Reading the Roman Revolution 23: Crisis in Party and State

This twenty-third chapter of Ronald Syme’s The Roman Revolution picks up after the “settlement of 27 BC” which established a kind of vaguely constitutional definition of Augustus’s power. Augustus’s rule, however, was still not secure. The four years between 27 and 23 demonstrated that the state remained in crisis and even Augustus’s inner circle was not immune from uncertainty.

Augustus’s health was the other issue. 

In 23, Augustus acquired tribunicia potestas to complement his proconsular imperium. Together, this melded the power of the army, tribunicians’ powers linked his authority to the people. Politically, then, his body became inviolable even if his health remained beyond his control. This also freed him to make other magistrates, particularly, the consulate available to his supporters. One wonders whether proconsular imperium and tribunicia potestas became symbolic articulations of the power that Augustus already possessed rather than the theoretical basis for his authority in the state. 

This appearance of republican institutions, however, did not imply their functioning. Syme asserts:

“A democracy cannot rule an empire. Neither can one man, though empire may appear to presuppose monarchy. There is always an oligarchy somewhere, open or concealed.”

This is both Syme’s assumption (and the basis for his use of prosopography) as well as his argument.

To oversimplify: for Augustus the core members of this oligarchy were Agrippa and Maecenas as well as Livia, his wife. There is evidence that Augustus had seen even Agrippa and Maecenas as potential threats at various points in their long careers in the Augustan party. To maintain the oligarchy Augustus had to balance obligations created through clemency with loyalty enforced by fear. This meant that no one was necessarily safe. The Princeps could tolerate no rivals.

It is worth noting now that along with Syme, I’m reading John Williams’ Augustus (1972) the first part of which focuses on the close relationship between the young Octavian, Agrippa, and Maecenas (as well as Salvidienus Rufus). Williams portrayal of Augustus, who is quite similar to the William Stoner introduced in Williams’s 1965 novel, is more sympathetic that Syme’s. It is hard to avoid thinking about Augustus as a version of William Stoner. Whereas Augustus’s intellect fueled both his capacity for detachment and a capacity for cruel calculation allowed him to become the Emperor of the Roman world, Stoner’s intellect remained bottled up and his detachment, every bit as vital for his survival as Augustus’s, left him alone. (To be clear, I’m only a little over half way through Augustus and I am spending a lot of time in the sun these days).

oOo

The short essay is part of my Reading The Roman Revolution at 80 project. It’s so awesome that I have two hashtags: #ReadingRomanRevolution and #ReadingRonaldat80. I explain the project here. You can read the rest of the entries here.