Source Analysis: Res Gestae

Res Gestae Divi Augusti (The Deeds of the Divine Augustus)[1] is an account of the life and accomplishments of Caesar Augustus, the first Roman emperor. It was intended as a funerary inscription and was disseminated throughout the Roman Empire after the emperor’s death in 14 C.E. The author of Res Gestae was Augustus himself, and in so far as no writer of an autobiography can ever be unbiased about his/her topic, Res Gestae is undoubtedly biased and intended to promote an overwhelmingly positive view of the emperor. One way of determining this intention is to examine the manner in which Augustus portrays the increasing political power endowed on him by the Roman Senate, government organs, and people. While Res Gestae offers the impression that this power was offered rather than sought and accepted only reluctantly, likely to maintain the appearance of democratic rule, the historical record seems to disagree. 

Augustus states in the first paragraph, "the senate enrolled me in its order by laudatory resolutions . . . assigning me the place of a consul in the giving of opinions, and gave me the imperium."[2] He states in the same paragraph that he acted as propraetor, then consult, and then triumvir (with Marc Antony and Lepidus). However, much is omitted from this account. For instance, Augustus omits that he staged funeral games for his adoptive father Julius Caesar on borrowed money, essentially bribing Caesar's troops for their support. These troops then demanded the role of consul for Octavius (as Augustus was then known), essentially rendering the honor one that was extorted.[3] Moreover, that Augustus was made triumvir omits that, in receiving this role, he agreed to the liquidation of 300 senators and 2,000 aristocrats, some of whom were his own allies.[4]

Furthermore, in Paragraph 7, Augustus mentions that he served as high priest, and in Paragraph 10, he adds, "I was unwilling to be high priest in the place of my living colleague; when the people offered me that priesthood which my father had, I refused it. And I received that priesthood, after several years, with the death of him who had occupied it since the opportunity of the civil disturbance."[5] Here, Augustus omits that the high priest was his one-time co-triumvir Lepidus. Moreover, there is no mention of Augustus's defeat of Lepidus after the latter's challenge in 36 B.C.E. nor of Augustus's subsequent banishment from Rome of Lepidus for the remainder of Lepidus's life. In fact, Augustus does not mention by name Lepidus at all: the Lepidus referred to in Paragraph 17 was great-nephew to the triumvir. Nor does Marc Antony's name appear in Res Gestae anywhere. By deleting the names of the people with whom he shared power and from whom he eventually wrested it, Augustus gives the unrealistic impression of unilateral achievement.

Finally, in the penultimate paragraph before the Appendix, Augustus recounts that, "having obtained all things by universal consent, I handed over the state from my power to the dominion of the senate and Roman people. And for this merit of mine, by a senate decree, I was called Augustus."[6] On this point, Augustus grossly under-represents the extent of his power at this stage. In fact, historians have traditionally marked the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire with this event. As historian Garrett G. Fagan has written, "by means of this settlement, Augustus was simultaneously commander, leader, [and] savior."[7] Augustus’s account of this event is perhaps the greatest misrepresentation in the entirety of Res Gestae of how he accrued his power.

In conclusion, Augustus’s funerary inscription Res Gestae provides an overwhelmingly biased account of the emperor’s life. Particularly with regard to his amassing of political power, Augustus consistently misrepresents this process, whether it is his role as triumvir, consul, pontifex maximum, or emperor. In this regard, Res Gestae is ultimately more propaganda than autobiography, although, as noted, perhaps not more so than other autobiographies – particularly those by politicians. More than anything else, Augustus’s goal to maintain the appearance of democracy as monarchy emerged was accomplished via this propaganda.

---

[1] Augustus, "The Deeds of the Divine Augustus," translated by Thomas Bushnell, BSG, The Internet Classics Archive, accessed December 26, 2015, http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] Thayer Watkins, "The Timeline of the Life of Octavian, Caesar August," San Jose State University Web site, accessed December 26, 2015, http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/caesaraugustus.htm[4] Ibid.
[5] Augustus, ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Garrett G. Fagan, De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers, Loyola University Chicago Web site, accessed December 27, 2015, http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/auggie.htm

Source Analysis: Terracotta Army

Explanation: In the World History to 1500 class in which I'm currently enrolled, there are two source analysis assignments. Here's the first, on the Terra Cotta Army of Qin Shi-Huang. I used Mary Lynn's Rampolla's guides for source analysis from her Pocket Guide to Writing History.

======

Discovered in 1974, the Terracotta Army of Emperor Qin Shihuang of China constitutes an intriguing primary source that can communicate much about Chinese political history during the founding years of the Qin Dynasty. Despite the scarcity of contemporaneous written documents about the army, we can nevertheless glean a great deal about these works as primary historical sources from the statues and objects themselves. In particular, we can determine their fundamental nature in terms of time, place, and materials, and we can draw relatively firm conclusions regarding who created them and why.

Based on where they were unearthed, we know that the Terracotta Army was produced in China. The life-size figures were found in 1974 near Xi'an, which is near where Qin Shihuang established his capital at Xianyang.1 The Asian Art Museum (AAM) Web site notes that the emperor ordered the construction of the burial complex in 246 BCE and that he died 37 years later, so we can definitively date the Terracotta Army to that span of years, in particular because, as the Web site mentions, the project was unfinished.2 We know, moreover, that the army was not intended for use per se; rather, it was intended to be buried along with the emperor, so it formed an essential part of the emperor's burial complex. Thus, it was likely never displayed, so we would not have any idea how contemporaries might have responded to it. Finally, we know the materials from which the army and its materiel were made, including gold, bronze, jade, and of course, terracotta, so we can deduce that the Chinese had by this period developed bronze metallurgy, and the absence of iron weapons indicates dating before the use of iron for swords, although iron metallurgy had already been introduced.3

Because the work was commissioned and because the individual pieces of the army are not signed or otherwise attributed, we do not know the specific identities of the people responsible for creating the army, nor can we compare the army to other works of these artists. That said, the AAM Web site does provide some information. For instance, we are told that the project required "enormous numbers of laborers."4 The site further quotes the historian Sima Qian that these artisans were actually imprisoned within their work area to prevent their divulging the worth of the materials therein.5 If nothing else, this information tells us about the vast discrepancy in the value imputed to the lives of individuals on the basis of their life stations. Finally, the site points out that the individual soldiers in the army have intricately rendered facial features,6 which indicates a high level of skill among the artisans, which in turn demonstrates that they were likely trained in some capacity.

Given that the Terracotta Army was buried, we can be sure that its purpose was not aesthetic or to entertain. Although in considering the army its purpose is fairly apparent, the textbook clearly states, "The terra-cotta army of Qin Shihuangdi [sic] protected his tomb.7 There are two possible ways to interpret this statement. On the one hand, it is likely that this protection is entirely material, i.e., that should someone or something try to disturb the emperor's tomb, the army might scare it/them off. On the other hand, it is possible that the army, as the AAM Web site states, was "intended to protect him in the afterlife."8 In either case, the army makes it clear that the emperor's experience in unifying China following the period of the Warring States alerted him to the ongoing nature of military conflict.

In conclusion, despite a lack of written evidence, the Terracotta Army tells us much about China in the third century BCE and its leader. We can learn from it that bronze weaponry was common, that artisans were talented and perhaps well trained, and that human lives were not treated equally, probably to some extent on the basis of economic inequality. The army provides, thus, an interesting example of a non-written primary source, which while not as direct as a written source is nevertheless informative.

==== 

[1] Jerry Bentley and Herbert Ziegler, Traditions and Encounters, Volume 1: To 1500, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012), 105.

[2] "Archaeology," Asian Art Museum Web site, accessed December 1 2015, http://www.asianart.org/exhibitions_index/archaeology.

[3] Bentley & Ziegler, ibid, 56.

[4] "Archaeology," ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Bentley & Ziegler, ibid, 106.

[8] "Immortality," Asian Art Museum Web site, accessed December 1 2015, http://www.asianart.org/exhibitions_index/immortality