These are the archived discussions. To participate in active "Talk Literature" discussions go to the
homepage of ReadLiterature
Back To "Talk Literature" Archives
Sir Ronald Syme - "Roman Revolution" (1939)
Posted by Michael Sympson on 18/12/2001, 22:56:04
This product of intensive study and thorough research was also written with a view on the
situation in 1939. Fascist dictatorships then seemed to hold a franchise on the future. Stalin's purges and the Spanish civil war appeared to reenact the drama which had seen its premiere at the end of the Roman republic, when a party-politician and republican General committed high treason and suspended the constitution. It opened unheard of opportunities and eventually swept the son of a small town banker to the highest office and absolute power.
I said swept, but Syme's monumental study shows that dumb luck and blind opportunity played only a small part in the ascend of one of the coldest, most ruthless, and most calculating minds who ever aspired political power. However considering the youth and inexperience of the young Augustus, and with a look at the staff of first class advisers that surrounded the young man from the very beginning, one wonders whether it was just Augustus' calculation or whether history witnessed to the execution of a master plan by the same man who had had adopted the young Augustus (gossip says, for sexual favours) and who had set him up with means and advisory brainpower. After Caesar's assassination the young fellow acted without hesitation, and succeeded against enormous odds. But the man who despite of his frail physique should become one of the longest ruling heads of state in history, had remarkably few lucky breaks. In 31 BC. he again had reached a point where he completely lacked constitutional legality. In order to consolidate his position, Augustus became the first dictator in history to call for a nationwide plebiscite.
With due respect to Mommsen it must be said that Sir Ronald's study helps to straighten out Mommsen's rather curious adulations on Julius Caesar. Yet both historians based their views on the same premise: that democracy inevitably leads to dictatorship, if the conservative forces turn out to be too stubborn and retrograde in terms of social and economical progress, or if they create a situation in which such progress disenfranchises society's weakest without compensating for the inflicted pain. Strange as this may sound: Caesar, Augustus, Musolini, Hitler, Stalin, Peron, or chairman Mao, at some point, had all started their career as a spokesperson for the people against the pillars of conservatism. When I look at the present scene in America, I wonder whether this lesson is going to be lost again. Who might it be, who is going to hold the people's mandate without an election? I am afraid he is already walking among us.
Legally, as the people's tribune, a Roman emperor depended on his legislative veto-power. It was Augustus who first realized its importance. Of course the commander in chief of the armed forces could ask for whatever he fancied, yet Augustus had enough acumen not to depend on the loyalty of troops if he could help it. He was a Roman, and like the aqueducts his empire was built for posterity. When it suited them Roman emperors could even present themselves as the antique equivalent to the leader of a modern labor union: Domitian, "the most careful administrator of the empire" (Mommsen,) is known for his interventionist economics and he had an inventor of a new material executed because such innovation could have put people out of work. The senatorial gossip surrounding Nero has clouded the fact that his policies were immensely popular with the masses, even after his ignominious death. Ancient Rome had succumbed to military despotism, yet we should keep in mind that the same man who had done most to bring down republican liberty, had also left as his legacy the egalitarian rule of law, which remained to be surprisingly functional until Diocletian's reforms. Many emperors thought it good PR to show themselves below the law like everybody else, and public welfare enjoyed the benefit.
What impresses most in Sir Ronald's study, is the way this historian manages to unravel the entangled messiness of cross-purpose policies, blind chance, and calculated action. Syme avoids to create the picture of an ironclad necessity, which so often mars the perspective of historical writing, but it also becomes quite clear, that in the end timely and better informed decisions succeeded over poorer judgement. Augustus was in no way "destined" to come out victorious, but he did because his opponents missed their chances. Eventually this supreme pragmatist became not only the richest man of his era but also the most opulent benefactor who funneled back most of his billions into the community. Augustus is one of the enigmas of history: an absolutely ruthless politician, completely untrammeled by even the remotest sign of a conscience, and yet at the same time a genuine benefactor, fond of mingling with lower classes at the dog-races; a man who preferred to live, away from his palaces and villas, in a small, rented apartment. Go figure. Not your everyday friendly mobster from the neighborhood.
And this is the other great quality of Syme's study. He clearly advances on Mommsen's anachronistic imposition of latter-day party politics on Rome's political scene. With Sir Ronald we come much closer to the often purely dynastic competition in the Roman senate. However it would oversimplify the situation to dismiss this institution merely as a clearinghouse for perks and prestige without any conflict between principles and policies. The legislation of the Gracci had had introduced issues that really mattered and moved the urban masses to support populist dynasts, like Catilina and Caesar, against provincial upstarts on the conservative ticket, such as Cicero, and even made them vote for military junta chiefs of dubious legitimacy like Augustus himself. Sir Ronald's book, meant to be a warning to politicians of his own time, never compromises on scholarship and profound analysis. Historiography at its very best; an outstanding achievement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Andres Natal on 28/12/2001, 6:51:01, in reply to "Sir Ronald Syme - "Roman Revolution" (1939)"
In your comments, you mentioned the predisposition of certain historians to consider Democracy the precursor to Dictatorship. This may not be an entire surprise to you, but that intellectual position is not peculiar to recent British historians. Plato--in "The Republic" places the observation in Socrates' mouth: That Democracy is always the last stage before a dictatorship. --A fascinating book.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~