Republicanism during the Early Roman Empire

270 Pages·2012·0.899 MB·English

by  Sam Wilkinson

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