664. Remembering the Roman People by T. P. Wiseman. I am so glad that I read this book. I have learned so much from it about the late Republic, Cicero, his contemporaries and modern scholarship. He has made me think and ponder.
Wiseman's contention is that the Roman People had an ideology- that is they had a set of beliefs. What, he says, proves this is the tension which existed between the People and the aristocracy. Makes sense to me but he seems consistently to put a negative twist to tension. Perhaps tension is good- at least up to a point. He seems to talk as though the history of the Republic was a struggle for the Roman People to attain victory, to impose their sovereignty. But this really puzzles me when much later, p. 132, he mentions that finally in 27 BC the authority of the RP was restored. Such statements lose me- ending the Republic which allowed the plebs liberty of expression of ideas was achieved by domination of a monarchy which limited expression?
He identifies early on champions of the People: Gracchi, Saturninus, Clodius and Caesar.
The first challenge to the arrogance of the aristocracy was that of Gaius Geta. He was consul in 116 BC. Soon removed from Senate by Censors. This must have been done in eyes of Wiseman as a means of revenge by the aristocracy. Another example of source of tension between aristocracy and People.
The Tablinum in the Forum built by Quintus Catullus represents the triumph of the aristocracy since the temple of Moneta was placed on top. Wiseman suggests and I find this very fascinating- the tabularium was meant as a records area but was also a huge and I mean huge platform for a temple which was meant to make a statement to the RP that the aristocracy was in charge. That temple, the temple of Juno Moneta stood on top. This temple, that of Juno Moneta was vowed by Fabius Dorsuo who was one of those patrician heroes who stood up to the invading Gauls in 390 BC. Thus Juno Moneta was a symbol of patricians.
This huge back drop to the Forum (the Tabularium) was meant, says Wiseman, to be a statement that the forum was dominated by the aristocracy.
Romulus had meant that all land was to be equally distributed. This principle the aristocracy set out to ignore or destroy.
Wiseman interestingly uses the comments and observations of Thomas Macaulay, a British politician, to put Cicero in a different light. Macaulay as a young man admired Cicero but also saw that in his view he had sold himself out to the aristocracy. This was an interesting chapter and forces a new perspective on Cicero. It is interesting too that Macaulay's views are considered worthwhile because he was a well read Brit who also had mounds of political experience- thus his views on Cicero from someone with practical experience were/are useful.
Wiseman has a chapter on Cicero and Varro- the famous Varro- Marcus Terentius Varro who was considered by many the most scholarly of all Romans. Wiseman makes a strong case that the men did not see eye to eye on political issues. I am not sure but it seems that Wiseman's main point is that contrary to view expressed by Cicero there were other views. I agree and makes much sense but it was to this Varro that Cicero wrote that he was looking forward to studying in Varro's library with garden attached. Apparently they were going to discuss political issues of importance to both of them. This was in 46 BC. Just another example that Wiseman seems to bend over backwards to show differences. They may have disagreed- no surprise there but also seemed to get along.
Then Wiseman makes one of those statements which puzzles me: Varro lived to see the restoration of the authority of the Roman People. And then remarks that he died in 27 BC. He seems to connect restoration of authority of the RP with the Principate. If this is true then Cicero may be right- power invested primarily in the people without balance of authority leads to monarchy and the suppression of thought and political activity.
In his discussion on satire which he connects directly with the Roman People he makes some fascinating observations. He analyzes a poem by Horace. The poem implies that public recitals of literary works were common and that leading figures were present in the audience. (Satire 2.1 lines 68-74). So Wiseman thinks that poems by Ennius, Naevius (Bellum Punicum) Varro (Menippean Satires) were read out loud before large audiences. My interest in this is that the RP were sophisticated and eager for the beauty of prose and poetry. Evidently audiences filled large theaters to hear these. Something I always suspected but never had information to back it up.
Wiseman uses Cicero's return from exile in an interesting way. He was met by huge crowds starting at the Porta Capena. These were large crowds of plebs- Roman People. These large crowds came to see the man whom Wiseman claims hated them. But it is here that Wiseman seems weak- without regard to any differentiation Wisemen lumps any word or phrase which Cicero uses in regards to the plebs as one an the same- he never seems to allow that Cicero may have viewed people in various aspects- Cicero despised mob rule which may be attributed to thugs, slaves and leaches assembled by a politician for personal purposes. Does not mean that this is the same as the Roman People, per se. Wiseman is slippery here in my opinion. To use the term Roman People the way Wiseman uses it gives no room for differentiation. He then points out that the man (Cicero) who hated the People was pleased with their approval. Part of the evidence that Cicero did not like the plebs is supported by the fact that Cicero did not make a public speech to the people until he was 39. Yet, criers went dashing throughout Rome to let people know that Cicero was about to speak. I found this chapter very informative and interesting and valuable- I just am puzzled what and how he makes his point.
Then another fascinating discussion by Wiseman- it is known that gladiatorial contests took place in the forum. To do so required some conversion and planning. The forum area with its wide open area- much more open than it became during the imperial period, so steps on temples, porticos, roofs of buildings, balconies allowed for views. Even the rostra was set up as a viewing place.
Wiseman mentions that Clodius claimed that Cicero's return from exile caused a shortage of grain in the city. And his adherents ran first through the theater and then to the Senate house. What theater? Plays and performances of a festival were held in from of the temple of that god or goddess whom the festival honored. Thus the steps and surrounding area would be converted into a theater.. Sounds to me like modern Romans. Through one of these theaters Clodius' buds ran on their way to the Curia(Senate House). The Ludi Romani were going on at this time and that means that the temporary theater would have been set near/in front of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. This passage puts an interesting view on permanent theaters erected later.
So he establishes that there were public stages at different times throughout Rome for various festivals and reasons. One of these public stages was the Rostra, Caesar's new rostra. Caesar was on it and a Licinius offered a diadem to Caesar. The crowd encouraged Lepidus to offer it. Cicero says that the crowd was shouting to reject but Nicolaus, an historian, says the opposite. Caesar said that only Jupiter was king. Wiseman mentions that Caesar had been granted sacrosanctity by the RP- same as that of Tribunes. If this is a display of authority by the RP, why should I not long for the friction produced by aristocracy competing with plebs? Wiseman seems to favor the sovereignty which Romulus, a king, set up with everyone equal.
I would like to know if Cicero took the oath to protect Caesar. Wiseman implies but does not state explicitly.
The rich are constantly bad in Wiseman and these he seems to equate to aristocrats. This sounds familiar to my modern ears. The rich are the bad guys. Of course Caesar was filthy rich but he is excluded. Only the "other" rich are bad.
He seems to keep saying that the Roman People wanted a Republic of equals. By establishing a monarchy? Actually Wiseman has done much for me to understand Cicero's comments about dangers of democracy without restraint.
Wiseman writes that it was so impressive that the Republic so often solved problems without bloodshed. It was indeed impressive- the withdrawal of the plebs which had gained rights for the plebs through the years. But Wiseman never seems to address the possibility that the plebs of 60 BC were not the same as the plebs of 350 BC.
For 360 Years the sacrosanctity of the Tribunes was respected. The murder of Tiberius Gracchus put an end to that record. Thus Wiseman ultimately puts the blame for the Civil Wars on the senatorial class. Cicero says that the death of Tiberius split the People into two parties. Wiseman disagrees. The People when they voted and appointed were one. He points out disagreement among the aristocracy but seems to avoid the possibility of dispute among the plebs.
At that crucial moment (during the crisis of T. Gracchus) the presiding consul, Publius Mucius Scaevola refused to take action against Tiberius. Then Publius Cornelius Nasica led out a group of senators, encountered Tiberius and killed him. Wiseman interprets this to mean that the legal scholar, Scaevola, did not see where Tiberius was doing anything illegal. Yet later mentions that Scaevola declared the murder of Tiberius justified. Can't use one situation for one point and then ignore the other. He makes the first act ring in support of himself and the second questionable.
What did Tiberius do wrong?
The occupation of public land by the rich was illegal
Tiberius was legally elected
the agrarian law was legally passed
I agree with all of this but how long had the situation with illegal use of land been allowed to go on? This is never addressed.
Before Tiberius there had been three seditious people:
Spurius Cassius in 485, Marcus Manlius in 384- both were condemned in the courts
Spurius Maelius in 439 was killed by order of a Dictator.
Wiseman works like this:
The Senate claimed to set standards for what was politically acceptable.
Gaius Gracchus tried to re-establish power of the people with a law that no citizen could be put to death without the authority of the Roman People.
The Senate's answer was the senatus consultum ultimum
Wiseman's concusion- the Senate wanted executive action without regard for the laws.
I see his point but he avoids any discussion whether or not a state has the right to protect itself. It may be that Wiseman thinks not. So he calls the SCU a quasi- constitutional authority.
The case of Publius Clodius Pulcher. Titus Milo was on his way to Lanuvium. Clodius was on his way back to Rome from Aricia. The two groups meet at Bovillae. A minor fight unfolds between the slaves of each group. Milo's man, Birria hits Clodius with a javelin. Wounded Clodius is taken inside a tavern. Milo's men attack the tavern. Clodius is dragged out and killed.
Milo was defended by Cicero at the trial. Milo was condemned.
What had Clodius done to deserve this? Wiseman says that he had done nothing except pass laws legally. Clodius and his use of law to banish Cicero are not mentioned.
In defense of Caesar crossing the Rubicon, Wiseman mentions Caesar's concern for the rights of Tribunes and his desire to liberate Rome. That is indeed a concern which Caesar lists in the Bellum Civile. He ignores Caesar's statement also in the Bellum Civile that he did it (crossing the Rubicon) to protect his own dignity.
So in Wiseman's view Caesar was forced by arrogant aristocrats to "put himself in the wrong by invading Italy." Wiseman seems convinced that Caesar had no other choice. Mind you, no other choice. Fascinating.
Cicero was pleased with Caesar's clemency but Wiseman seems to ignore another aspect of what the war meant, the implications of clemency, confusion as to where Caesar fit into political legalities.
Wiseman asserts that as of June 1, 48 BC the constitutional question was settled. The People elected new consuls: Caesar and Publius Servilius Isauricus. The sovereignty of the Roman People was now on the side of Caesar.
So we have a man forced by the rich to leave illegally his province to protect the tribunes whose sacrosanctity he ultimately took for himself while being elected to multiple dictatorships and consulships simultaneously. All these are fine because the People voted them. In October 48 BC he was voted the consulship for five years in advance. His second Dictatorship was for a whole year instead of six months. He was given Tribunicia potestas. April 46 he was appointed Praefectus moribus for three years. He was then given successive Dictatorships. He was granted the right of granting magistracies and honors on behalf of the People. In April of 45 BC he was voted ten successive Consulships and granted authority over all military authority and all public funds. In 44 BC he was granted the Censorship for life with no colleague, the sacrosanctity of Tribunes and made Dictator for life. All these were voted/elected/appointed by the People. Wiseman does not question any of this in any way- the People voted etc- that is it.
After this Wiseman says that Caesar was not a despot, that the rule of law had not been abandoned. Whatever the people vote is not only fine and dandy but apparently can not be opposed by the will or thought of any other group such as aristocrats. Wiseman also mentions that these things were approved by the Senate. But also fails to mention that ,after a Senate which had contained 600 plus senators before the Civil War and had been reduced to as low as 300, Caesar had raised the number to 900.
Arguments put forth by Cicero in Pro Marcello are completely ignored.
Wiseman uses Cicero's letters to suggest that Cicero held views about Caesar which were dependent upon his whim of the moment. Without any discussion on how much if any change there had been between say 48 and 44 BC.
Cites Cicero's Pro Caelio wherein Cicero says that the aristocracy will not tolerate an affront. Thus he says that aristocratic interests do not coincide with that of the Roman People. To Wiseman friction is bad but I wonder if part of what accounts for Roman greatness is the friction produced by opposing groups which in the long run benefited both groups. Maybe the tragedy of the Principate was the elimination of friction. Perhaps this led to stagnation.
Then after the above long list of powers granted to Caesar in assemblies whose legitimacy some may have doubted says:
"It may seem frivolous to suggest that Caesar was killed because the optimates liked things to be at their own convenience, but something like that must be near the truth." I am so puzzled. Maybe that is what Wiseman wants.
Wiseman does not distinguish between Cicero's various references to the Roman People. Wiseman lumps Cicero's use of multitudo, populus romanus and other references to people together. Doing so allows Wiseman to expose Cicero as a fraud because of apparent inconsistency. In Philippic III Cicero mentions that Caesar softened the multitudo with gifts, monuments, etc. BUT in De Officiis Cicero says that Caesar oppressed the Roman People with an army.
Wiseman sweeps away Cicero's De Officiis because it was written in haste in a time of crisis. E.g. Caesar's victory was more foul than Sulla's. Wiseman gives these reasons to support his arguments: Caesar pardoned captured soldiers, he settled veterans without the disruption caused by Sulla. That Cicero despised Sulla is readily evident in Cicero's speeches but there was one major difference between the Caesar and Sulla which Wiseman does not bring up or ignores: Sulla restored the Republic and retired.
Later Wiseman uses vulgi as equivalent to Populus Romanus. This is free and loose with vocabulary. Wiseman has an agenda here- it is more than simply to spur discussion and debate.
In a discussion of the aftermath of Caesar's murder, Wiseman says that Caesar was not a tyrant. This is his proof- March 17, 44 BC the Senate voted to confirm his acts. He treats this at simple face value without any discussion of the potential that other issues were at stake.
Wiseman remarks that Cicero's standards "did not coincide with those of the Roman People for whom the rule of law was the guarantee of their freedom against exploitation and oppression. At face value I completely agree but would add- sometimes. A leader, a great leader must sometimes stand up to the People.
Wiseman offers fascinating discussion on the murder of Caesar. Nicholaus of Damascus insists that Caesar fought very hard when the assassination attempt began.
Several thousand people were watching gladiatorial games in Pompey's theater while the Senate was meeting in a chamber nearby on that fateful day.
I thought that it was interesting that after the assassination when the crowd at the theater learned of it, they did not riot. Soon afterward Brutus addressed the People in the Forum. They came and listened. There were no riots. The March 17 the Senate met on the Liberalia.
It never occurs to Wiseman that the Roman People at times were usurped by a mob put together by a politician to get what they wanted. The possibility of this is never mentioned. If he did not think that this was the case he should have brought it up and dismissed it with his own argument.
Cicero disagrees with Nicholaus. He says that the people at the contio received Brutus and Cassius favorably and that they were overjoyed when the decision of the Senate was announced:
Caesar's acts were confirmed
no public praise of assassins because it was in the public interest
public reading of the will
Again Cicero's eyewitness account is swept aside because Wiseman says that not everyone would have cheered Brutus and Cassius. Clever and persuasive on his part but silly too. Who has ever been approved by all?
March 18 the will was read:
each citizen was to receive 300 sesterci
Caesar's gardens were now the property of the Roman People
Decimus Brutus was declared heir to Caesar if Octavian declined.
March 19 was the funeral. The bier was lavishly decorated. Musicians and actors were arranged. The rostra was set up as a stage. There was a crane to allow actors to fly about. There was a gilded replica of temple of Venus Genetrix on the platform. The body was placed on an ivory couch covered with purple and gold. There was a trophy of arms at the head of the couch. And Caesar's bloody robe hung on a spear.
Antonius mounts the rostra. (This was indeed a very elaborate play.) A crane lifts the wax image of Caesar showing all of his wounds. The Roman People wanted to burn the body in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus because that is where the assassins had taken refuge. Or at Pompey's Senate house. They remember says Wiseman what they had done for Clodius.
A pyre was made and set on fire with Caesar's body on it. Actors and musicians put their robes on the fire- very dramatic indeed- but there is a problem here- wool smoothers flame and does not burn- oh well why ruin Wiseman's day?
Cicero the eyewitness is swept aside although or because Cicero says that the Roman People were happy with the assassination. Cicero was an optimate. Enough said. Eyewitness out. Wiseman decides that the other view is from Pollio who was a lover of peace and liberty. Which of course explains why Pollio fought for the man who ended elections.
With the defeat of Brutus and Cassius at Philippi, the deification of Caesar and the establishment of a successor regime based on the tribunicia potestas, the People's cause triumphed over that of aristocracy. And soon the People's cause faded. This time I am not so sure what Wiseman's point is.
Interesting book, glad that I read it. I hope it spurs debate and lots of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment