Octavian took the title of princeps senatus during the first lectio senatus of his long reign. The article deals with the role of the title of princeps of the Senate in the system of government under Augustus. I argue that the first Roman Emperor attached importance to his position of the princeps senatus not only in the context of the First se...ttlement but during his whole long reign. The Emperor was eager to highlight the overall importance of this post. Moreover, he defined his place in the Senate with this position and it had functional significance for him during sessions of the consilium publicum. The restoration of the title of princeps senatus took place in a new circumstance. The reality of the epoch led to some transformations in the title’s functionality.
The “Roman history” by Velleius Paterculus is the sole historiographical work written by a contemporary of Augustus and Tiberius. The paper deals with representation of the Roman Senate of Velleius’ time in his work. I argue that in his compendium the historian reflected the ambivalent position of the Senate under the first two Roman Empe...rors. He depicts the institution as more passive in comparison with its description in the previous period and as depending on the Princeps. At the same time this Roman author characterizes the Senate as having maiestas, the notion which was not connected with this authority under the Republic. Assigning of maiestas to the Senate by Velleius reflects a deep change in the position of the curia due to decline of the popular assemblies’ significance at the beginning of the Principate.
Baldwin (1988) summarized the main problems of Florus 25 years ago. These are still unsolved. They deal with the identification of the Flori, the date of Florus’ history and the correct title of the work. The most vexing of all the questions associated with the history is its date: Trajan (98-117 A.D.), Hadrian (117-138 A.D.) or Antoninus Piu...s (138-161 A.D.). An Augustan date has been plausibly proposed by Neuhausen (1992 and 1994) against the „communis opinio”. Following his studies I can explain and solve all the „anachronisms”, which were caused by the false dating of Florus to the second century A.D. According to Neuhausen’s and my own studies Florus’ history must therefore be dated after the consecration of Augustus (17th of September, 14 A.D.) [~ first edition]; the second edition came from the time of Trajan, because the preface contains two short interpolations with the name of this emperor at its end. The writer of the history has to be identified with Iulius Florus, the famous addressee of Horace’s two epistles. The original work probably has only one volume. The title Epitoma de Tito Livio bellorum libri duo is wrong and has to be changed into Rerum gestarum populi Romani breviarium or tabella.
Livy’s book I, first published on its own after January of 27, when Octavian received the title Augustus, republished probably with books II-V, to form a unified first pentad, was written roughly in the years 33-32, certainly before the battle of Actium. This is clear from certain passages and it casts light on Livy’s method, invol...ving a long interval between writing and publication, with continuous revision of the text; books CXXI ff., editi post excessum Augusti, can thus have been composed in the years 6-14 A.D., when Livy went back to Padua.
“Everything needs to change, so everything can stay the same”: this sentence, overstepping the borders of its novel (the famous G. T. di Lampedusa’s “The Leopard”) and the context of the reaction of local nobles to Garibaldi’s Sicilian expedition, has entered in a sort of timeless dimension, becoming appropriate for several ages and... events. It effectively depicts the case of the “Augustan Revolution” – recalling Ronald Syme – when the birth of the new regime brought with it a pivotal change and the need to hide it under the cloak of continuity. Augustus’ absolute preeminence was by itself the proof of a completely new situation; the will and the need to show continuity was instead evident in his flaunted adherence to republican laws, according to which he assumed only the powers prescribed by the Roman “constitution”, but exceeding them in virtue of his superior “auctoritas”. In this continuous dualism between persistence and rupture, I shall attempt to consider what in actual fact changed and what did not. I think that behind the idea of a complete transformation it is possible to see a politics that was still working in accordance with the same guide-lines and in the same ways.
Im Aufsatz interpretiert der Verfasser Horazens Carmen saeculare. Das Gedicht ist ein Chorlied mit religiöser Thematik, dessen Interpretation die objektiven, religionsgeschichtlichen Momente in grundlegender Weise berücksichtigt. Darüber hinaus – weil das Carmen saeculare nicht bloß als eine metrische Nachahmung der Reli...gions- und Kulturpolitik des Augustus betrachtet wird – wird der Festhymnus in die Zusammenhänge der zwei Odensammlungen hineingestellt. Zuerst wird die Struktur des Gedichtes, dann die Motive des carmen, die seine höchste Objektivität im horazischen Werk klar machen, und schließlich seine Beziehung zu einigen Oden des Horaz (Carm. 3,24; 1,21; 4,6) erörtert.
In Horace’s Epistle to Augustus the estimate of Terence may be less positive than is generally believed. This reinterpretation is based first on classical views of acoustic concinnity, then on etymological considerations.