Syme's The Roman Revolution

[georgious]

I wonder if any among the erstwhile participants of this august forum is familiar with a rather old interpretation of the transition from the Republic to the Principate Ronald Syme's The Roman Revolution. It is a rather old-fashioned historiographical essay stressing the role of personalities and the republican upper-class which controlled the Republic.As I posted in another topic concerning "Rome" the HBO series one must not idealise the Republic which very clientelistic and class-ridden/With the Principate this clientelism was trasferred in the person of the Princeps.Syme correctly paints not an over-indulgent picture of the protagonists of the period stressing that one must not idealize people who achieve honour and position through Civil War.An admirable chapter on the organization of public opinion and propaganda exists where Syme examines the propagation of imperial ideology through the patronage of artists, that is poets, by Augustus and his "Minister of Culture" Maecinas.In more modern terms Kipling comes to mind.

[M. Porcius Cato]

What is the evidence that the system of clientele ever played a meaningful role in the politics of the republic? I think there is none to be found, whatever Syme's view.

[Primus Pilus]

I'm not quite sure I understand the concept of not idealizing the Republic. I do understand that the characters of the later republic may have taken advantage of the systems and the institutions, but reflecting that the Republic and Principate are ideally the same because of the evolution of the client system, fails to recognize the fundamental opportunity for political freedom and potential for choice that the Republic provided... even in it's weakest state.

 

On either extreme there were those who we may deem as oligarchs and those that we know as demagogues. Each had their own methodology for maintaining or obtaining power. Either way, until the destruction of the system through proscription and civil war, neither side ever held complete sway, and in more cases than not, the status quo was a respectable balance with give and take on both sides. I'll grant that it wasn't perfect, especially in the early stages when the people had lessor opportunity/influence and later when the corruption of individual greed and lust for power destroyed the concept, but the alternative was absolutism without opportunity for choice.

 

Just consider the similarities in the Roman governing nobilitas and elected officials in modern 'democracies'. Those who hold power in these systems are generally societal upper class. Granted, the potential for a 'new man' to work his way into this system is far greater than it was and of course more opportunities are available based on gender, etc., but government representation is generally a revolving door of the upper classes. Even these modern 'new men' generally must conform to the behavioral/societal status quo within the system or they are chastised by their counterparts.

 

(I am by no means comparing basic human rights, societal ethics, morals, etc. but simply the governing class throughout history.)

 

If we allow ourselves to be disillusioned by the Republic because it evolved into the Principate and eventually into medieval monarchy, should we not also idealize it for its influence on modern constitutional monarchy, parliamentary government, federal republic, etc.?

[georgious]

I'm not quite sure I understand the concept of not idealizing the Republic. I do understand that the characters of the later republic may have taken advantage of the systems and the institutions, but reflecting that the Republic and Principate are ideally the same because of the evolution of the client system, fails to recognize the fundamental opportunity for political freedom and potential for choice that the Republic provided... even in it's weakest state.

 

On either extreme there were those who we may deem as oligarchs and those that we know as demagogues. Each had their own methodology for maintaining or obtaining power. Either way, until the destruction of the system through proscription and civil war, neither side ever held complete sway, and in more cases than not, the status quo was a respectable balance with give and take on both sides. I'll grant that it wasn't perfect, especially in the early stages when the people had lessor opportunity/influence and later when the corruption of individual greed and lust for power destroyed the concept, but the alternative was absolutism without opportunity for choice.

 

Just consider the similarities in the Roman governing nobilitas and elected officials in modern 'democracies'. Those who hold power in these systems are generally societal upper class. Granted, the potential for a 'new man' to work his way into this system is far greater than it was and of course more opportunities are available based on gender, etc., but government representation is generally a revolving door of the upper classes. Even these modern 'new men' generally must conform to the behavioral/societal status quo within the system or they are chastised by their counterparts.

 

(I am by no means comparing basic human rights, societal ethics, morals, etc. but simply the governing class throughout history.)

 

If we allow ourselves to be disillusioned by the Republic because it evolved into the Principate and eventually into medieval monarchy, should we not also idealize it for its influence on modern constitutional monarchy, parliamentary government, federal republic, etc.?

I would like to thank both experienced intelocutors of taking the pains to answer to a novice like me.To the first I answer that I can not state specific evidence of the workings of clientelism in the Republic, just my educational experience as a young law student when my Greek textbooks of Roman Law mentioned the respective obligations of patron and client, the Latin origin of those words in the modern universal political terminology,the popularizing Once upon a time was Man which I read when very young, which in the chapter devoted to Rome shows a Roman knight receiving his clients-the same image reproduced in the penultimate episode of season one of HBO's Rome showing the recently created magistrate Vorenus receiving his clients, among them former comrades in arms and acting as intermediary between those and Caesar and the general aura that I have of Republican Rome.I know that this is not serious scientific evidence by a strong impression has been created on my which my latter knowledge, including Syme, has not dispelled.

To the second interlocutor I have to answer that I agree with his point, Syme says that always an oligarchy lurks behind the facade despite the official label of the government-be it Republic or Empire, an idea promoted in the 20th century by sociologists as Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca as well as the political philoshopher Leo Strauss. Perhaps my generalization about clientelism been identical in Republic and Principate was rather sweeping. It would be interesting to compare the lot of plebs under the Republic and the Principate, I dimly remember a book by Burnt about Social Conflicts during the Republic.One though must not forget that even from the times of Monarchy the costitution of Servius Tillius for the voting system of the popular assembly of free Romans -the comitia centuriata- gave the the majority to the combination of the first class of the rich and the Equites who had more voting power than the rest four classes combined plus the proletarians. So Rome was very much an oligarghy during the Republic and I remember the opinion of a distinguised by Greek standards Romanist Petropoulos who sais that Roman law is imbued with an aristocratic spirit.As the late Castoriades said Rome always remained an oligarchy.You observe that the oligarchy of the Republic must have been prefferable to the autocracy of the Principate-I have an agnostic attitude towards so early historical periods whom I think we can reconstruct with difficulty- especially the mentality of the average citizen.But the observation of modern democracies in the West retaining their oligarghic character although more easily infiltrated by new men, although the careers of Cicero and Tacitus may prove that this was also possible in Republican and Imperial Rome respectively, is I think correct although I do not have direct experience of govermental duty but i watch elections in my native Greece and Europe in general.A most recent example of new man is the French premier Sarkozy who is not the product of ENA for example.The point is, they may be chasticized by their counterparts but are they chasticed by the voters?The point in an elective system is not about what the governing class thinks of itself but what voters think of the governing class which theoretically depends on their vote to remain governing class.Is popular perception and applaude a factor in the process of government or the governors judge the governors, therefore their criteria are absolutely irrelevant for the rest of us.Thank you about the allusion to the modern political system since my interest in Rome stems for my impression that our world resembles very much Rome and not Greece(unfortunately?)