We should not certainly split Republic v Empire, as it was factually an extremely fluid process. Under a social point of view, generally speaking, it does not seem there was an abrupt social change during the 1st century - i.e. in the most tense passage between the Republic and the Empire. For one, if we are to believe well known moralists (whose judgements, as always, must be treated with circumspect common sense) like Seneca, Plinius, Columella or the mighty Tacitus, the urban elites became more and more rich (sumptuary laws were attempted but arguably failed and were even discouraged), and the luxus mensae had its apex during the period - that was the golden age of gastronomy, and witticism (though it must be noted that this process dated way before the end of the Republic, at least by the time of Ennius). However, to fully quote myself, there probably was a perceived self-regression.
In civilian life, we see what has aptly defined a self-infantilization, a process that can be tracked through the Augustan age, as Hillard argued. In the rethoric of the early principate, the custodial role of the princeps (identified as such in terms of preminence, not yet as an institution - that will happen from Claudius onward) was paramount. Cicero may have given a first impetus, as he was already calling a mere 19-years old Octavian a parens patriae in his Philippicae, saluted and recognized as such and not due to a mere Caesarian inheritance. A concept of filial devotion sprouting out of terror was not novel - Fabius Maximus, during the Second Punic War, was actually recognized as a father. The fact Augustus, out of all the members of his house, is the one that shows up with the corona civica on statues the most - the second being Claudius - is telling, as Augustus did not gain it ob civem servatum, but more generically ob cives servatos - that's explicitly aknowledged by the Greek text of the RG. Indeed, as Cooley has demostrated, the imperial discourse could be shaped accordingly to the provinces. Of course, the implication (which goes beyond a mere legal nicety) is that the citizens were beyond the potestas of the pater - they were children again. Being a child implied, of course, servitude. Despite the Republican precedents, this was a dangerous undertaking nonetheless. While even common soldiers were reluctant to recognize the benefits they had received from the others, fully aware of the fact that the burden of them was pretty heavy, Julius Caesar himself was met with criticism for him being identified as parens patriae. Suetonius, for example, is no shy from inserting it among the excessively lavish honours heapen upon Caesar's bald head. Cicero, who was himself recognized in a parental role for supressing the plot of Catiline, had no stomach for Caesar in a parental role - as he claims in De officiis, Caesar had attained the role by enslaving fellow citizens. Yet, the perception that the public welfare rested within the hands of Augustus would grow stronger and stronger. The grim, late 20s BC offered much material for discontent people: a political crisis, pestilence, floods of the Tiber. Since Augustus, after years of consulship, had just resigned, people believed that bad things were happening because Augustus was consul no more, and rioted to force him into a position of dictatorship and the cura annonae, whom he would accept. When Sulla was elected for dictatorship, the popular reaction had been arguably less enthusiastic.
At the end, he attained the title of pater patriae through universal acclamation - the key word is consensus here. A senatorial action followed a popular demostration, with Messala being the spokeman. Augustus was approaching the infamous climacteric year, the critical year of the life of a Roman - indeed, he would write in relief to his son/grandson Gaius afterward that he had surpassed said year. Tiberius had departed Rome in frustration, and Gaius and Lucius, two young men, were the only defense Augustus had. It was perfectly understable that people would hope Augustus to keep the burden of the welfare on his shoulders. Augustus would claim that he pampered two daughers: the res publica and Julia. If the claim is genuine, as Tom Hillard notices, it belongs to the period after him being called pater patriae and, shorly afterwards, before Julia's disgrace. Hypocrisy, manipulation or cinism, whatever their role, do not suffice to explain the insistence of the widespread reaction, which, as Ovid states, had the first impetus from the plebs (in the RG, Augustus prefers to list the actors of the reaction in order of status, starting from the Senate). Perhaps it might be of interest to discuss the composition of the embassy to Augustus in Actium to envision the exact role of the plebs - Hillard compellingly arguments in favour of the role of the vici, whose role in Augustan urbanistic plans was essential.
Rowe (2002), p. 118, on the Pisan decrees dealing with the death of Augustus' grandsons/sons Gaius and Lucius, is on point: 'On the map of politics, this was purely a relation between subject and monarch, with no role for the institutions of the res publica. When Pisans employed the vocabulary of consensus this time ("everything done, enacted, and established by the consensus omnium ordinum on [2 April] ... should thus be done, enacted, accepted, and followed''), the words had a different meaning. Literally, the word consensus embraced all ranks of Pisan society. By implication, consensus designated not the senatorial and imperial way of bypassing the Roman comitia but an Italian community's way of bypassing the whole res publica.' With Augustus being dead, the custodial and parental quality of the princeps is reaffirmed by literary (eg. Valerius Maximus) and epigraphic (eg. the SC de Cn. Pisone patre) evidences - with the population more than willing into indulging into the role of the children. Worth of notice is Strabo's remark, that it were a difficult thing to administer so great a dominion otherwise than by turning it over to one man, as to a father (6.4.2). That could be called, by a cynical observer, an inurement. Shortly after Augustus' death, the elections were moved from the comitia centuriata to the Senate ('from the Plain to the fathers'), and the strong popular movements of the Late Republic were clearly no more - though that aspect was still something that had to be coped with. It is perhaps of some interest to remark that one formidable individual, Seianus, moved out the elections from the fathers to the Aventine, a place with strong plebeian vibes (the secession of Aventine and the last stand of Gaius Gracchus), as a way to convey a popular manifestation of enthusiasm for his ensuing consulship (not coincidentally, Seianus was an .... novus); Gaius, too, attempted to restore the elections to the people, but the horse-trading and the evident reluctance of the people to exercise a purely notional power backfired.
