Who Is Augustus Propaganda?

Propaganda is a valuable tool in the influencing of a society or an empire. Thus was the case during the rule of Augustus in Rome. Debate 3 was a heated battle of discourse over the viability and morality of Augustus enacting censorship and rewriting parts of Roman history. Propaganda has been used across centuries and continents to sway the populace of a ruling nation into a certain belief pattern. Censorship also has been enacted to keep the people from breeding discontent towards those in power. One side of the debate praised the actions of Augustus and was in favor of permitting censorship and his propaganda for the continues success of Rome. The other side however felt that these limitations of freedoms and the changing of history were signs of bad things to come for Rome.
Those who argued in favor of Augustus and his reforms to the arts spoke highly of the benefits that could be gained from such action.
These speakers used their oratory abilities well by appealing to the Pathos, Ethos, and Logos of the audience to try to impress their opinion upon them. These six speakers vehemently argued in favor of Augustus rewriting the history of Rome and allowing the censorship to be in place. One speaker in favor of this cause was the Roman Governor of Egypt, who had been made Egyptian governor by Augustus. This governor states that people in Egypt have begun to speak ill of Roman values and of Augustus, which he found to be an appalling situation and as such felt the need to speak in favor of Augustus and Rome. This governor argued that Augustus has always desired the best for Rome, saying that he has worked to end the bad precedents set by previous leaders who left Rome in negative
positions.

Another speaker that argued in favor of Augustus and his desire for censorship was a Roman Senator. This senator stated that he owed his life to the great Augustus and he tried to dismiss the

worries of those who are cautious of Augustus and his leadership. The senator says that Augustus has been swift but just in his actions leading Rome thus far and that we citizens should listen to Augustus.

The other side of this debate was full of people who strongly opposed any action to censor their voices and to rewrite the past. These speakers also used Logos, Ethos, and Pathos as well as other rhetorical devices like the powerful “rule of three”. One speaker, a political philosopher, argued that censorship went against the very core values that have made Rome as great as it has become. This philosopher holds intellectual honesty and academic freedom in the highest regard, saying that censorship permit neither of those things and as such should not be allowed. Another speaker, a historian, says that the history of Rome is a valuable collection of successes and failures and if Augustus rewrites it, then the future generations won’t know of things to avoid when furthering the empire. This historian then says that if Augustus changes the historical writings then history itself will be tainted to preserve the image of one man.

As a Roman citizen in the audience, I found myself deeply conflicted in regards to loyalty to Augustus or my desire to have thoughts independent of propaganda. Ultimately I feel as though those speakers arguing against Augustus using censorship and rewriting history presented a much stronger and more factual argument. They gave tangible evidence of the benefits of artistic freedom and preservation of historical works to remember where we have come from. This side also appealed to me with more eloquent uses of rhetoric and this helped their message reach me on a deeper level than those who supported Augustus and his efforts to censor the Roman populace. It seems we as Romans have no choice but to oppose this attempt to censor our mind and voices so that we may continue living Roman values and further this great empire.