624. Roman Revolution by Ronald Syme- summary

624.  The Roman Revolution by Ronald Syme.  August 23, 2009.  I have not read this book since June of 1979.  It is rewarding to read this book again in light of the several hundred books I have read since.  Syme remarks in the Preface that he was in a hurry to publish the book- in April 1939.  Why never seems to become clear.  While providing a summary of sorts, I hope to include a critique of his approach and assessment of history.  Syme claims to have no great love for Augustus/Octavianus.  He is a mine of information gleaned from ancient sources which stretch over a thousand years. He remarks that Julian the Apostate called Augustus a chameleon.  This description marks Julian for his acute insight.  Syme said that he would avoid metaphors but I am so glad he included this one.  "The tale has often been told, with an inevitability of events and culmination, either melancholy or exultant....They did not know the future."  Yet, Syme writes as though it was just that- inevitable.

Syme approaches history using prosopography.  This treats groups as far more significant than the individual.  The group has more motion forward than any individual.  This method seems to indicate that individuals can actually be in the way of the direction of history.  This seems to account partly for his dislike or maybe impatience with Cicero and others. He takes no time assessing Cicero the politician and the philosopher but the contrast between the two and blending of the two.  He sees him as clever but somewhat simple minded.

To Syme the Roman constitution was a sham, a screen.  I am still not sure what he meant by this.  But I will suggest something later.  The Nobles' weapons were: family (connections), money and amicitia (nexus of political friends and supporters).  There was no moral guide in the background which helped to direct people's decisions.

The Gracchi challenged the aristocracy/oligarchy and threw it back on its heals.  Both Gracchi were marked and removed.  Not long after Marcus Livius Drusus aroused Italians to desire Roman citizenship.  The Social Wars soon followed.  Marius, Cinna and Carbo do their thing and along comes Sulla.  He with brutal force puts the aristocracy/oligarchy at the helm and retires.  His concern was to protect the propertied class.  Marcus Aemilius Lepidus attempts revolt to destroy Sulla's constitution.  He is put down.  Again the propertied class cheers.  Pompeius , Syme claims, ends the Sullan constitution. Caesar creates a party which undermines the aristocratic system and places power in the hands of the proletariat.  Caesar's heir furthers the cause by redistribution of property, power and wealth.    

(His style of writing is so engaging that it is easy to miss that his sweep of history is a little convenient.)

Cicero was only admitted to the consulship to shut out Catilina.  Families operating in groups force their will.  It was not Cicero's doing so much as the will of the group.

"The career of Pompeius opened in fraud and violence.  It was prosecuted, in war and peace, through illegality and treachery. "  Turn to any page and you will find remarkable and wonderful sentences just like these.  His style is so very impressive and the frankness, forthright manner lend immense credibility.  But his coverage of the rise of Pompeius seems to ignore his dictate that group trumps individual.  It seems that he was their tool to acquire what they wanted.

The Dynasts (families which gained ascendency and largely directed state policy) in Syme's opinion had to go.  They were in the way of the inevitable.  Cicero and the old political system were dinosaurs.

Trials play no part in Syme's assessment.

The true liberal tradition lay with the Julii and Claudii.

Caesar's supporters ranged from the pure to the revolting. But no matter the revolution which began had its source in the proletariat. 

Politicians attracted the aristocracy of Italy to become members of amicitia.  This practice spread to the provinces.  At this stage of the game, Pompeius surpassed them all.  His amicitia stretched from Spain to Syria.

Caesar, after the Civil Wars (49- 44 BC) had increased the Senate to 900.  Quaestors from 20 to 40, Praetors from 8 to 16.  Sulla had increased the size of the Senate from about 300 to 600.  To do so he made Senators out of the sons of Knights.  This helped to unite Italy. To bring the number up to 900 Caesar appointed about 400 men from all over Italy.  This is the start of the Revolution which gives the book its title.  Caesar brings people from all over Italy.  This transforms Roman politics forever.  The Senate now does not represent a region but a class.  This curbs the aristocracy. Upon Caesar's death his party remained.  This was permanent with or without Caesar.  The plebs were ready for empire.  They had been humiliated, shunned and degraded by the aristocracy.

Thus when the Liberators killed Caesar they lacked a party structure necessary to carry out a revolution.  Their way was over.

I am puzzled then why the soldiers of Decimus Brutus followed his orders and endured horrendous deprivation when he was part of the crew which killed Caesar.  Syme glides over Antonius' dumping Macedonia for Cisalpine Gaul.  I suspect that the dictates of prosopography assured lacuna like that.  One must follow the party's movements not those of individuals.  In fact it is clear that Syme deliberately avoids discussion of political tactics.  Because politics did not matter but only the will of the group and the destiny of destruction of the aristocracy.  Play politics however and however much they wished and the result would be the same. 

The revolutionary adventurer (Octavianus) eludes grasp and definition no less than the mature statesman.   Upon the death of Caesar, Octavianus' acceptance of Caesar's inheritance forced Antonius into a position which brought him into conflict with the conservatives and a radical demagogue.  The radical I assume is Cicero.  This is a beef I have with Syme.  I love his sentences.  He handles words like darts and swords or even catapults to make wonderful sweeping statements.  But sometimes he is not clear.  His words are brief but sometimes foggy.  Pretty much the same beef he has with Cicero.  Except Cicero he says is verbose whereas Syme is obtuse.  But he makes me think.  Yet he is disconcerting.  Whereas, when I read Cicero, I feel good about being human.

According to Syme ellective office was none other than a tool used to advance to power, i.e. the state was not an association to pursue justice for the benefit of all; instead the government was merely a selfish tool.  The revolutionary career of Caesar's heir reveals never a trace of theoretical preoccupation: if it did, his career would have been very different and very short.  This seems to support my statement above and at the same time serves to condemn any sort of sophisticated/intellectual approach to politics.

During the critical period when Octavianus first arrived in Rome to accept the inheritance and Antonius was fuming mad at Cicero and politics of power was up for grabs, sort of.  Syme says that legions refused to obey Antonius because of interference from Octavianus.  Is this the only reason?  Was the proletariat which concerns Syme so only a tool?  Prosopography has much to say for it but used ruthlessly as the only tool for analysis, it makes history empty and somewhat insignificant.

It seems to lead to conclusions such as:

Naked force and faction are the only things that matter in the outcome.

The best party is but a kind of conspiracy against the commonwealth.  

Cicero's Pro Marcello is only a speech in praise of Caesar.

Cicero is charged with weakness, ineptness and cowardice.  Cicero's absence from the Senate March 18 to September 2, very bad.  He is criticized heavily.  But are there other factors?  On the other hand Marcus Junius Brutus leaves Italy, even though he holds office.  He is praised.  Cicero is flayed.  When in fact Cicero returned to the danger and his ultimate death.  Cicero returned to danger, Brutus left it.  Syme compares Ciceo's sparing with Lucius Calpurnius Piso with Cicero confronting Antonius.  Where is the parallel?  Piso to my knowledge did not have an army at his back and that was when argument determined political outcome.  Humiliation pushed Cicero to attack Antonius and defend the Republic.  Syme ignores that politics is a shifting theater.  No one knows what events will transpire which can alter one's direction.  Even he admits that in the beginning.  Only those are praised by Syme who found ways to back away from a moral commitment to liberty.  Pollio is a prime example.  Do not get me wrong, there is something very attractive about Pollio.  I like him.  

Cicero's fight to save the Republic was illegal.  "....The struggle was prosecuted in secret intrigue and open debate, veiled under the name of legality, of justice, of courage. "  Another amazing sentence.  Syme had no appreciation for politics of the Roman Republic.  To him politics itself was a sham.  I guess that from his view that is the only conclusion.  But he seems to ignore other dimensions of a problem.  For example:

"the best of arguments was personal abuse."

" Crime, vice and corruption in the last age of the Republic are embodied in types and perfect of their kind as are the civil and moral paradigm of early days..."

The march of revolution goes on.  "For the sake of peace and the common good, all power had to pass to one man."

On page 155 there is a fascinating discussion of libertas.  The word only has meaning in common everyday sense, there is no sense of an abstract aspect.

(It occurred to me while reading how much Syme owed to Thucydides's description and effect of the plague for his description of political catchwords.)

When Syme covers D. Brutus and his defense of Mutina against Antonius, he calls it illicit.  Then defends Brutus.  Then reinforces Brutus' illicit position.  Then seems to ignore the acta of Caesar which were approved by the Senate after Caesar was killed.  As I see it prosopography makes study of ideas and political philosophy a meaningless pastime. 

The only reason for Cicero's prominence in his last defense of the Republic is due to a dearth of Pompeian consulars.  He ignores Cicero's difficulty of dealing with a Senate made up of partisans of Caesar loyal to Antonius.  Again, I suspect that the method, prosopography, makes the individual meaningless.

How can this be reconciled?  Armies follow their own interests, yet care nothing about government and refuse to help revive the Pompeian cause.

The forces of revolution do not refer to decision of people but the inexorable march of monarchy. It seems that Syme suggests that if Antonius, Lepidus, Octavianus had not pursued their course, other actors would have fulfilled their part. This sounds very Thucydidean.

The Proscription numbers are played down.  As though this has effect on interpretation.

"The proletariat of Italy, long exploited and thwarted, seized what they regarded as just portion."  This was the driving force of the revolution.  Was  Syme a Marxist or did he use Marxist criteria to analyze this period of Roman history?  I do not mean this as a negative label.  I am simply curious.  Cicero was fraudulent because he saw fit to provide for the common good by maintaining the health of the propertied class.  His legitimacy is lost when he supports the propertied class.

Philippi was disastrous for the aristocracy for many sons of old families perished. So, combine loss of political power, and property, the aristocracy was doomed.

Antonius leaves for the East after the revision of the Triumvirate.  Lucius Antonius stirs up problems in Italy.  He defies Octavianus from Perusia.  Lucius Antonius, his brother, capitulated at Perusia.   Octavianus prevails.  He survives a dangerous crisis.  Octavianus fleshed his claws.  Those captured were exterminated.  After Perusia Marcus Antonius was supported by Domitius Ahenobarbus and Sextus Pompeius.  He attacked Brundisium.  But soldiers refused to fight.  The proletariat would have its revolution.  There was no way to stop it.  The Triumvirate was renewed at Brundisium by Lucius Cocceius Nerva, Pollio for Antonius and Maecenas for Octavianus.  These three reflect the shift of power to non-aristocratic people and the rise of the proletariat.  Syme sees no distinction between Empire of Alexander and Rome's.  Conquest, commerce, empires of trust are indistinguishable.  Antonius married Octavia, Octavianus' sister, to cement the alliance.

Religion too was a sham.  Used as a means of control.  Nothing of comfort.  I highly recommend reading Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians.

Page 255 Syme seems to suggest that Octavianus frustrated the completion of the social revolution. Statements like these puzzle me no end.

"A fabricated concatenation of unrealized intentions may be logical, artistic and persuasive, but it is not history." This is what he did to Cicero.

Syme pairs Cicero and Octavianus.  "and so Octavinaus, like Cicero twelve years earlier, when he so eloquently justified a Catilinarian venture and armed treason against a consul, was able to invoke the plea of a higher legality."  He seems to leap from situations being similar to identical.

70 legions after Actium were under Octavianus.  This was the biggest immediate problem he faced.  What to do with 70 legions when he needed maybe just 28 or 30?  The problem was brought forward when Marcus Licinius Crassus (governor) demanded spolia opima for his achievement in Macedonia.  He was humbled.  But Augustus adapted as he went, ever gathering unto himself all powers.

Part of Octavianus'/Augustus' solution was the famous restoration of the Republic.  The act of restoration was not universally believed.  In Suetonius he twice says that Augustus thought about restoring the Republic.  The key word is "thought".

The Constitution is a facade as under the Republic.  If all governments are oligarchic and these represent the propertied class who exploit the proletariat for their own enjoyment and advantage, it appears that the only legitimate constitution is one which eliminates all aspects of oligarchy and puts power in the hands of the proletariat.

"A democracy can not rule an empire, neither can one man."  At this time: Augustus, Maecenas and Agrippa.  None of these are patricians.  None from traditional propertied class.  "Such a triumvirate existed called into being not by any preordained harmony or theory of politics but by the history of the Caesarian party and by the demand of imperial government."  These are fascinating sentences but cryptic.

Revolution was the redistribution of power and property.  The people (soldiers for example refused to fight) arbitrated peace and averted bloodshed when offered land and security.  Augustus' powers thus rested on a revolution which elevated the proletariat at the expense of the aristocracy.  Is he saying that the only legal government is one which puts advancement over property rights?  Politics to Syme was a means to thwart someone's fulfillment in life, blunted proper use of energy, performed nothing of use to the people because they pursued their own interests at the expense of the state.  I do not think that Syme thought that it mattered whence came human ability to reason.  Sentences like these make me wonder if Syme had any affection for the political process of the UK or of the USA.  He certainly has no confidence in the legality of a government which rests on political wrangling. 

Were these statements aimed at his concerns for the increasing power of Churchill as WWII arrived?  I have racked my brain trying to get his point and the need to publish when he did.

Syme spends a whole chapter on what he calls Cabinet government where questions of policy are decided in secret.  This serves to reduce even further the value of aristocracy and purpose of participation.

Tiberius went into exile rebelling against Augustus' designation of Gaius, his grandson, as the next Princeps.  Yet, Gaius would rise rapidly to position of authority with no experience.  I can appreciate Tiberius' concern.

...the change of Republic to empire might be described as the provinces' revenge upon Rome.  Rome's rule was hated still, for good reason.  Based on what Syme wrote this is due to his view of a repressed proletariat.

Pollio's courage is exemplified by a "savage attack upon the patriotic gymnastics in which one of his grandsons had broken his leg."  Not much of an example in my book.  I would say that he was independent.  He found ways and excuses to acquiesce all his life.

defendus Cicero est Latiaeque silentia linguae.  This is a line of poetry someone recited at a recitation party which Pollio had at his house.  Pollio rose and left.  Syme indicates that the thought of Cicero sickened him.  But maybe he left to avoid appearance of complicity or agreement?  It could be dangerous for someone of his position to give the wrong impression to someone like Augustus.

Under the new revolution the nobiles and novi homines were doomed.  Their ambition was self destructive and their importance paled next to that of Principate.  The new party faction subsumed all.  They lost property and wealth.  They had no means to regain except for the few who found ways to ingratiate themselves with the NEW PARTY.  There was thus no incentive to participate.  "It was the acute consciousness of personal insecurity and political impotence that depressed and perverted the morale of the aristocracy."

It is very interesting to see the gentle pen Syme brings to Augustus at the end of his long reign:

For power he had sacrificed everything; he had achieved the height of all mortal ambition and in his ambition he had saved and regenerated the Roman people.

I highly recommend reading this book.  It will make you think.  It will challenge what you know.  I felt my arguments against the methods of Syme and against his views strengthened by reading his assessment of the times.  Yet, it is clear that he does not intend this merely as a review of a period of time from long ago.

signed,

The Obstinate Classicist