Roman Republic

You are currently browsing articles tagged Roman Republic.

Our local public library up here in the Poconos runs a book sale every August, and this year I picked up a copy of Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: A Modern Abridgement by Moses Hadas. Since I’ve never managed to get beyond the fourth century in my attempts to read Gibbon’s multi-volume history, which extends beyond the fall of Constantinople in 1453, I thought I’d give my old teacher’s abridgement a shot. On p.35 I found this: “The obvious definition of a monarchy seems to be that of a state, in which a single person, by whatsoever name he may be distinguished, is entrusted with the execution of the laws, the management of the revenue, and the command of the army.” Hmm, I thought—that could be a description of an American president. “But unless public liberty is protected by intrepid and vigilant guardians,” Gibbon continues, “the authority of so formidable a magistrate will soon degenerate into despotism.” That too set me to thinking

Here, though, I want to talk not about the Roman Empire, but about its predecessor, the Roman Republic, which began, according to Roman legend, in 509 BC and ended half a millennium later, sometime in the middle of the first century BC. But when did the Republic end?  Was there a day, or month, or year with Republic on one side and no-longer-Republic on the other?  Probably not. History doesn’t work that way, and decisive events—the sack of Constantinople, Luther nailing his theses to the door of a church, the Twin Towers collapsing—are punctuations in the long paragraph of time, not fundamental changes in it. If one had to pick a moment to put a period after the Roman Republic, though, it might be November 27, 43 BC, when a tribune named Publius Titius moved a Lex Titia, which was approved by the Plebeian Assembly and became law.

The Lex Titia established a “commission of three for the restoration of the Republic,” triumviri rei publicae constituendae. The three commissioners were Mark Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian, who later became the emperor Augustus. This so-called “second triumvirate” had the power to appoint magistrates and provincial governors, declare war, and levy taxes or confiscate property. With these powers, and by eliminating the right of appeal from a magistrate’s decisions, the law explicitly put the three above the laws and procedures that put checks and balances on the elected officials of the Republic. By November 28, the Republic was no more.

I mention these long-past Roman matters because we may have just glided over a similar moment in the history of our republic: the Supreme Court’s decision, in a decision handed down on the last day of its 2023–2024 term, that the President has “at least presumptive,” and perhaps absolute, immunity for his (or her) official acts. In the New York Review of Books for August 15, Sean Wilentz makes a good case that this decision is “The ‘Dred Scott’ of Our Time.” I suggest that by putting a president above the law, it may be our Lex Titia. Our republic is taking a long time to collapse, and I hope it pulls back from the brink to endure as long as the Roman Republic, but if it doesn’t, July 1, 2024, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision, will be a good choice for its final punctuation mark.

~Lee T. Pearcy
August 16, 2024

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The following paragraphs were originally part of an effort to explain the complexities and multiple viewpoints of the Aeneid. I thought they might find a place in Aeneas (University of Michigan Press 2021), but as often happens, the book took a different direction. I offer them here as a thought for the Fourth of July.

~Lee T. Pearcy
July 4, 2022

 

What if you tried to write a story—a poem, a novel—that would explain to us, to Americans in the 21st century, who we are and how we came to be.  Which story would you tell?

You might tell a story of triumph:  how small groups of Europeans braved the Atlantic crossing to find religious and civil liberty; how thirteen British colonies patched together a fragile coalition and separated from mother England; how we tested that coalition in a great civil war and emerged from it as a unified nation, rapidly expanding across a continent; how we fought and survived and prospered in the terrible world wars of the twentieth century.  The names of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Lee, of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt would figure large in your story.  It would explain some of the things we value:  liberty, the rule of law, tolerance.

That story has been told.

Or you might tell a story of decline:  how a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” lost sight of its founding ideals and their grounding in Judeo-Christian ideals; how an agrarian republic became an industrial power, and how the forces of capital triumphed in our Civil War and replaced chattel slavery with wage slavery; how growing prosperity brought with it a culture of self-indulgence and celebrity; how scientific advance and economic prosperity enabled moral and spiritual decline; how we became a fading imperial state with a broken educational system, a debased underclass, and a middle class deprived of hope.  This story would explain the daily headlines.  Once past Lincoln, there would be few heroes.

That story has been told.

Or you might tell a third story, a story of genocide, oppression, and struggle:  how Europeans at first displaced, betrayed, and then slaughtered the indigenous population of North America; how a small cadre of English bourgeois and third-tier aristocrats so objected to the relatively light economic contribution asked by the mother country that they separated from it and constructed a federal republic in their own interests; how that republic was from its beginning, and before its beginning, stained by inequality and racism; how we fought a war of imperial conquest under the pretext of liberating Texas from Mexico and a civil war to promote the interests of northeastern industrialists; how our history has been shaped by the forces of empire, racism, and greed; and on the other hand, how from Shay’s Rebellion through the Abolitionists to the civil rights movement, Occupy Wall Street, and Black Lives Matter, some have been in continual struggle against them.  The names of Lincoln, John Brown, Nat Turner, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King would figure large in your story.

That story also has been told.

Those are the American stories of triumph, decline, and struggle.  There may be other American stories to tell.  What has not been told, and perhaps cannot be told, is a harder story:  how these are all the same story, and how all of them are true:  how our love of liberty and our history of inequality are, as Burke suggested, inextricably intertwined, and each necessary to the other and impossible without the other;[1] how racism and intolerance are so much part of our American self that we must continually invent new forms of them, and ways to oppose them; how rising standards of living and the development of a diverse, multicultural society made income inequality and a declining middle class inevitable.[2]

In the Aeneid, Vergil tries to tell that kind of hard story about Rome.  Rome’s triumph is inevitable, as Jupiter confirms early in the poem.  But that triumph can only happen at the cost of immense struggle, labor.  The forces opposing it—furor, both divine and human—are also those that make it possible.

[1] Burke, On Conciliation: Southerners valued liberty “with a higher and more stubborn spirit” than other Americans. “Such will be all masters of slaves, who are not slaves themselves. … In such a people, the haughtiness of domination combines with the spirit of freedom, fortifies it, and renders it invincible.”

[2] As argued for France by Christophe Guilluy: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/05/french-fracture

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest far by most
Are when some fool
Says what he’ll do
“in a forthcoming post.”

This isn’t the promised post on four revolutions in classical studies. Other revolutions keep overtaking it; instead, I want to post a brief note about a speech that Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado gave yesterday in the aftermath of the MAGA mob’s assault on the Capitol.  You can find the full text here, but this is the paragraph that caught my attention:

And I was thinking about that history today as we saw the mob riot in Washington, D.C., thinking about what the Founders were thinking about when they wrote our Constitution, which was, what happened to the Roman Republic when armed gangs — doing the work for politicians — prevented Rome from casting their ballots for consuls, for praetors, for senators. These were the offices in Rome, and these armed gangs ran through the streets of Rome, keeping elections from being started, keeping elections from ever being called. And in the end, because of that, the Roman Republic fell and a dictator took its place. And that was the end of the Roman Republic or any republic for that matter until this beautiful Constitution was written, in the United States of America.

Senator Bennet seems to be remembering events of the mid-50s BC. Rome had not only the two magistrates that Senator Bennet cites, consuls and praetors (senators weren’t elected as such at Rome—the Roman senate was simply the body of ex-magistrates), but others as well, called tribunes, who could veto any official action. The elections of 54 and 53 were hotly contested, and the tribunes used their veto so often that the years 53 and 52 both began with no officially certified magistrates to take office. Things got worse later in 52. Two of the tribunes, Milo and Clodius, had armed gangs of private bodyguards and used them to intimidate opponents. The gangs collided on the Appian Way, and Clodius was killed. His bodyguard led a mob that burned down the senate house and looted the Forum. As a result, the senate passed what was called the Ultimate Decree, Senatus Consultum Ultimum, imposing martial law, and Gnaeus Pompeius (Pompey the Great) became sole consul—in effect, dictator. Three years later, Rome was embroiled in civil war between Pompey and Julius Caesar.

We’re not there yet, thank God, and the parallel is far from exact. Senator Bennet, though, has given us a good example of America’s classicizing tendency to use Rome as a touchstone and example for understanding our Republic. Classicists deplore these analogies, and we should, but they are part of our political DNA. I’ve been passing time by casting the end of the Roman Republic with characters from Washington. Ted Cruz as Domitius Ahenobarbus, anyone? Or Rand Paul as Cato the Younger? It’s comforting to note that I can’t find anyone to play Caesar, or even Pompey or Cicero.  Suggestions are welcome.

 

~Lee T. Pearcy
January 7, 2021

 

Update: And in this blog post Mary Beard reaches the same conclusion.

Tags: , , , , , ,