Ides of March

[Divus Julius]

In answer to Primus Pilus and Sylla:

 

Difference of views again. What we're arguing about (as I see it) is not the benefits of Oligarchic Republic vs Absolutism. That's how the Republic and the Empire respectively were run. I argue that the Imperial State - the Empire itself, was vastly superior to the Republic city-state organization. Thus can Caesar and Augustus both be said to have "begun" the Empire: it was Caesar who effectively established the foundation for the Imperial State; it was Augustus who devised the means by which it would be ruled.

 

My view on Caesar's rule being likely to have been the better of the two stems in a large part from the same reason why I think it ludicrous to say that he was a tyrant: whereas Augustus had no compunctions about reducing the rights of the citizenry drastically, under Caesar they remained in full place. Caesar established the practice of regularly publishing the procceedings of the Senate, Augustus put an end to this. Caesar responded to criticism of his reign with indifference or even encouragement of a form (one thinks of his response to the eulogies of Cato), Augustus did not tolerate disent at all. And so on.

 

I also mark that Caesar's policy of clemency and reconciliation likely reflected (among other things) his recognition of Rome's old elite, for all their corruption, nevertheless continuing to posess the attributes that had made Rome great in the first place.

 

In short, of the two Caesar probably would have been the better of the two to rule the Empire, but as was, the Imperial System was preferable to the Republic, and so I can look favorably on Augustus for upholding it, and devising a method for its continuance.

 

I've been repeating my argument for a while, let's turn things on their head: could you throw up for me some reasons why you think the Republic was superior to the Empire?

[sylla]

In answer to Primus Pilus and Sylla:

 

Difference of views again. What we're arguing about (as I see it) is not the benefits of Oligarchic Republic vs Absolutism. That's how the Republic and the Empire respectively were run. I argue that the Imperial State - the Empire itself, was vastly superior to the Republic city-state organization. Thus can Caesar and Augustus both be said to have "begun" the Empire: it was Caesar who effectively established the foundation for the Imperial State; it was Augustus who devised the means by which it would be ruled.

 

My view on Caesar's rule being likely to have been the better of the two stems in a large part from the same reason why I think it ludicrous to say that he was a tyrant: whereas Augustus had no compunctions about reducing the rights of the citizenry drastically, under Caesar they remained in full place. Caesar established the practice of regularly publishing the procceedings of the Senate, Augustus put an end to this. Caesar responded to criticism of his reign with indifference or even encouragement of a form (one thinks of his response to the eulogies of Cato), Augustus did not tolerate disent at all. And so on.

 

I also mark that Caesar's policy of clemency and reconciliation likely reflected (among other things) his recognition of Rome's old elite, for all their corruption, nevertheless continuing to posess the attributes that had made Rome great in the first place.

 

In short, of the two Caesar probably would have been the better of the two to rule the Empire, but as was, the Imperial System was preferable to the Republic, and so I can look favorably on Augustus for upholding it, and devising a method for its continuance.

 

I've been repeating my argument for a while, let's turn things on their head: could you throw up for me some reasons why you think the Republic was superior to the Empire?

Thanks for your answer, even if I'm not sure if such was the question; as I see it, the mere intention to define our differences of view previous to arguing about them after repeating our arguments for a while is a great advance by itself.

I stated that Caesar was an autocrat and you stated Caesar was not a tyrant; no difference there.

The core of the rights of the Roman citizenry was their political rights; under Caesar, such rights didn't "remain" anywhere; they disappeared, period.

We agree that Augustus sometimes reduced and Caesar didn't (across the few months of his aborted administration) the right of not being butchered for expressing your political opinions.

Caesar was the proud paramount example of Rome's corrupted elite; primus inter pares. I'm not sure if we disagree here. Caesar's clemency was an extreme example of Republican corruption; the enemies of the whole state were pardoned just by the autocrat's caprice.

We agree that Caesar established the practice of regularly publishing the proceedings of the Senate, not their own; as under Caesar the Senate was not ruling, that was irrelevant.

In short, what Caesar's rule would have been is mere speculation. As it was, the ultimate evidence of political success is survival; the comparison between Caesar and Augustus couldn't have been more eloquent.

I didn't state which was better, the Republic or the Empire; I stated that we haven't explore this topic deeply enough.

But since you ask, I think I can throw you a most definitive reason; the Imperial system had no balance or check of power, the attributes that have made Rome great in the first place.

As soon as the third imperial reign, Caius Julius Caesar minor (aka Caligula) painfully showed the risks of the autocratic rule; and we are all perfectly aware that he was hardly the only example. For that, both Caesar (who effectively established its foundation) and Augustus (who devised the means by which it would be ruled) must be held responsible.

If you live under any more or less democratic regime, you should have no problem in understanding such concept; if you don't, it may be even easier.

[Divus Julius]

I am by no means saying that the Empire was perfect, merely that it was a system that worked better than the Republic. This is why I think Caesar's rule would have been superior to that of Augustus; contary to what you say, I think that all evidence shows that Caesar did respect the rights of the citizenry, and had a clear agenda for trying to improve their lot in life.

 

There was an a critical benfit of the Empire that I should have included in my previous post, and it is this: it could control the army. The Republic maight have been more democratic than the Empire, but it had no control over the army. The careers of men like Sulla, Pomepy, Caesar, and Augustus make this all too clear. This is a major part of the argument that, I think, comes down on the side of pro-empire.

 

I have lived in a lot of places - Australia, USA, Singapore, Japan, and a few others. I very much appreciate living under a democracy, but just as readily I appreciate living in a prosperous country.

 

Emperors like Caligula and Nero did stir up a lot of angst, to put it lightly, but one notes that as long as the Emperor was not overly insane or tyrannical, the system functioned far better than its Republican predecessor.

 

Having the choice of living in the Roman Republic or the Roman Empire, I would live under the Empire. I appreciate having political rights and freedom as much as anybody (hence my preference of Caesar), but I must admit to the weakness of also liking to live in some prosperity and stability. During the Pax Romana life in the Roman Empire by and large was just that: stable and prosperous - far more so than during the Republic.

 

On the subject of what constitutes political success, we must again disagree. Caesar's work was cut short by his assasination, but in the end, he remained the overall victor. To quote Gelzer again, what happened afterwards happened following the lines that he had laid down. He was the victor in the sense that he had laid the foundations for an imperial system, and that counts for something signifigant.

 

I don't see Caesar's clemency as in anyway corrupt. It was autocratic, but then, he was an autocrat. To associate it with anything "Republican", I think though, is incorrect. Caesar was not pardoning enemies of the Republic - the Republic to him did not exist. He made clear with his comment that "The Republic is nothing - just a name without form or spirirt". If the Republic did not exist, then the Optimates were not fighting for any cause at all, but were enemies of his new Imperial State. He nevertheless set out to try and reconcile them; seeking their help in his task. There is a definite air of tragedy about the whole affair. So we are in agreeance here that he was acting as an autocrat. The difference is that I see this in a positive light, you in a negative.

 

On a final note mostly answering Primus Pilus, I acknowledge whole-heartedly that Caesar was ambitious. But to regard his whole career as merely a pursuit of power, is, to borrow Gelzer's words again, to measure his statesmanship by an inadequate yardstick. His ambition soared so high because he was conscious of his power to become the master of the empire and shape. The tragedy of his career is that out of inner conviction he attempted to do so without terror, and without great enough regard for his own life. One cannot but admire that Caesar clearly determined to use the power he gained to intelligently attempt to improve his world for the better of the majority. Or so goes my opinion.

[Primus Pilus]

On a final note mostly answering Primus Pilus, I acknowledge whole-heartedly that Caesar was ambitious. But to regard his whole career as merely a pursuit of power, is, to borrow Gelzer's words again, to measure his statesmanship by an inadequate yardstick. His ambition soared so high because he was conscious of his power to become the master of the empire and shape. The tragedy of his career is that out of inner conviction he attempted to do so without terror, and without great enough regard for his own life. One cannot but admire that Caesar clearly determined to use the power he gained to intelligently attempt to improve his world for the better of the majority. Or so goes my opinion.

 

Indeed, we differ greatly here. I don't disagree that Caesar was a "great" man by historical standards. Whether we label him famous or infamous, great or terrible, we know he had a huge impact on human history. I respect his impact, his ability to lead and his gamesmanship, I'm just not sure why I should admire a man with utter contempt for political freedom. Additionally, I just don't see how the world improved for the majority. Ignoring any look at empirical data for the moment, I don't think we would see much difference in the economic condition of the common citizen in the Augustan era of the Pax Romana and say the middle Republic from the end of the Punic Wars to the time of the Gracchi and the Sullan/Marian civil war. Some had it better, some did not, but I doubt we see any great improvement in the environmental/economic conditions for the vast majority of citizens... unless one considers state dependency to be an improvement. In the Republican era, at least the people had choices to make for leadership, be it tribunes or consuls (whether they were ambitious demagogues or puppets of the elite). With Caesar, there was no choice but his.

[Divus Julius]

Well, as we continue to establish each time one of us makes a post, we disagree.

 

I don't see how Caesar's rule and political freedoms were necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

Political freedoms, the "rights" of the Roman citizenry, I see as including things like freedom of speech, right for a fair trial, right not to be taxed out of house and home and generally be exploited, and so on, and these things Caesar respected. Citizens if they wanted, could criticize him, or praise his enemies. Cicero and Brutus made full use of this, and both maintained their friendship with Caesar (until Brutus decided to terminate his relationship with the Dictator). One thinks of the incident during Caesar's triumph where a knight; Decimus Laberius, made a number of open insinuations during a play that Caesar was a tyrant. The "tyrant" happily gave a him a massive cash prize for his performance in the play, though he scandalized the nobility by awarding an even greater prize to a freedman. Caesar's rule saw advances in some ways, such as the opening of schools of rhetoric that were for the first time in years open to all classes, thus allowing people who entered said schools to be able to gain prominence through oratory; the standard move of aspiring politicians when still too young to enter the senate, only know open to a slightly wider group.

 

Caesar's rule was by no means a democracy: it was a meritocracy. Anyone with merit, regardless of who they were, could achieve prominence under the new rule, short as it was. Personally, I find this admirable.

 

Caesar's will, of course, was always carried out, but this can, I think, be seen as a good thing as long as Caesar was the one in the big chair. He showed himself well capable of making sensible, impartial decisions.

 

This is of course, a fairl narrow view: we should also examine the point of view of the provincials.

 

Once more we are in huge disagreement on something: from what I have read of the transition of the Republic to the Empire, and the times before and after, the lot of the provincials improved enormously. While under the Republic they might get the occaisonal good governor; a Caesar, a Cicero, even a Cato (for all his faults, I will not deny that Cato was not a parasite like many of his fellow Oligarchs), but by and large a lot of governors were interested in nothing more or less than making up their losses in election spending. This began to tell: economic decline in the provinces was marked. Republian ideals were not much use to the provincials, who could not vote.

 

Thus from this point of view; that of what was certainly the majority of the population in the Empire, the Republic's death brought no loss, and considerable gain. Better administration, relative calm and stability, the process of Romanization really starting to kick in - all these things would make me decidedly pro-Imperial State, were I a provincial, and had never had the luxury of being able to vote in the first place.

 

One could make a case study out of the benfits provincials got out of Julius Caesar alone. Had his career ended after his 1st Consulship, he still could have laid claim to one very great deed: the introduction of his Lex Julia, which effectively laid out all the details about how to govern a province, pand was such a successful document that even Cato could find nothing wrong with it, and it was still being used as the basis of law well into the Byzantine period. However, Caesar's career was even more extensive than this, and one should also note his efforts to crack down on tax-farming, his personal reorganization of many of the provinces, and numerous other helpful measures. No loss of political rights here that had barely existed, much gained.

 

In short, the way I see it, life improved for a great many people. Citizens could no longer choose directly their leaders, but they still posessed the inherent rights of citizenship, and life in general became easier, stabler, and likely as not more prosperous. For the non-citizen, as I have said, nothing was really lost, but signifigant gains were made.

 

And may I bring up again that other critical point: the fact that Caesar's autocracy, whatever its faults, brought the huge benefit of keeping the military under firm control. This, I think should play a much larger role in this argument than it has thus far.

 

To sum it up, I view Caesar as a man not just "great" in the historical sense, but also in many ways admirable, and not just for his many-sided genius. In his statesmanship he saw that it was neccessary that the Republic make the transition to the Imperial State, with a central government that could control the military. What is notable is that he tried to do it without terror, and used the power he gained intelligently for the benefit of the greater majority, and in the process revealed (or so I have become convinced through my reading of events) quite the opposite of what you attribute to him: a great respect for the rights of the citizen and his political freedom. It should thus, I think, be counted as a tragedy that he was murdered, and his banner taken up by Augustus, who was a great administrator, and a master politician, but lacked Caesar's genius, his respect for what I view as political freedoms, and as a result implemented a flawed system. Still, even flawed it was, I think, an improvement on the Republic.

[sylla]

If no one of us is saying that anything is perfect, we are in a good way. The Roman Republic was at the end quite far from being the perfect democracy; from the very beginning, the Empire was rather close of being the absolute autocracy. The definitive right of any citizenry is the vote; any autocratic "respect" to such right is just an oxymoron. The right of disagreeing is by itself another typical democratic trait, and even if we have not restricted ourselves in using it, no one questions that Caesar became an autocrat, simply because the evidence available here and elsewhere is insurmountable.

 

The exercise of our right to disagree has changed our predominant topic; we are now mostly comparing the relative benefits of the Republic (democracy) versus the Empire (autocracy). BTW, our use of this right is a positive action, and actions speak louder than words, now and ever. In any democracy we have indeed the right for the paradoxical choice of living under autocracy (the opposite is evidently impossible), as the German people did in 1933, and one notes that as long as the Nazi autocrat was not overly insane, the system functioned far better than its Republican predecessor. Once it happened so, Hitler did stir up a lot of angst, to put it lightly. By definition, all autocracies lack the checks and balances developed to protect us from the potentially deleterious effects of the abusive use of power by our rulers.

 

A critical major part of the argument here that definitely comes down on the side of anti-Empire is that it couldn't control the army; it was the unopposed army which controlled the Roman state after the demise of the Republic. . The careers of men like Caesar, Pompey, Octavius/Augustus and even Brutus and Cassius make this all too clear (Sulla was a more complex case) ; they ruled just because they were active commanders backed by huge armies; from the late Julio-Claudians on, the rulers were openly selected by the Army. Such were the significant foundations for an imperial system, and even those could hardly have been attributed to Caesar alone; any rebel Roman general since Marius used their soldiers as a political factor, and the Roman Republic was perfectly aware of the risks inherent to an autonomous military force since its very beginning; arguably, it's plain common sense.

 

How can Caesar be seen as anything but Republican? Not only was he the product of centuries-long Republican society and family; it was not just that Caesar thrived from the use and abuse of the Republican rules. Each and any one of Caesar

Edited May 15, 2009 by sylla

[Primus Pilus]

PS: BTW, there is a great number of Leges Juliae; most of them were actually decreed by Octavius (aka as

[Divus Julius]

Well, I think we've pretty much reached the stage where we agree on the facts, we just disagree on our interpretation of them. Except for just a few points:

 

I'm afraid we're going to keep disagreeing on the issue of the population of the empire being neither more/less miserable during the Civil Wars, before them, or after them. Not so. Before the Civil Wars, the provinces were liable to being bled dry by corrupt governors, and I seriously doubt that they would have no feelings on the subject of Civil Wars that would have a tendency to spread into wherever they might live and seriously churn things up (during the Caesar's war in Africa a major part of his largely successful propaganda campaign to win the local population over onto his side was a call to help him end the war quickly so as to end the massive destruction that was going on). With the establishment of the Empire both problems by and large ended. There was still military chaos once in a while, and corrupt officials is a phenomenon that will likely last as long as there are officials, but for the most part the Empire would have brought a sigh of relief to the provinces, who as we seem to have agreed lost nothing in the way of liberties or rights.

 

"How can Caesar be seen as anything but Republican? Not only was he the product of centuries-long Republican society and family; it was not just that Caesar thrived from the use and abuse of the Republican rules. Each and any one of Caesar

[sylla]

Well, I think we've pretty much reached the stage where we agree on the facts, we just disagree on our interpretation of them. Except for just a few points:

We agree, and we shouldn't be afraid from keeping disagreeing. Taste is subjective.

 

However, please note that what I compared was the misery of 44 BC versus other years of the Civil War, not with anything else.

 

In other facts we essentially agree; for any reason you simply don't want to use the right English words. Definitions are objective and the dictionaries are there; that's not for grabs.

For example: Corruption (Webster): "when applied to officers, trustees, etc., signifies the inducing a violation of duty by means of pecuniary considerations".

 

On the other hand, evidence is objective and can be discussed; for example, the Lex Julia de Repetundis, a nice Republican law from a more than century-long tradition of leges de repetundis against extorsion; a good law indeed, but no where can I see anything that could be depicted as the law that (SIC)

Edited May 16, 2009 by sylla

[Formosus Viriustus]

Caesar emerged as the indisputable winner from a highly disputed civil war, the same as Sulla, Octavius, Severus or Constantine in their own days. As for autocrats goes, Caesar score was not so bad; however, the same as Titus, he simply didn

[Divus Julius]

On the other hand, evidence is objective and can be discussed; for example, the Lex Julia de Repetundis, a nice Republican law from a more than century-long tradition of leges de repetundis against extorsion; a good law indeed, but no where can I see anything that could be depicted as the law that (SIC)

[sylla]

We may have found something really interesting... or we may not.

One could make a case study out of the benfits provincials got out of Julius Caesar alone. Had his career ended after his 1st Consulship, he still could have laid claim to one very great deed: the introduction of his Lex Julia, which effectively laid out all the details about how to govern a province, pand was such a successful document that even Cato could find nothing wrong with it, and it was still being used as the basis of law well into the Byzantine period. However, Caesar's career was even more extensive than this, and one should also note his efforts to crack down on tax-farming, his personal reorganization of many of the provinces, and numerous other helpful measures. No loss of political rights here that had barely existed, much gained.

Over a hundred chapters long, the Lex Julia de repetundis, also known as the lex Julia repetundarum would remain in force for the entire Imperial Period. Broadly what it contained can be divided into three parts:

- Exact definition of all possible offences, and who came within its scope. In addition to the magistrates, the senatorial members of their staff, partularly their legates, were included, as well as senatorial jurymen, plaintiffs, and witnesses who took bribes.

- A new procedure for the conduct of trials.

- A mass of regulations for provincial administration that would into Byzantine times continue to govern how provinces were run.

Obviously the last is the part relevant to your query.

Sadly, I didn't explain myself right; what I was asking you for was sources, provisions and details from this ground-breaking Lex Julia de repetundis, as you described it.

 

Most Roman laws were quite specific; the various (no less then six) Leges de repetundis or, in plain English, bribery laws (repetundis and related declination forms are Latin verbal nouns meaning the recovery of extorted money) were no exception and, by themselves, they were no mystery; as their name may suggest, they were advanced against the illegal money acquisition by Roman magistrates, especially but not exclusively in the provinces.

 

The Lex Julia in particular benefited from at least a century of legal precedents, and most of its provisions were adopted from previous Leges; for example:

- improperly retained money should return to the affected victims,

- pecuniary penalties would be defined by litis aestimatio,

- convicted magistrates would lose their rank,

- and they would also be disqualified from being senators and many other charges.

It was indeed a nice Republican law, proposed by the appropriate magistrate, analyzed and approved by the still fully operative Senate (as opposed to later Imperial decrees).

Our main primary source is Cicero, as you can check on the internal link posted by Primus Pilus.

BTW, when Cicero praised this law ("For by that most just and admirable law of Caesar free nations were really and truly free"; In Piso 37; 55 BC) he was trying to convict L. Calpurnius Piso (Caesar's father in law and one of his main supporters) for his shameless extortion of Macedonia; this stuff is regularly called irony, and it made Cicero famous and a nightmare for people like Catilina, Anthony and Caesar.

Corrupted politicians had always posed as anti-corruption activists for obvious reasons; in fact, the last previous Lex de repetundis was decreed by Sulla.

Later Imperial Roman jurists commented extensively in all relevant Republican laws, from the XII tables onward, notoriously as late as Theodosius II and Justinian.

The Lex Julia de repetundis was indeed the last Roman bribery law, mainly because the Imperial system made such laws essentially obsolete; people like Augustus, Claudius, Domitian, Hadrian and Aurelian were not restricted by legal subtleties when they desired to punish their administrators, even for imaginary faults. Besides, the advancement of Roman laws drop drastically under the Empire, as the proposals could now came from only one source.

 

All in all, as you can see, there's nothing here even remotely similar to a rule-your-own-province Manual for Roman dummies.

 

Naturally, my first guess would be that either your sources are wrong or you have misunderstood them; however, you may perfectly have access to relevant sources unknown to me.

If you would be kind enough to post any input on sources, provisions, implementation and any other legal details about this law as you originally described it here, that shall be highly appreciated.

Edited May 16, 2009 by sylla

[Divus Julius]

Actually, I think that it's not so much me misreading my sources as you misreading half a sentence in a post of mine.

 

My reference is, pure and simple to the fact that the law contained included a prodigal amount of regulations for provincial administration that remained in force for the entirety of the Imperial period.

 

Regulations govern (in theory) how one does something; regulations about how to administer a province govvern how one does... run a province.

 

A law containing extensive regulations for how a province is run could be said to "lay out details for how to run a province", to establish how I came to write my own sentence.

 

Still, I'm glad that our Citizens' Rights debate appears to have finally burnt itself out

Edited May 17, 2009 by Divus Julius

[Divus Julius]

Such is the glory of internet forums: we have managed to fill some 4 pages with an extensive argument that has established precisely that we... disagree.

[sylla]

Actually, I think that it's not so much me misreading my sources as you misreading half a sentence in a post of mine.

 

My reference is, pure and simple to the fact that the law contained included a prodigal amount of regulations for provincial administration that remained in force for the entirety of the Imperial period.

 

Regulations govern (in theory) how one does something; regulations about how to administer a province govvern how one does... run a province.

 

A law containing extensive regulations for how a province is run could be said to "lay out details for how to run a province", to establish how I came to write my own sentence.

 

Still, I'm glad that our Citizens' Rights debate appears to have finally burnt itself out

Any debate based on pure subjective grounds ought to burn itself out sooner or later; we all knew that beforehand.

It's only when we discuss over objective evidence when we have any hope of getting any useful conclusion.

Paradoxically, nothing strengthens the faith in democracy so much as watching an antidemocratic argumentation done by the exercise of the democratic rights.

Still, I'm glad that now I know a little more.

Such is the glory of internet forums: we have managed to fill some 4 pages with an extensive argument that has established precisely that we... disagree.

Actually, our democratic glory is that nobody has to agree about anything; ; the exchange of knowledge and ideas is all we need and all we get.

Edited May 17, 2009 by sylla