphasising Augustus divine ordination, the favour of Jupiter towards him and the loyalty of Apollo to him in bringing him victories. Augustus own emphasis on the number of temples he repaired is significant, as is his choice of deity Jupiter Tonens, Mars and Apollo feature very heavily. The constant reminder that Augustus owed his position to military success would almost have been as overbearing as garrisons of troops within Rome itself. By associating himself so closely with these gods in doing things such as opening the Temple of Apollo himself (Propertius 2.31), Augustus reinforced the impression that he was the destined and divinely-favoured ruler of Rome and that therefore his family was rightfully the imperial family as well. This is again shown in the literature, this time in the sixth of Ovids Fasti. From line 349, Ovid writes an account of Mars and Jupiter discussing the foundation of the altar of Jupiter Tonens. The emphasis on the glory of Julius Caesar (and, by extension, Augustus) combined with a brief reference to Augustus oath to build an altar having exacted his revenge, which came to pass, continues this projection of Augustus as having legitimate power.
However, Augustus different levels of explicit proclamation of his power at different times are also interesting. Sometimes, he is extremely closely associated with the monuments, and the viewers are left in no doubt as to the extent of his power, but at others, he perhaps surprisingly deliberately softens this tyrannical appearance. The most obvious examples of this are found in his Res Gestae, where he often balances considerable achievements with noting that he did not exploit them for his own glory. To this end, he says in the Res Gestae that he didnt put his name on the Capitol or the Theatre of Pompey (20), emphasises that private ground and wealth was used to create the Temple of Mars and the Forum Augustum and says that he refused to take at least 35,000 pounds of gold for crowns which Italy awarded him (21). Now, of course, much like his remission of certain titles to the Senate, the ability to behave in such a way is an indirect indicator of significant power, but actually there are certain elements of his building programme which are interesting and worth dwelling on. The House of Augustus on the Palatine shows a certain level of imperial restraint in its dcor and arrangement 2 and yet Augustus forums unashamedly self-promote the glory of the Julii family and even go so far as to identify them with Romes past glories. Actually, these apparently self-
1 Wallace-Hadrill (1989) p. 52 2 Coulston and Dodge p. 62 Samuel Taylor contradictory elements of the building projects could well have played a role in establishing Augustus power as an emperor rather than a dictator. The former carries connotations of permanence and legitimacy, through the semi-constitutionalisation of absolute power, while the dictator is vulnerable and insecure. Not only was Augustus, throughout his building programme, promoting the sense of his rule being secure and stable, but the dynastic elements of his programmes were also key. Augustus tellingly claimed in his Res Gestae that all his works had been done 'on the authority of the Senate' but at the same time he gave orders for works unfinished at his death to 'be completed by my heirs' (20). This clearly shows an imperial power which is obscured by a faade of senatorial legitimacy. Augustus building programmes promoted these mixed messages and so consolidated his power.
Despite all this, the most significant way in which Augustan building programmes helped to consolidate his power was through the control he obtained through administrative and structural change. Although there doesnt seem to have been a major overall theme to Augustus works, perhaps the closest we have is a sense in which the projects were distinctively utilitarian. Aqueducts, sewage works are self-apparent examples of such utility, yet basilicae, temples and fora all performed important social functions as well. Virtually all our sources agree that Rome underwent a considerable period of infrastructural improvement during Augustus reign, with Marcus Agrippa being noted by Strabo and Frontinus as a major proponent of this change. Vitruvius writes that Augustus was paying attention to the welfare of society in general and to the establishment of public order, but also to the providing of public buildings intended for utilitarian purposes (Preface.2). This emphasis on utility seems to be in stark contrast to the grandeur of other imperial projects, and yet these types of projects were probably the most important in terms of consolidating Augustus imperial power. In addressing causes of social instability and poor living conditions, while also maintaining a benevolent public face (Suetonius 56 providing a particularly good account of how Augustus would be considerate and refuse to merely bulldoze inhabitants out of the way of his projects), Augustus developed his reputation as the champion of the people with the tribunicia potestas. This symbolically important power directly linked Augustus legitimacy to popular support, and over time we see a trend towards him moving from having a fairly relaxed approach to domestic affairs to becoming much more interventionist. The paramilitary freedmen were only designated to fight fires in 6 AD, while the division of Rome into 14 regiones occurred in 7 BC. Yet these kinds of reforms show Augustus consolidating his power so that he extended personal control right down to the neighbourhood level. New structures of government and state, with Augustus at the pinnacle, were promoted and reinforced by Augustus building projects and infrastructural improvements. The extraordinary detail of the ordinances controlling the distribution of water, which Frontinus relates from 103 onwards, show the extent of his power and the means by which he established it. While Augustus was never confident enough to remove the corn subsidies from the people, his direct intervention in and control over their day-to-day lives was manifested in the multiplying of building projects over his reign.
In conclusion, Augustus was able to use building programmes to consolidate his power by manipulating tradition and history through them, investing his reign with a sense of legitimacy and divine mandate, while also through them exerting a direct and particular control over all aspects of Roman life. From the opulence of the Campus Martius and the Forums to the practicality of aqueducts and sewage systems, Augustus building works were shrewdly calculated to develop and Samuel Taylor strengthen his power as much as possible. However, there is also a sense in the consolidation of power was not wholly imposed from above. The building projects involved a degree of consensus from the people and the aristocracy which provided security and legitimacy for Augustus rule, and then the rule of his family.
Bibliography Res Gestae Divi Augusti Suetonius, Augustus Strabo, Geography Ovid, Fasti Frontinus, The Aqueducts of Rome Vitruvius, De Architectura Horace, Odes Propertius Filippo Coarelli, Rome and Environs: an Archaeological Guide (Berkeley 2007) A Claridge, Rome (Oxford Archaeological Guides 1998) JB Ward-Perkins and A Boethius, Etruscan and Roman Architecture (Penguin 1970) Paul Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (University of Michigan Press 1988) Jon Coulston and Hazel Dodge (ed.s), Ancient Rome (Oxford University School of Archaeology 2000) Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, 'Rome's Cultural Revolution' The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 79 (1989) John R. Patterson, 'The City of Rome: From Republic to Empire' The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 82 (1992) Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Augustan Rome (Bristol Classical Press 1993)