ebook img

Republicanism during the Early Roman Empire PDF

270 Pages·2012·0.899 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Republicanism during the Early Roman Empire

Republicanism during the Early Roman Empire Also available from Continuum Blood in the Forum Pamela Marin Cicero Kathryn Tempest Roman Passions Ray Laurence Republicanism during the Early Roman Empire Sam Wilkinson Continuum International Publishing Group The Tower Building 80 Maiden Lane 11 York Road Suite 704 London New York SE1 7NX NY 10038 www.continuumbooks.com © Sam Wilkinson, 2012 Sam Wilkinson has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: 978-1-4411-4341-9 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wilkinson, Sam. Republicanism during the early Roman Empire / Sam Wilkinson. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4411-3793-7 -- ISBN 978-1-4411-2052-6 (pbk.) 1. Rome--History-- Julio-Claudians, 30 B.C.-68 A.D. 2. Rome--Politics and government--30 B.C.-68 A.D. 3. Republicanism--Rome. 4. Political culture--Rome. I. Title. DG281.W55 2011 937’.7--dc23 2011020822 Typeset by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NN Contents Preface vi Introduction 1 Part I: The Evidence for Republicanism 33 Chapter 1. Opposition I: Overthrowing the Principate 35 Chapter 2. Opposition II: A Moral Opposition 59 Part II: The Discourse 83 Chapter 3. Law 85 Chapter 4. Morality 111 Chapter 5. Behaviour 134 Conclusion 181 Notes 184 Bibliography 242 Index 259 Preface Republicanism is a modern term with modern connotations. But when the ancient Roman Republic fell it exerted real influence on the Roman Empire. This book is the study of the political ideology of Republicanism during the first century AD – a Republicanism of which most historians today deny the very existence. The Romans may not have had a word for Republicanism, but that does not mean that to which it refers did not exist. The Introduction sets the scene, but also defines key terms and explains the methodology. Part I gives the evidence for Republican opposition to the emperors. Part II analyses the discourse of those who wrote during, or on, the period to show the political importance that the Republic played, and to highlight the ideological clash between the Republican and the Imperial. Quotations are given in English only; academics have access to the Latin whereas the general reader probably does not require it. I have, however, added the Latin to the definitions section where it is of most importance. Translations are taken from the Loeb Classical Library, although Josephus is from the translation by Wiseman (Exeter) and the Res Gestae from Brunt and Moore (Oxford). I have also amended certain translations myself. I have used abbreviations for ancient works and modern texts based upon the Oxford Classical Dictionary. There are, however, a few small deviations, such as Suet. Cal. instead of Suet. Calig. for Suetonius’ Life of Caligula and Dio instead of Cass. Dio. Although there are only a few individuals to acknowledge, without those individuals this work would not have been possible. Richard Alston offered guidance and insight throughout, as well as the encouragement needed to counteract the criticism received from others. Frequent visits to London were made both profitable, by the excellent resources and helpful staff at the Institute of Classical Studies, and enjoyable, through the hospitality of Monsieur JB. Jamie Dezso˝ aided the editing process by expertly managing his father’s time. And finally Zsazsa put up with a husband who spent too much time on his doktori, and too little with his feleség. Köszönöm szépen. Introduction 1. Status Quaestionis The ancient literary sources are full of examples of men and women who opposed emperors. Conspiracies and executions abound to the extent that reading Tacitus can become quite a depressing experience, ploughing through a long list of trials and stories of good men and women sent to their deaths by the machinations of the emperors and those around them. Tacitus was himself aware of the danger of demoralizing his readership.1 Conspirators are on the whole seen by modern historians to have been ambitious individuals who wished the crown for themselves, or to be motivated by a personal animosity to the emperor. As such, opposition is mostly seen to be personal rather than ideological. Conspiracies involving Imperial favourites and family are usually seen as intrigues at court. In 1913, G. Boissier published his work Opposition sous les Cesars, depicting the opposition as indecisive and without principles or consistency. In 1941, Allen stated that men opposed the emperors for reasons of self- interest, and therefore not ideology (1941, 13). In 1949, Taylor claimed that it was perfectly acceptable under Nero to praise Cato, thus denying any Republican opposition under his rule and the previous Julio-Claudian emperors (1949, 180). Wirszubski’s celebrated work on libertas claimed that the senate of the first century AD did not seek to restore its lost supremacy, but simply to maintain an honourable position (1950, 137). For him, there was no Republicanism as such, just a senate who accepted the Principate, as long as the princeps treated them with a little dignity. Historians have tended to agree. McAlindon argued that a restoration of the Republic was never seen as a realizable political aim and claims most of the casualties of the Principate were simply ambitious aspirants to the throne (1956, 132). Ten years after Wirszubski’s study, the great Ronald Syme noted the relative absence of ideological opposition even as early as under Augustus (1960, 518). In 1966, a major work on the opposition to the emperors was carried out by MacMullen. His Enemies of The Roman Order remains until now the largest investigation of Republicanism in the Imperial period. It portrays most of the opponents as out for personal gain and not political change (1966, 2, 2 Introduction 32). He systematically looks at a variety of opposition to the Principate in the first century AD and comes to the conclusion that with the one possible exception of Cremutius Cordus, there is no evidence of opposition that wanted to restore the Republic.2 Historians have basically followed this line, without crediting Cordus with a Republicanism. Rutledge, for example, feels MacMullen’s attribution of possible Republicanism to Cordus goes too far (2001, 351). Lind reiterated these findings, seeing no evidence of attempts at Republican restoration or ideological opposition (1986, 90).3 Giovannini saw opposition as dependent on the individual protagonists and not ideological (1987, 364–5). A student of MacMullen, namely Rudich, then produced an important work on opposition to Nero, Political Dissidence under Nero. In it Rudich argued that only those who were in the Imperial circle or were related to Pompey the Great were involved in real conspiracy under the Julio-Claudians (1993, 91). And again, that they were motivated by personal ambition. Rutledge’s work Imperial Inquisitions continually glosses over the stated Republicanism of condemned individuals and so does not see any ideological opposition (2001, 164, 167). He sees Tacitus’ rhetoric as misplaced, claiming that after the death of Julius Caesar so too did the notion of a return to the Republic disappear (2001, 174). Moreover, Gowing states that by Trajan the Republic ceased to have any serious ideological purpose (2005, 6).4 Takács also suggests that by the time of Nero and Seneca’s De Clementia, which spoke of Nero as king, the Roman population had accepted the monarchy (2009, 56). Thus we would expect there to be little evidence for an ideologically Republican opposition. Yet, this uniformity of view among modern historians, that opposition should be seen in the light of ambition and intrigues at court, as opposed to the manifestation of a desire for a return to the Republic or more Republican rule, seems out of step with certain elements of the ancient literary evidence. A few examples serve to illustrate the point.5 Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio Cassius all tell us that, under Tiberius, Cremutius Cordus was attacked for writing histories that praised men of the Republic.6 Tacitus has an anonymous commentator refer to both Drusus and Germanicus as wanting to somehow restore liberty and the partnership of the Roman people to the throne (Ann. 2.82). Josephus, Suetonius and Dio all tell us that after the assassination of Caligula there was a move to restore the Republic.7 In Tacitus, Rubellius Plautus was attacked in AD 62 by Nero because he ‘cherished the views of an older generation: his bearing was austere, his domestic life being pure and secluded’.8 Tacitus even has Tigellinus denouncing him for mimicking the ancient Romans (Ann. 14.57). In the Piso conspiracy of AD 66 Tacitus tells us that Piso avoided the help and participation of M. Julius Vestinus Atticus, ‘lest he should arise as the champion of liberty, or, by selecting another as emperor, convert the res publica into a gift of his own bestowing’ (Ann. 15.52).9 The list continues, though as we progress the associations with a desire to restore the Republic become less explicit and the opposition is more Introduction 3 associated with particular values. Under Nero, Tacitus tells us, Cassius fell for being eminent, for a great hereditary fortune, and an austere character, in line with the mos maiorum (a set of precedents and traditions used to guide behaviour).10 Nero sent a prosecuting speech to the senate using as evidence a bust of Cassius, the tyrannicide, which had an inscription ‘to the leader of the party’ (Ann. 16.7). When Nero sought to rid himself of Thrasea Paetus, Tacitus has Cossutianus Capito claim that as there had once been factions around Cato and Julius Caesar, there were now the same between Thrasea and Nero, likening Thrasea and his followers to Cato and his, with the obvious connection to the hero of the Republic (Ann. 16.22). Tacitus has a certain Paconius Agrippinus attacked on the charge of hating emperors as his father had (Ann. 16.28).11 Dio tells us that Helvidius Priscus the Elder went beyond the frankness of speech of his father-in-law Thrasea Paetus and ‘was a turbulent fellow who cultivated the favour of the rabble and was forever denouncing royalty and praising democracy’ (65.12.2). Furthermore, Republican symbolism surrounds the opponents of the emperor Nero. When Clodius Macer revolted in Africa with his one legion, he quickly began to strike coinage with distinctly Republican character- istics. Macer styled himself pro-praetor of Africa by decree of the senate; he changed the name of Legio III Augusta to Liberatrix. Similarly he featured on a coin without an Imperial laurel crown and with an obverse of a figure of liberty.12 Galba also decided to call himself a simple legate of the senate and people of Rome until his position as emperor was ratified by the senate itself (Suet. Gal. 10; Plu. Gal. 5). Galba also issued coins in the name of SPQR and Libertas PR Restituta.13 The latter was in the style of Augustus, but together this recollection of the ‘constitutional’ language of Republicanism displays an element in the self-presentation and thus the political stance of the usurpers. Although the history of the Empire is read as one of unbroken monarchy and it is thus tempting to marginalize stated Republican viewpoints, that the sources give us such examples suggests the Republic retained its significance. In this work I will argue that the memory of the Republic, or the stylized myth it became, did inspire opposition and thus formed part of the ideology of the first century AD. One might see in these episodes a moral conservatism or a traditionalism that speaks of little more than a nostalgia for times past. But people died for the expression of these conservative sentiments. Even if they were not ‘political’ in origin (rather moral or literary), they were made political by their persecution by the emperors. One might take a more radical position and argue that our sources fictionalize these episodes, seeing wherever possible in the victims of the Principate a reputable and moralistic conservatism that looked back to the ‘Golden Age’ of Republican freedom, but even if Republicanism survived principally in the literary presentation of opposition (rather than in the ‘realia’ of the issues that animated the political

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.