History vs. Augustus - Peta Greenfield & Alex Gendler

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Regina Chu

His reign marked the beginning of one of history’s greatest empires

他登上王位，

開始了史上最偉大的帝國之一，

and the end of one of its first republics.

也終止了最早的共和政體之一。

Was Rome’s first emperor

羅馬的第一任皇帝

a visionary leader who guaranteed his civilization’s place in history

到底是位有遠景的領導人，

保障了他的文明在歷史上的地位，

or a tyrant who destroyed its core values?

還是一位暴君，

摧毀了他的文明的核心價值？

Find out in History versus Augustus.

來「歷史 v.s. 奧古斯都」尋找答案。

Order, order.

秩序，秩序。

The defendant today is Gaius Octavius?

今天的被告是屋大維·圖里努斯？

Gaius Julius Caesar/Augustus...

- 蓋烏斯·尤利烏斯·凱撒 - 蓋烏斯·奧古斯都……

Do we have the wrong guy?

我們有抓錯人嗎？

No, your Honor.

沒抓錯，庭上。

Gaius Octavius, born in 63 BCE, was the grand-nephew of Julius Caesar.

蓋烏斯·屋大維，公元前 63 年生， 是尤利烏斯·凱撒的甥孫。

He became Gaius Julius Caesar

他變成蓋烏斯·尤利烏斯·凱撒，

upon being named his great-uncle’s adoptive son and heir.

因他被指定為 他舅公的養子和繼承人。

And he gained the title Augustus in 27 BCE

在公元前 27 年， 他取得了奧古斯都這個稱號，

when the Senate granted him additional honors.

這是元老院授予他的額外榮耀。

You mean when he established sole authority and became emperor of Rome.

你是指，當他建立了 唯一的權威並成為羅馬的皇帝。

Is that bad?

那不好嗎？

Didn’t every place have some king or emperor back then?

在那個時代，不是每個地方 都有某種國王或皇帝嗎？

Actually, your Honor,

其實，庭上，

the Roman people had overthrown their kings centuries before

在數個世紀前，羅馬人 就推翻了他們的君王，

to establish a republic,

建立了共和體制，

a government meant to serve the people, not the privilege of a ruling family.

政府的目的在服務人民， 而不是讓單一家族有統治的特權。

And it was Octavius who destroyed this tradition.

而屋大維摧毀了這項傳統。

Octavius was a model public servant.

屋大維是位模範公僕。

At 16, he was elected to the College of Pontiffs

16 歲時，他被選入祭司團體，

that supervised religious worship.

負責監督宗教崇拜。

He fought for Rome in Hispania alongside his great-uncle Caesar

在伊伯利亞半島，他為羅馬打仗， 和他的舅公凱撒並肩而戰，

and took up the responsibility of avenging Caesar’s death

並接下了為凱撒之死復仇的責任，

when the corrupt oligarchs in the Senate betrayed and murdered him.

那時，元老院中腐敗的 寡頭政治執政者

背叛並謀殺了凱撒。

Caesar had been a power-hungry tyrant who tried to make himself a king

凱撒一直都是個渴望權力的暴君， 他試圖要讓自己成王，

while consorting with his Egyptian queen Cleopatra.

還與埃及女王克利歐佩特拉廝混。

After his death,

在他死後，

Octavius joined his general Mark Antony

屋大維加入了他的將軍 馬克·安東尼，

in starting a civil war that tore Rome apart,

展開內戰，這場內戰分裂了羅馬，

then stabbed his ally in the back to increase his own power.

接著他又暗算了他的盟友， 來增加自己的權力。

Antony was a fool.

安東尼是個傻子。

He waged a disastrous campaign in Parthia

他在巴底亞發動一場災難性的戰役，

and plotted to turn Roman territories

密謀要把羅馬的領土轉為

into personal kingdoms for himself and Cleopatra.

他和克利歐佩特拉的個人王國。

Isn’t that what Caesar had been accused of?

那不就是大家指控凱撒的罪名嗎？

Well...

嗯……

So Octavius destroyed Antony for trying to become a king

因為安東尼想要成為王， 所以屋大維摧毀了他，

and then became one himself?

接著屋大維自己卻又成了王？

That’s right.

沒錯。從他採用的頭銜都可以看出 他的權慾熏心──「顯赫者」。

You can see the megalomania even in his adopted title – "The Illustrious One."

That was a religious honorific.

那是個宗教的敬語。

And Augustus didn’t seek power for his own sake.

奧古斯都並不是為了 他自己而尋求權力。

As winner of the civil war and commander of the most troops,

身為內戰的勝利者 及大部分軍隊的指揮官，

it was his duty to restore law and order to Rome

他有責任要恢復羅馬的法律和秩序，

so that other factions didn’t continue fighting.

這樣其他的派別才不會繼續抗戰。

He didn’t restore the law - he made it subordinate to him!

他並沒有恢復法律── 他讓法律服從他！

Not true.

不是這樣的。

Augustus worked to restore the Senate’s prestige,

奧古斯都努力恢復元老院的名望，

improved food security for the lower classes,

為低階層的人改善糧食安全，

and relinquished control of the army when he resigned his consul post.

並辭去他的執政官職務， 放棄軍隊的控制權。

Mere optics.

那只是表面。

He used his military influence and personal wealth

他用他在軍中的影響力 和個人的財富來搞鬼，

to stack the Senate in his favor,

讓元老院站在他這一邊，

while retaining the powers of a tribune

同時還保留著護民官的權力，

and the right to celebrate military triumphs.

以及慶祝軍事勝利的權利。

He kept control of provinces with the most legions.

他持續用大部分的軍團來控制各省。

And if that wasn’t enough,

那樣似乎還不夠，

he assumed the consul position twice more to promote his grandchildren.

他又再擔任執政官的職務兩次， 來拉拔他的孫子們。

He was clearly trying to establish a dynasty.

很顯然他是在試圖建立一個王朝。

But what did he do with all that power?

但他有那麼多權力要做什麼？

Glad you asked, your Honor.

庭上，很高興你問了。

Augustus’s accomplishments were almost too many to name.

奧古斯都的成就太多了，無法列舉。

He established consistent taxation for all provinces,

他為各省建立了一致的稅法，

ending private exploitation by local tax officials.

終結了地方稅務官員的私人剝削。

He personally financed a network of roads and employed couriers

他個人也出資打造道路網，

並僱用信差，

so news and troops could travel easily throughout the realm.

讓新聞和士兵 都能在王國內輕鬆通行。

And it was under Augustus

在奧古斯都的領導下，

that many of Rome’s famous public buildings were constructed.

建立了許多羅馬的知名建築。

The writers of the time were nearly unanimous in praising his rule.

那時的作家幾乎全都 一致讚賞他的統治。

Did the writers have any other choice?

作家有其他的選擇嗎？

Augustus exiled plenty of people on vague charges,

奧古斯都以模糊的指控 流放了很多人，

including Ovid, one of Rome’s greatest poets.

包括奧維德， 羅馬最偉大的詩人之一。

And you forgot to mention the intrusive laws regarding citizens’ personal lives –

你忘了提到關於公民 個人生活的侵入性法律──

punishing adultery,

懲罰通姦，

restricting marriage between social classes,

限制跨社會階級的婚姻，

even penalties for remaining unmarried.

甚至對持續未婚者罰款。

He was trying to improve the citizenry and instill discipline.

他是在試著提升全體公民 並逐漸帶來紀律。

And he succeeded.

且他成功了。

His legacy speaks for itself:

他的遺產自己會說話：

40 years of internal stability,

40 年的內部穩定，

a professional army that expanded Rome’s frontiers in all directions,

一支專業軍隊， 向各個方向擴展羅馬的邊界，

and a government still remembered as a model of civic virtue.

後世也記得這個政府 是公民道德的典範。

His legacy was an empire

他的遺產是一個帝國，

that would go on to wage endless conquest until it collapsed,

在這個帝國垮台之前， 會持續發動無止境的征戰，

and a tradition of military autocracy.

另一項遺產則是軍事獨裁的傳統。

Any time a dictator in a general’s uniform commits atrocities

每當有一個穿著將軍制服的 獨裁者做出暴行，

while claiming to act on behalf of "the people,"

卻聲稱那是為了「人民」，

we have Augustus Caesar to thank.

那就是奧古斯都·凱撒的功勞。

So you’re saying Augustus was a good emperor,

所以你的意思是， 奧古斯都是個好皇帝，

and you’re saying there’s no such thing?

而你的意思是，沒這回事？

We’re used to celebrating historical leaders

我們很習慣去讚頌歷史上的領導者，

for their achievements and victories.

稱讚他們的成就和勝利。

But to ask whether an individual should have such power in the first place

但如果要回到源頭問一個問題： 一個人是否該有這麼大的權力？

is to put history itself on trial.

這其實就是把歷史本身 送上法庭受審。