[Sidenote: Effect of the Empire upon literature.] With the battle of Actium the Roman Republic came to an end. Julius Cæsar had, to be sure, gathered all the power of the state into his own hand, but he had held it only a short time; Octavius—after 27 B. C., Augustus—held the full power until his death, and left it unimpaired to his successors. The change from a free government, whatever its corruption and decay, to what was really an unlimited monarchy could not fail to have some influence upon literature. Henceforth the great orator might hope to win cases in the courts, but he could no longer change the policy of the nation; the historian might search the records of the past and describe the deeds of those who were no longer living, but if he wrote of the history of his own times, he must have the fear of the master always before his eyes; the poet could sing of love and wine and nature without let or hindrance, but poems of national and political importance could hardly be written except by those in sympathy with the empire. The emperor might exert his influence to put down all literary expression not agreeable to him without encouraging literature of any kind, or he might encourage certain kinds of literature and certain writers without treating with severity even those whose works displeased him, or he might at the same time encourage some and suppress others. Under an imperial master literary expression could not be so free as in the days of the republic, but the degree of restraint at any time depended upon the character of the emperor. It is due to the enlightened liberality of Augustus that the period of his rule was the most brilliant epoch of Roman literature.