Eternal Questions

[Ursus]

Most of the arguments on this forum seem to have two questions at their heart.

 

1) How do we define "Roman" in a political, geographical and cultural sense? Do we use internal standards of those who applied the labels to themselves (e.g, German federates, Byzantines, or even provincials living way out back in the boonies), or is there some external and objective criteria which may exclude even those parties who petitioned the label?

 

 

2) That Roman society endured various transitions is not disputed. What is disputed are the merits of the transitions, especially as they relate to the first question regarding identity. Is the Principate a degeneration of the Republic? is the Dominate a degeneration of the Principate? What exactly are the standards that qualify something as good and worthy, the deviation of which qualifies something as bad and fallen? How does one differentiate a mere transition from a degeneration? Exactly how do these transitions effect the relativity of identity as proposed by question #1?

 

 

What makes a Roman a Roman?

What makes a "good" Roman and what makes a "bad" Roman?

What differentiates a Roman from a pretender?

 

The last time I asked this question the thread turned out to be an abortion. I'm hoping with all the new fresh, creative minds we can have a second go at it.

[M. Porcius Cato]

This is the best question I've ever seen posted on this forum.

 

To start it off, What makes the Romans Roman? To me, the best (albeit light-hearted) answer was provided by Dorothea Wender in her book Roman Poetry:

The Greeks had great genius, vitality, originality, ingenuity, and subtelty, but they often messed things up terribly. They invented tragedy, comedy, history, democracy, and philosophy (all more or less in the same century, too--the fifth BC), but it took the Romans to develop a really workable sewer system and central heating.

The Romans were also very good at business, and at the administration of large and complicated groups, like armies and nations. They hit on the idea of putting snow in their drinks, to keep their wine chilled. They worried about body odor a great deal, bathed frequently, and wore perfume. Their ideals were "masculine," and they were more self-consciously manly than the "soft" Greeks, but they fell in love with women, often behaved like perfect asses about them, and actually let some of them share their lives. They believed passionately in what they called *gravitas* (seriousness, dignity)--and produced first-rate silly farces. They were prudish about sex, nudity, and bodily functions--and wrote better pornography and viler obscene humor than the Greeks did. They worshipped authority (literally, sometimes)--and bred some wonderfully sly antiauthoritarian poets. They were gourmets--and felt guilty about their obsession with food. They loved violence--and felt guilty about that, too. Above all, they loved money, luxury, and comfort--and never tired of praising the poor, simple farmers of the past.

 

I think this is the key to the 'essence' of the Romans--they were filled with contradictory impulses and desires. Hence, the variation. Hence, the competition. Hence, the selection. Hence, the GROWTH.

 

As literate Romans became just one thing--just anarchic or just authoritarian, just 'decadent' or just feeling guilty about their desires--they became less of a Republic (which is all about variation, competition, and selection in politics), less pagan (which is all about variation, competition, and selection among the gods), and--lacking variation, competition, and selection--less dynamic.

 

I guess this is sort of a Darwinian take on the Roman character, but I think it's right.

[Pertinax]

My suggestion is this-the Romans were often Stoic ,particularly in War and in their attitude to actually functioning in the world , and Stoicism was ( I feel) a defining characteristic that ruled the Roman head and Soul,and a system of thought and ideas that would be very central to many lives (dare I suggest a modern parallel-many people go through life witha nodding acquaintence to Christianity, but they would not wish to be buried or cremated without the benefit of a Christian burial(this is not a comment on modern social mores)), and those who espuosed it would be considered virtuously and definitivley Roman.I suggest Stoicism as it came to be is an intellectualised Romanism of attitude.

However in their hearts we seem to see them( or certain prominent sections of society) leaning towards the Epicurean, the enjoyment of sensual pleasures, wealth ,food ,drink and sexual liasons.This is perhaps a little like the "wealth " which overtook the Dutch as they became a new nation with a new religious central identity-their "virtue" and Godliness profited the worldly state enormously. I also suggest that there are very strong parallels to Victorian England which wholeheartedly admired Rome, an iron will to "Civilise" and impose order because it was a moral obligation to do so within a certain religious framework and a huge dynamic self confidence based on being ,if not too clever(possibly anti-intellectual) , tough ,durable, plain spoken and Democratic ( to a limited section of ruling population), with a sub-culture of sensual indulgence.

Does this help the debate?

 

So you could "become " Roman by accepting the Stoic stance( I simplify greatly)-hence their ability to deal with issues such as race and religious variation which liberalism hopelessley fails to do.

 

The difficulty with the idea of degeneration is that actual world events, population dynamics and chance wait for no man or political system.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Pertinax

[M. Porcius Cato]

So you could "become " Roman by accepting the Stoic stance( I simplify greatly)-hence their ability to deal with issues such as race and religious variation which liberalism hopelessley fails to do.

 

Pertinax, as a point of clarification, there is a trans-Atlantic difference in what is meant by "liberalism" (e.g., as a political term, American "liberals" typically admire European social democrats and labour parties over European "liberals"). What did you mean by the term? Did you mean that the ideals of democratic socialism hopelessly fail to deal with issues such as race and religious variation? Or did you mean that the ideal of minimal state intervention hoplessely fails to deal with those issues? Or did you have some other meaning in mind?

[Pertinax]

I forget we are a cross cultural entity! I mean Liberal as in European Social Democrats and their role in extending the state into all areas of life,( certainly not a true "Liberal",being in many ways an British "Liberal" myself or possibly more correctly ( but outdatedly) a Whig ).

I didnt want to spark another Rome yesterday-USA today debate, I was trying to kick some thoughts about in relation to modern interpretation of "moral"ideas.

I apologise for the vagueness, the comment was the least part of my post

[M. Porcius Cato]

I apologise for the vagueness, the comment was the least part of my post

 

OK--that's a good clarification.

 

On to your main idea, the Romans' love of wine, women, and water were certainly 'epicurean' in an ordinary sense. But many were also true Epicureans, in the philosophical sense--Lucretius being the best Roman example. Don't you think the philosophic influence of Epicurus was keenly felt by true Romans? Also, which do you think provided a better bulwark against the oriental savior religions--Stoicism or Epicureanism?

[Pertinax]

I dont think Epicurus was a million miles away from the Stoics,in many ways the division is between "sufficient enjoyment without wrongdoing" versus restraint tending to moral austerity-if you have a dearth of compulsive personality traits then wine ,women and song dont feed addictions -you just go home and get a good nights sleep after a modest bout of social drinking:ive often wondered if this was somewhat similar to the Samurai ethical position of not appearing too austere but properly displaying merited rank in a forthright manner.

The school of the Stoa seems to be a Liberal non-materialist creed for those who feel that "being saved" from anything is not a rational world view . Look at Pliny (Elder) a man full of life and deeply inquring-all the writings are tinged with a view centred on the moral "plainness" of what being Roman is , nothing fancy needed for psychological health but to remember oneself as a balanced person without overweening desires or lusts.

Epicurus goes a way further ,the balanced personality can savour unusual foods,wines (whatever) but in the knowledge that gluttony and lust destroy any true appreciation of "fine things".

I hope im not rambling here

If I had to go modern again id say ,your soldiers and politicians should be stoics and your urban elites can afford to be Epicurean! I dont think either view would be a mental or moral hill to a Liberal atheist, my own Father was in many ways a Stoic who quite fancied being an Epicurean but happened to be a Liberal Protestant who liked to think God might possibly exist-but he didnt get excited about it. I feel im an Epicurean who's overindulgent and should be a Stoic, whilst also being a very relaxed Protestant Liberal(Whig) .

I think many ordinary Romans being seriously practical people would have kept an eye on the Gods,(why offend anyone who might alter the odds for you?), and Stoicism being so practical could be as simple as good manners in educated company.Wealth from conquest is I still think the key "spark" to the enjoyment of luxury .

Oh dear that really was a stream of consciousness rant.

This is a great thread-but im worried that im getting too close to "modernism " again

Edited December 16, 2005 by Pertinax

[Ursus]

Thank you both for the intelligent responses. This is much better than the last time I asked this question, which garnered such responses as "a Roman is someone who lives in Rome." It was insightful comments like that that make this site what it is...

 

But seriously, this is the start of a great discussion. On Stoicism: Certainly there are elements of the Roman character which made their educated predisposed to Stoicism. The emphasis on emotionless duty to the state, their relative willingness to include others in their empire, their belief in a divine universe. My, problem, though, is that the Roman mentality was simply too simple and straightforward to accept more of the complex abstractions inherent in Greek Philosophy. Perhaps it's a semantic quibble, but Greek Philosophy comes bound with a set of complex assumptions that the Roman mentality in general did not seem to concern itself with. That's why I can't apply "Stoicism" as a whole to describe the Roman soul.

 

As Cato mentioned above in his quote, there are certain contradictions. The Romans could be rowdy and passionate when it suited them. The Stoics also seemed to be indifferent to the glories of the world. The traditional Roman mentality was certainly anything but indifferent to the glories of the world and one

[Princeps]

To me there are several things that define the Romans. Porcius Cato's point about contradictions is very apt-

 

-Tolerance - Roman society could be extremely tolerant. Instead of attempting to obliterate other cultures, they would often integrate instead. This is contradicted by their brutality though. A multitude of religions were tolerated, there were all kinds of esoteric cults and such scattered throughout society. However, some sufered edicts of persecution.

 

-Practicality and pragmatism - Roman commentators would often deride the great monuments of other cultures, citing the fact that Roman creations were not merely works of art, but served a function (aquaducts, the Collosseum). However, their aesthetic tastes were highly advanced also.

 

-Ingenuity - Both militarily and socially. Many of the social cornerstones of Roman society exist even to this day. However, they could be dogmatic in their views at times.

 

-Confidence - They were supremely confident in their superiority over neighbouring cultures, centuries of dominance proved this. However, they could also be extremely insecure and fearful.

[M. Porcius Cato]

More great examples of competing varieties of the Roman mind, Princeps!

 

-Practicality and pragmatism - Roman commentators would often deride the great monuments of other cultures, citing the fact that Roman creations were not merely works of art, but served a function (aquaducts, the Collosseum). However, their aesthetic tastes were highly advanced also.

 

And not just their tastes either, but their ability to create advanced works. For my part, I've always greatly admired the veristic portraits from the Republic. These portraits didn't idealize their subjects the way the Greek ones did (compare the portrait of Perikles to Cicero for example; or better, Alexander to Pompey)--the focus instead is on representing the individual for who he was. In these portraits, there is very high technical skill, certainly as great as anything from classical Greece, and the Romans' unassuming and practical dedication to reality created a new aesthetic. (BTW, the "Prima Porta" portrait of Augustus is almost the antithesis of this style, as Augustus had himself portrayed as a virile 19-year-old throughout his whole life, which is just weird if you ask me.)

 

It always bugs me that almost every sculpture found in the Roman world is identified as "Roman marble sculpture copied from Greek bronze original"--even when we don't know that there ever was a Greek bronze original! It's as if the Romans never created any scultures on their own! Anyway, that's just a pet peeve of mine. That--and the principate

[M. Porcius Cato]

From where I'm sitting, the central Roman traits are Pietas and Auctoritas - the absolute sense of devotion and duty to all things religious, political and social ... coupled with the sense of one's standing in the community as derived from one's abilities and deeds. One could gain auctoritas from discharging one's pietas, and one could inspire pietas in others by having auctoritas. The two unite each other and everything else in the universe in a complex web where everything stands in relationship to everything else in terms of respect or service.

 

This is a profound, abstract, and deeply insightful analysis. In some ways, it is complementary to my thesis in that the ideal of piety creates internal conflict. For example, one's duty to one's family may conflict with one's duty to uphold the law. Generally, upholding the law was considered a higher piety--hence the legend of Marcus Junius Brutus having his sons executed for their betrayal of the fledgling republic or the case of Manlius Torquatus having his son executed for an overeager but disobedient charge (Livy's line, "lictor deliga ad palum--lictor, tie him to a post", still sends chills down my spine). Would the auctoritas of Brutus and Torquatus have suffered had they failed in their duties as fathers--you bet! So, I'd add that resolving conflicting pieties with severitas was the route to higher authority.

 

It would seem in the Republic that Pietas held sway over Auctoritas. People were allowed to seek their glory so long as they did not blot the other social elites completely. No kings in a literal or metaphorical sense. But the late republic beginning with Sulla and ending with Caesar upset that balance. Caesar placed his Auctoritas over pietas, and Rome was changed.

 

I see how this analysis stems logically from your premises, Ursus, and it makes sense to me. What then do you think is the importance of ambition as an historical force?

 

My analysis of the historical trends is again complementary to yours, but let me expand on it slightly now that you've raised the bar.

 

During the Republic, ambition plus variation led to competition, and selection among competing varieties occurred through the mechanisms of law and/or precedent. As the rule of law broke down and precedents lost their authority, selection among competing varieties was still necessary and so alternative mechanisms evolved, such as the dictatorship and eventually the principate. These selective mechanisms, however, were limited to the lives of the dictator or princeps in question, leading to complete anarchy and civil war when neither a princeps nor the laws could select among competing interests. Thus, lacking the essential ingredients of growth (variation, competition, and selection) the material conditions of the society declined during periods of anarchy and civil war until another mechanism of selection emerged, viz. the dominate. (After this point, my analysis has to end simply because my historical knowledge is too incomplete.)

 

Again, this is a great thread. Linking the Roman character to the sweep of Roman history really does manage to integrate the 'eternal questions'.

[Ursus]

What then do you think is the importance of ambition as an historical force?

 

 

I tend to see history as a clash of wills. On a macro level we have cultures and states exerting their influence on one another. On a micro level we have individual actors vying for supremacy. What interests me is when an individual can gain the weight of a culture, or at least a large part of it, behind him and drive history with the weight of a locomotive.

 

I see your analysis of the Republic as an apt one. The function of the Republican elite was to compete with each other over auctoritas. This was tolerated and encouraged because what benefited an individual actor, benefited the culture as a whole, e.g., military conquest.

 

It was also tolerated because there were social mechanisms in place that regulated and modified the pursuit of auctoritas. The Republican system divided the magistracies among various actors and placed an annual limit on the exercise of their power. Then too there was the overwhelming sense of pietas. No matter how much glory someone had, they still had to obey their elders, their fathers, their colleagues, the gods, and the whole sweep of Roman tradition. Their star could shine brightly but they could only still be one star among many.

 

The acquisitions of the Republic destabilized the arrangement. It gave the ambitious greater resources to overthrow their rivals. Furthermore, it brought in new blood. In the old Republic it was the same set of families that played the game. As the various wars started killing them off, new actors were brought into the game who were not as committed to the old rules of the game. Caesar came from an old family, but one that had spent quite some time in obscurity. When his finally got a taste of real power, he wasn't about to play by the gentlemen's rules set forth by the Establishment. And he used the ever expanding resources of the Republic to get his way.

 

Of course, it got him killed. Augustus fixed the mistake by pretending to play by the old rules of piety even as he increased his own Auctoritas to new heights. That's why he was the smoothest politician in Roman history.

 

I suppose the central question was whether or not men like Caesar were justified in taking their own ambition, their own auctoritas, over the pious traditions of the past. Caesar seemed to feel the Republic of his day was no longer worthy of Piety, and he wasn't about to sacrifice one iota of his own glory to defer to the traditions of a society that were in his view dysfunctional. If the Republic was truly dysfunctional, was that his fault in not respecting it or wanting to honor it?

 

But I don't feel that Caesar or Augustus were bare naked meglomaniacs ought to smash tradition just for the sake of making themselves king. What they wanted was a new Roman society, one suited for a new age that was capable of inspiring a new sense of piety from its subjects. That they would stand at the forefront of this new society and receive the brunt of the new piety is of course self-serving, but such is the Roman way, for auctoritas and pietas are always tethered to each other.

[Pertinax]

To me there are several things that define the Romans. Porcius Cato's point about contradictions is very apt-

 

-Tolerance - Roman society could be extremely tolerant. Instead of attempting to obliterate other cultures, they would often integrate instead. This is contradicted by their brutality though. A multitude of religions were tolerated, there were all kinds of esoteric cults and such scattered throughout society. However, some sufered edicts of persecution.

 

-Practicality and pragmatism - Roman commentators would often deride the great monuments of other cultures, citing the fact that Roman creations were not merely works of art, but served a function (aquaducts, the Collosseum). However, their aesthetic tastes were highly advanced also.

 

-Ingenuity - Both militarily and socially. Many of the social cornerstones of Roman society exist even to this day. However, they could be dogmatic in their views at times.

 

-Confidence - They were supremely confident in their superiority over neighbouring cultures, centuries of dominance proved this. However, they could also be extremely insecure and fearful.

 

May i suggest that the brutality is a logical extrapolation of the pragmatism? If you take up arms against Rome then you have to be eliminated -you have stepped outside the law( and the moral framework of that law)-if Rome came to fight and won then your own battlefield casualties would be fearful (weve kicked this about elsewhere when looking at casualty infliction in relation to modern weapons) and as a logical extension resistance would be eliminated (Trajan in Dacia for example). It may be grim reading to "moderns" but such moral terror is a very effective morale crusher.If you bowed to Rome then, well ,your Gods might be useful and powerful so bring them to the party,but if your God(s) threatened Roman authority best to adapt to Rome :look at the struggle against the Jews in the context of the wider tolerance of multiple cults.

 

Ive kept an eye on the thread but been too tired to give a decent contribution -all work at this time of year:bag:

[M. Porcius Cato]

Thanks Ursus for another good contribution to the best thread ever. Our views are so very close yet diverge in the end on our evalutation of the rule of law in governing the relation between the individual and the state.

 

What then do you think is the importance of ambition as an historical force?

I tend to see history as a clash of wills. On a macro level we have cultures and states exerting their influence on one another. On a micro level we have individual actors vying for supremacy. What interests me is when an individual can gain the weight of a culture, or at least a large part of it, behind him and drive history with the weight of a locomotive.

 

In both our accounts, historical agents (individuals, factions, ideologies, cultures, etc) differ in their goals, and so just as ambition is necessary for the accomplishment of any of these goals, so too it leads to competition, or "a clash of wills". I think we also both admire ambition in historical agents as a potentially constructive force in the growth of a society, and I think this idea about ambition ("the vice nearest virtue") was a very Roman one. A very dramatic illustration of our idea was provided by Julius Caesar in his Commentaries on the Gallic Wars. The relevant passage (which happens to be especially interesting thanks to HBO) concerns Pulfio and Varenus:

In that legion there were two very brave men, centurions, who were now approaching the first ranks, T. Pulfio, and L. Varenus. These used to have continual disputes between them which of them should be preferred, and every year used to contend for promotion with the utmost animosity. When the fight was going on most vigorously before the fortifications, Pulfio, one of them, says, "Why do you hesitate, Varenus? or what [better] opportunity of signalizing your valor do you seek? This very day shall decide our disputes." When he had uttered these words, he proceeds beyond the fortifications, and rushes on that part of the enemy which appeared the thickest. Nor does Varenus remain within the rampart, but respecting the high opinion of all, follows close after. Then, when an inconsiderable space intervened, Pulfio throws his javelin at the enemy, and pierces one of the multitude who was running up, and while the latter was wounded and slain, the enemy cover him with their shields, and all throw their weapons at the other and afford him no opportunity of retreating. The shield of Pulfio is pierced and a javelin is fastened in his belt. This circumstance turns aside his scabbard and obstructs his right hand when attempting to draw his sword: the enemy crowd around him when [thus] embarrassed. His rival runs up to him and succors him in this emergency. Immediately the whole host turn from Pulfio to him, supposing the other to be pierced through by the javelin. Varenus rushes on briskly with his sword and carries on the combat hand to hand, and having slain one man, for a short time drove back the rest: while he urges on too eagerly, slipping into a hollow, he fell. To him, in his turn, when surrounded, Pulfio brings relief; and both having slain a great number, retreat into the fortifications amid the highest applause. Fortune so dealt with both in this rivalry and conflict, that the one competitor was a succor and a safeguard to the other, nor could it be determined which of the two appeared worthy of being preferred to the other.

 

Two things stand out as being relevant here--first, though Varenus and Pulfio were in competition for auctoritas, any destructive effects of this competition were checked by their collegia, their mutual enmity for their shared enemies, and their overarching loyalty to res publica. Further, had the competition between them flared up into violent conflict, there was an even greater power (the military itself) that had an even greater interest in settling that conflict lest it spread to cripple the larger unit of which Varenus and Pulfio were members.

 

We also agree that this checked competition was the key to the longevity of the Republic itself:

I see your analysis of the Republic as an apt one. The function of the Republican elite was to compete with each other over auctoritas. This was tolerated and encouraged because what benefited an individual actor, benefited the culture as a whole, e.g., military conquest.

 

It was also tolerated because there were social mechanisms in place that regulated and modified the pursuit of auctoritas. The Republican system divided the magistracies among various actors and placed an annual limit on the exercise of their power. Then too there was the overwhelming sense of pietas. No matter how much glory someone had, they still had to obey their elders, their fathers, their colleagues, the gods, and the whole sweep of Roman tradition. Their star could shine brightly but they could only still be one star among many.

 

Now the historical question is--what destabilized this arrangement? Here again we are in agreement for the most part:

The acquisitions of the Republic destabilized the arrangement. It gave the ambitious greater resources to overthrow their rivals. Furthermore, it brought in new blood. In the old Republic it was the same set of families that played the game. As the various wars started killing them off, new actors were brought into the game who were not as committed to the old rules of the game. Caesar came from an old family, but one that had spent quite some time in obscurity. When his finally got a taste of real power, he wasn't about to play by the gentlemen's rules set forth by the Establishment. And he used the ever expanding resources of the Republic to get his way.

 

I mostly agree, but two points need to be added, and I think their addition is where our accounts begin to diverge.

 

The first point is that the acquisitions of the Republic were not inherently destabilizing. Over many years, the Republic was able to add many territories to its list of provinces and many citizens to its list of voters without destroying the mechanisms that made competition constructive. My opinion (admittedly a controversial one) is that this could have gone on indefinitely, until Roman control stretched from the Danube to the pillars of Heracles, without requiring a monarchy. The key, however, was that Rome had to apply to all its new provinces the same policies it practiced toward its most loyal Italian allies (e.g., the Etruscan territories). Instead, the administration of some newly acquired territories were not reviewed properly by the Senate, which too often failed to intervene while the territories were exploited by people like Verres, Crassus, and (later) Caesar. This laxness toward provincial administration--a betrayal of proper Roman severitas--was a destabilizing force because it rewarded lawlessness with vast wealth, enormous political power, and nearly unstoppable military power. This failure to check provinicial exploitation, in my view, was THE critical destabilizing force--once the rule of law ceased to operate and once the power of individual men exceeded that of the whole republic, the opportunity for monarchy was present for anyone who wanted it. I want to emphasize this very strongly--the survival of the republic demanded the prosecution of anyone who used the provinces as his own personal territory.

 

The second point is that bringing in new blood increased variation and competition, but it too was not inherently destabilizing. It's certainly true that some 20 families controlled almost all of the magistracies of the old Republic (we owe this insight to Sir Ronald Syme), and I agree that this arrangement was indeed a stabilizing force: the competition among these families was checked by their collegium and interest in the preservation of res publica. However--and this is what I think was destabilizing, insofar as patrician interests were united by the love of the republic and the desire to attain high office, they had to amass a political war-chest, yet since they were forbidden by law from attaining this wealth via sea trade (the lex Claudia), virtually all their wealth had to be obtained through their latifundia, thereby incentivizing encroachement on the ager publica, with all the ills attendant thereto (vastly-increased demand for slave labor, displacement of small farmers, growth in the ranks of the landless poor, reduction in the ranks of the landed classes ready for military service, incentivization of the Marian military reforms, creation of privately-controlled client armies, and ultimately civil war). All of the attempts to limit encroachements on the ager publica were necessary to avoid these ills, but as long as the lex Claudia remained on the books, these reforms could only serve to weaken the entire senatorial class, which ultimately united en masse to oppose them. To untie the office of the senator from the interests of the plantation economy, the republic required that senators have a diverse basket of potential revenue sources and preferably not ones that required the exploitation of the provinces. As far as I can tell, the lex Claudia was the root of tremendous destablization and the rise of the new blood (such as Cicero) was not.

 

To sum up (and steal a phrase from our own Virgil), once Italy became a "feeding trough for the optimates" and once the provinces and military became a feeding trough for the populares, civil war was immanent. Further, as long as the rule of law and the sanctity of private property could be abridged, it wouldn't even matter who won that civil war. Whether it was Pompey or Caesar, the victor would have the power of a king and the republic would have been destroyed.

 

But I don't feel that Caesar or Augustus were bare naked meglomaniacs ought to smash tradition just for the sake of making themselves king. What they wanted was a new Roman society, one suited for a new age that was capable of inspiring a new sense of piety from its subjects. That they would stand at the forefront of this new society and receive the brunt of the new piety is of course self-serving, but such is the Roman way, for auctoritas and pietas are always tethered to each other.

 

Well, I agree with you that Caesar and Augustus did not set out to smash the constitution, but I do think their megalomania made their opposition to the republic inevitable. But, please, let's just table this discussion so we can consolidate all discussion of Caesar's role in history to one thread.

[M. Porcius Cato]

One of the nice things about this forum is that we not only have an opportunity to learn a great deal from one another, we also have a written record that documents our learning trajectory. Re-reading this post of mine from over a year ago, I'm mildly astonished to find myself expressing both views that I continue to hold and views that I've since abandoned entirely.

 

For example, I remain convinced that

the acquisitions of the Republic were not inherently destabilizing.

 

On the other hand, I wonder whether young Cato might not have lost his mind when he wrote:

It's certainly true that some 20 families controlled almost all of the magistracies of the old Republic (we owe this insight to Sir Ronald Syme)...

What exactly I meant by the "old Republic" is completely opaque to me now. If I meant the period from Sulla's resignation to Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, then I was simply wrong. If I meant some other period, then I'm really assuming a great deal of evidence that simply hasn't been collected. In either case, a year of further study leaves me disputing this characterization entirely.

 

 

I was also mildly astonished to find myself endorsing a very specific (and novel) hypothesis regarding the fall of the republic:

since they [senators] were forbidden by law from attaining this wealth via sea trade (the lex Claudia), virtually all their wealth had to be obtained through their latifundia, thereby incentivizing encroachment on the ager publica, with all the ills attendant thereto (vastly-increased demand for slave labor, displacement of small farmers, growth in the ranks of the landless poor, reduction in the ranks of the landed classes ready for military service, incentivization of the Marian military reforms, creation of privately-controlled client armies, and ultimately civil war).

 

As much as I like the simplicity and subtlety of laying the cause of civil wars at the doorstep of a state intrusion into the economy (the lex Claudia), this hypothesis depends on a large number of highly questionable assumptions: that the lex Claudia was not almost completely ignored (e.g., I can't think of anyone ever having been tried for violating it), that the only alternative to trade profits were agricultural profits (as though Crassus made his fortune from farming), that those who were encroaching on the ager publica were mostly senators (again, ZERO evidence for this idea), that this encroachment led to the decline of small farms (the archaeological evidence suggests the opposite), that the landless urban poor formed the backbone of private armies (in fact, on the two and only occasions that a legion was recruited from the urban poor, the army was so soundly defeated that the urban poor were almost never recruited in large numbers again), and that the privatization of armies was affected entirely by economic rather than political motivations (again, the defections of soldiers from richer camps to poorer camps--such as from Lepidus to Antony--suggests that this idea is an oversimplification at the very least).

 

In any case, it's amazing how much one can learn in the course of a year.