DOCSLIB.ORG

Explaining the Change from Republic to Principle in Rome

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Explaining the Change from Republic to Principle in Rome Comparative Civilizations Review Volume 4 Number 4 Spring 1980 Article 5 4-1-1980 Explaining the Change from Republic to Principle in Rome Jürgen Deininger Universität Hamburg Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr Recommended Citation Deininger, Jürgen (1980) "Explaining the Change from Republic to Principle in Rome," Comparative Civilizations Review: Vol. 4 : No. 4 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol4/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Comparative Civilizations Review by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Deininger: Explaining the Change from Republic to Principle in Rome77 EXPLAINING THE CHANGE FROM REPUBLIC TO PRINCIPATE IN ROME Jurgen Deininger The downfall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Principate are certainly among the most significant political events in the history of 'classical' antiquity. The establishment of the Principate by Augustus can hardly be compared with any short term change of power and constitution like those experienced rather frequently, for example, in earlier Greek city states during the establishment of a tyranny. There were at least two distinctive features by which events in Rome differed from many other constitutional changes in an- tiquity: On the one hand, there is simply the extraordi- nary length and duration of the slow process of trans- formation, whose critical phase from the Gracchi to Augustus embraced several generations; and on the other hand, there is what may be called the apparent 'irreversibility' of this fundamental change in the Roman political system. No return to the former structure of government seemed possible: the history of the Roman Empire is, indeed, on the whole the history of steadily growing and increasingly articulated monar- chical government. There is no need to demonstrate this here in any detail. Therefore, it may be said that the crisis of the Roman republic and its transition to monar- chy was a profound and irreversible long-term change of the political system for which there is hardly any real parallel in ancient history. It may be added at once that this transition from Republic to Principate or, to put it in more general terms, to Monarchy, tended to be seen, at least partially in antiquity and still more so in modern times, as a notable turn for the worse, as an obviou s sign of the decline of the Roman political community. There is no question that the main task of the ancient historian studying the late Roman republic is, and will continue to be, to analyze and describe this large proc- Published by BYU ScholarsArchive, 1980 1 78 Comparative Civilizations Review, Vol. 4 [1980], No. 4, Art. 5 ess of change at Rome by starting from the innumerable actions and motives of individual leaders and groups. But there seemed always to be, in addition, a necessity to search for the more fundamental, underlying causes of this notable disruption in the inner development of the Roman state and its institutions. From Tacitus to Machiavelli, from Montesquieu to the modern histori- cal research of the 20th century, there have been many important attempts to understand and explain the fact that in spite of numerous contradicting interests and in spite of much stubborn resistance, in spite even of the individual intentions of many political leaders, in the end Monarchy replaced once for all the age-old repub- lican system of Rome. It would be impossible, of course, to give here a complete account of all these attempts, all the more as there has never been made any comprehensive survey of them. Though it would add, I think, to our under- standing of Roman history, there exists no history of the problem, no systematic comparison and evaluation of the different explanations given either in antiquity or in modern times. What I want to do here—and my aim must of course be very limited—is to point out some of the principal types of explanation, chiefly in modern historical research, to try to discuss briefly their merits and to add, as a conclusion, a few larger historical perspectives and connections of the problem that tend frequently but, I think, rather unduly to be overlooked. It cannot be the ambition of this essay to present any absolutely new or complete explanation of the vast historical process in question, but a glance at the exist- ing literature of the subject seems to indicate that efforts to clarify some points might be not wholly unwelcome and unnecessary. One further preliminary remark should be made. It must be admitted that historians in general do not per- ceive the problem of underlying causes as their most important subject; they concentrate, and, as I said al- https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol4/iss4/5 2 Deininger: Explaining the Change from Republic to Principle in Rome 79 ready, evidently must do so, on the analysis of single events, on the actions and motives of leaders and groups, on the analysis of institutions, while underlying causes are treated rather by the way. To illustrate what I mean by this, I give just one example. Such a major work on the history of the late Roman republic as Sir Ronald Syme's Roman Revolution avoids nearly com- pletely the question of the underlying causes of the so-called "Revolution." Essentially, it is stated that the basic problem of the epoch was the dilemma that had arisen between' 'liberty" or''political stability'':''That was the question confronting the Romans themselves", Sir Ronald says, "and I have tried to answer it precisely in their fashion." I am not sure whether this really was the problem confronting the Romans rather than certain Romans. But even when one identifies, say, Tacitus' with the Romans' point of view, the question arises why this dilemma presented itself all at once so urgently to the Romans, and this question remains practically unan- swered. I shall not indulge here in a description of the historiographic and methodological origins of this at- titude; but, important as 'the' Roman point of view doubtless is for our understanding of Roman history, it may yet be questioned whether it can offer us a suffi- cient explanation of the transition from Republic to Monarchy. But even when explicit consideration is given by modern writers to the problem of "causes", one may discover at least two different ways of dealing with it: One possibility is the enumeration of a whole series of single "factors" that have strongly influenced the transition from Republic to Monarchy (or, as it is fre- quently treated, only the breakdown of the Republic), without any attempt to analyze the relationship be- tween these single factors or between them and the process of change as a whole. The other possibility is the presentation of one, i.e., the writer's own, explana- Published by BYU ScholarsArchive, 1980 3 Comparative Civilizations Review, Vol. 4 [1980], No. 4, Art. 5 80 tion without any systematic discussion of differing in- terpretations. This is to be seen, no doubt, in close correspondence to the fact already mentioned that there has never been an attempt to produce something like a comprehensive survey of the problem. The problem itself has, of course, a long history. But to investigate in any detail the many approaches made to it already in antiquity and again since early modern times would take us too far. A few hints must suffice. The famous 'theory of moral decline' so important for Roman self-understanding in the late Republican period was conceived (or taken over from Greek models) at a stage of the crisis when nobody was aware of its final outcome, which was to be, in fact, Monarchy. Only in the imperial epoch did it become possible to survey the whole historical process, and then it was mainly the Civil Wars (partly seen as a result of 'moral decline') and the necessity for peace that were held to be respon- sible for the transition from Republic to Monarchy; these are essentially the perspectives given in the work just mentioned by Sir Ronald Syme. There appears, however, also the idea that, in the last analysis, it was merely the size and extent of the Roman Empire that made Monarchy necessary. At least some hints to this can be found in Tacitus and other writers, including some very interesting remarks of the jurist Pomponius in his Enchiridium composed in the time of Hadrian. All this should be investigated much more closely than has been done hitherto, and the same holds true for the much more detailed and sophisticated attempts at ex- planation since early modern times. I can mention here only the recent analysis made by J.G.A. Pocock in his Machiavellian Moment. Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition, 1975, where, in a different context, it is demonstrated at length how Machiavelli considered the militia of the citizens (as opposed to mercenary soldiers) as the very keystone of a Republican constitution and that therefore in his view https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol4/iss4/5 4 Deininger: Explaining the Change from Republic to Principle in Rome 81 the decline of the militia and the rise of a professional army in Rome had as its fatal consequence the transi- tion from Republic to Monarchy. The same author has pointed out how first of all in 17th century England James Harrington went still further by emphasizing the economic basis of the republican system, which he thought to be a balanced structure of property.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the D
    The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Marion Woodrow Kruse, III Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: Anthony Kaldellis, Advisor; Benjamin Acosta-Hughes; Nathan Rosenstein Copyright by Marion Woodrow Kruse, III 2015 ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the use of Roman historical memory from the late fifth century through the middle of the sixth century AD. The collapse of Roman government in the western Roman empire in the late fifth century inspired a crisis of identity and political messaging in the eastern Roman empire of the same period. I argue that the Romans of the eastern empire, in particular those who lived in Constantinople and worked in or around the imperial administration, responded to the challenge posed by the loss of Rome by rewriting the history of the Roman empire. The new historical narratives that arose during this period were initially concerned with Roman identity and fixated on urban space (in particular the cities of Rome and Constantinople) and Roman mythistory. By the sixth century, however, the debate over Roman history had begun to infuse all levels of Roman political discourse and became a major component of the emperor Justinian’s imperial messaging and propaganda, especially in his Novels. The imperial history proposed by the Novels was aggressivley challenged by other writers of the period, creating a clear historical and political conflict over the role and import of Roman history as a model or justification for Roman politics in the sixth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Exam Sample Question
    Latin II St. Charles Preparatory School Sample Second Semester Examination Questions PART I Background and History (Questions 1-35) Directions: On the answer sheet cover the letter of the response which correctly completes each statement about Caesar or his armies. 1. The commander-in-chief of a Roman army who had won a significant victory was known as a. dux b. imperator c. signifer d. sagittarius e. legatus 2. Caesar was consul for the first time in the year a. 65 B.C. b. 70 B.C. c. 59 B.C. d. 44 B.C. e. 51 B.C. PART II Vocabulary (Questions 36-85) Directions: On the answer sheet provided cover the letter of the correct meaning for the boldfaced Latin word in the left band column. 36. doctus a. edge b. entrance c. learned d. record e. friendly 37. incipio a. stop b. speaker c. rest d. happen e. begin PART III Prepared Translation, Passage A (Questions 86-95) Directions: On the answer sheet provided cover the letter of the best translation for each Latin sentence or fragment. 86. Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres. a. The Gauls divided themselves into three parts b. All of Gaul was divided into three parts c. Three parts of Gaul have been divided d. Everyone in Gaul was divided into three parts PART IV Prepared Translation, Passage B (Questions 96-105) Directions: On the answer sheet provided cover the letter of the best translation for each Latin sentence or fragment. 96. Galli se Celtas appellant. Romani autem eos Gallos appellant.
    [Show full text]
  • RICE, CARL ROSS. Diocletian's “Great
    ABSTRACT RICE, CARL ROSS. Diocletian’s “Great Persecutions”: Minority Religions and the Roman Tetrarchy. (Under the direction of Prof. S. Thomas Parker) In the year 303, the Roman Emperor Diocletian and the other members of the Tetrarchy launched a series of persecutions against Christians that is remembered as the most severe, widespread, and systematic persecution in the Church’s history. Around that time, the Tetrarchy also issued a rescript to the Pronconsul of Africa ordering similar persecutory actions against a religious group known as the Manichaeans. At first glance, the Tetrarchy’s actions appear to be the result of tensions between traditional classical paganism and religious groups that were not part of that system. However, when the status of Jewish populations in the Empire is examined, it becomes apparent that the Tetrarchy only persecuted Christians and Manichaeans. This thesis explores the relationship between the Tetrarchy and each of these three minority groups as it attempts to understand the Tetrarchy’s policies towards minority religions. In doing so, this thesis will discuss the relationship between the Roman state and minority religious groups in the era just before the Empire’s formal conversion to Christianity. It is only around certain moments in the various religions’ relationships with the state that the Tetrarchs order violence. Consequently, I argue that violence towards minority religions was a means by which the Roman state policed boundaries around its conceptions of Roman identity. © Copyright 2016 Carl Ross Rice All Rights Reserved Diocletian’s “Great Persecutions”: Minority Religions and the Roman Tetrarchy by Carl Ross Rice A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts History Raleigh, North Carolina 2016 APPROVED BY: ______________________________ _______________________________ S.
    [Show full text]
  • Livy's View of the Roman National Character
    James Luce, December 5th, 1993 Livy's View of the Roman National Character As early as 1663, Francis Pope named his plantation, in what would later become Washington, DC, "Rome" and renamed Goose Creek "Tiber", a local hill "Capitolium", an example of the way in which the colonists would draw upon ancient Rome for names, architecture and ideas. The founding fathers often called America "the New Rome", a place where, as Charles Lee said to Patrick Henry, Roman republican ideals were being realized. The Roman historian Livy (Titus Livius, 59 BC-AD 17) lived at the juncture of the breakdown of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire. His 142 book History of Rome from 753 to 9 BC (35 books now extant, the rest epitomes) was one of the most read Latin authors by early American colonists, partly because he wrote about the Roman national character and his unique view of how that character was formed. "National character" is no longer considered a valid term, nations may not really have specific national characters, but many think they do. The ancients believed states or peoples had a national character and that it arose one of 3 ways: 1) innate/racial: Aristotle believed that all non-Greeks were barbarous and suited to be slaves; Romans believed that Carthaginians were perfidious. 2) influence of geography/climate: e.g., that Northern tribes were vigorous but dumb 3) influence of institutions and national norms based on political and family life. The Greek historian Polybios believed that Roman institutions (e.g., division of government into senate, assemblies and magistrates, each with its own powers) made the Romans great, and the architects of the American constitution read this with especial care and interest.
    [Show full text]
  • ROMAN REPUBLICAN CAVALRY TACTICS in the 3Rd-2Nd
    ACTA MARISIENSIS. SERIA HISTORIA Vol. 2 (2020) ISSN (Print) 2668-9545 ISSN (Online) 2668-9715 DOI: 10.2478/amsh-2020-0008 “BELLATOR EQUUS”. ROMAN REPUBLICAN CAVALRY TACTICS IN THE 3rd-2nd CENTURIES BC Fábián István Abstact One of the most interesting periods in the history of the Roman cavalry were the Punic wars. Many historians believe that during these conflicts the ill fame of the Roman cavalry was founded but, as it can be observed it was not the determination that lacked. The main issue is the presence of the political factor who decided in the main battles of this conflict. The present paper has as aim to outline a few aspects of how the Roman mid-republican cavalry met these odds and how they tried to incline the balance in their favor. Keywords: Republic; cavalry; Hannibal; battle; tactics The main role of a well performing cavalry is to disrupt an infantry formation and harm the enemy’s cavalry units. From this perspective the Roman cavalry, especially the middle Republican one, performed well by employing tactics “if not uniquely Roman, were quite distinct from the normal tactics of many other ancient Mediterranean cavalry forces. The Roman predilection to shock actions against infantry may have been shared by some contemporary cavalry forces, but their preference for stationary hand-to-hand or dismounted combat against enemy cavalry was almost unique to them”.1 The main problem is that there are no major sources concerning this period except for Polibyus and Titus Livius. The first may come as more reliable for two reasons: he used first-hand information from the witnesses of the conflicts between 220-167 and ”furthermore Polybius’ account is particularly valuable because he had serves as hypparch in Achaea and clearly had interest and aptitude in analyzing military affairs”2.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Book Cicero and the Roman Republic 1St Edition
    CICERO AND THE ROMAN REPUBLIC 1ST EDITION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK John Murrell | 9780521691161 | | | | | Cicero and the Roman Republic 1st edition PDF Book Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account. Add to Basket Used Softcover. Cicero, who himself was a prolific writer on philosophy and politics praises the idea of not just a philosopher king, but philosopher leadership in general, and advocates that intellectuals get involved in politics rather than shun it. Many believed he had participated in several murders. Yet, what we do have is simply stunning, a perfect Latinization, Romanization, and republicanization of Socratic ideals and ethics. In this "mixed state," he argued, royalty, the best men, and the common people all should have a role. Indeed, when he denounced the latter in a number of orations called the Philippics, Mark Antony had him murdered. Soon, his skills as an orator made Cicero the leading court advocate in Rome. These afford a revelation of the man all the more striking because most were not written for publication. Views Read Edit View history. For Further Reading Everitt, Anthony. Instead of a king, the republic installed two "consuls" to rule. This new selection of speeches illustrates Cicero's fierce loyalty to the Roman Republic, giving an overview of his oratory from early victories in the law courts to the height of his political career in the Senate. About this Item: Hackett Publishing, By refusing to join this alliance, Cicero left himself vulnerable to attacks from his political enemies. Each consul could veto an act of the other.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Rome
    Ancient Rome William E. Dunstan ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK ................. 17856$ $$FM 09-09-10 09:17:21 PS PAGE iii Published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com Estover Road, Plymouth PL6 7PY, United Kingdom Copyright ᭧ 2011 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. All maps by Bill Nelson. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. The cover image shows a marble bust of the nymph Clytie; for more information, see figure 22.17 on p. 370. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dunstan, William E. Ancient Rome / William E. Dunstan. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7425-6832-7 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-7425-6833-4 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-7425-6834-1 (electronic) 1. Rome—Civilization. 2. Rome—History—Empire, 30 B.C.–476 A.D. 3. Rome—Politics and government—30 B.C.–476 A.D. I. Title. DG77.D86 2010 937Ј.06—dc22 2010016225 ⅜ϱ ீThe paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/ NISO Z39.48–1992. Printed in the United States of America ................
    [Show full text]
  • Objective and Subjective Genitives
    Objective and Subjective Genitives To this point, there have been three uses of the Genitive Case. They are possession, partitive, and description. Many genitives which have been termed possessive, however, actually are not. When a Genitive Case noun is paired with certain special nouns, the Genitive has a special relationship with the other noun, based on the relationship of a noun to a verb. Many English and Latin nouns are derived from verbs. For example, the word “love” can be used either as a verb or a noun. Its context tells us how it is being used. The patriot loves his country. The noun country is the Direct Object of the verb loves. The patriot has a great love of his country. The noun country is still the object of loving, but now loving is expressed as a noun. Thus, the genitive phrase of his country is called an Objective Genitive. You have actually seen a number of Objective Genitives. Another common example is Rex causam itineris docuit. The king explained the cause of the journey (the thing that caused the journey). Because “cause” can be either a noun or a verb, when it is used as a noun its Direct Object must be expressed in the Genitive Case. A number of Latin adjectives also govern Objective Genitives. For example, Vir miser cupidus pecuniae est. A miser is desirous of money. Some special nouns and adjectives in Latin take Objective Genitives which are more difficult to see and to translate. The adjective peritus, -a, - um, meaning “skilled” or “experienced,” is one of these: Nautae sunt periti navium.
    [Show full text]
  • Roman History, I: the Republic
    Walter Scheidel Office hours: Tue 1.30-2 & Thu 1.30-3 Office: 20-22L Office phone: (650) 723-0478 Mailbox: Classics Department e-mail: [email protected] (Main Quad, Building 20) www.stanford.edu/~scheidel Christelle Fischer ([email protected]) James Greenberg ([email protected]) CLASS HIS 102 = HISTORY 102X ROMAN HISTORY, I: THE REPUBLIC Winter Quarter 2004 TueThu 11-12.15 60-61G Required texts (available at the Stanford Bookstore) • M. Crawford, The Roman Republic (2nd ed., Harvard University Press, 1993) • A. Lintott, The Roman Republic (Sutton, 2000) • R. Mellor, The Historians of Ancient Rome: An Anthology of the Major Writings (Routledge, 1998) • Cicero, Selected Political Speeches (rev. ed. Penguin, 1989) • Plutarch, Fall of the Roman Republic (rev ed., Penguin, 1972) • K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves: Sociological Studies in Roman History, 1 (Cambridge 1978), chapters 1-2 (out of print; available as a course package) Schedule and readings Tue, Jan 6 Introduction: Why Rome matters Thu, Jan 8 What can we know about early Rome? – Bottom-up perspectives Crawford ch. 2; Lintott 1-21 Tue, Jan 13 What are we told about early Rome? – The Fabrication of Historical Tradition Mellor 1-5, 147-210; Crawford ch. 1 Thu, Jan 15 Synopsis, c.400-133 BCE: How to build an empire Mellor 233-246; Crawford ch. 4-6; Lintott 12-66 Tue, Jan 20 The constitutional framework: institutions and process Crawford ch. 3, 7, app. 1 Thu, Jan 22 Governing Rome: oligarchy in action Mellor 211-233, then 47-59; handouts Tue, Jan 27 Roman militarism: continuous ‘just war’ Mellor 17-27, 32-47; Crawford app.
    [Show full text]
  • AH2020 Politics and Society in the Late Roman Republic
    1 School of Archaeology & Ancient History AH2020 Politics and Society in the Late Roman Republic. Academic Year: 2009-2010 Semester: 2 Time and location: 11.00-13.00 Tuesday CW 801 First meeting: Tuesday 26nd January Module coordinator: Elly Cowan e-mail: [email protected] Room: Archaeology and Ancient History 025 Office hours: Tuesday 10.00-11.00 Tuesday 13.00-14.00 Your individual appointments (e.g. tutorials, seminars): …………………………………………………… …………………………………………………… …………………………………………………… …………………………………………………… document prepared by: ERC 20.01.10 1 2 AH2020 Politics and Society in the Late Roman Republic. The Fall of the Republic. Weighting: 20 credits Coordinator: Elly Cowan Module The late Republic is one of the most exciting periods of Roman history both in outline: terms of events and evidence. This module examines both what happened in these years and, just as importantly, what people living at the time thought about it (by reading texts in translation). Topics covered will include politics, constitutional history (assemblies and elections), the impact of empire and relations between Rome and Italy. The module concentrates on the idea of the ‘fall of the Republic’ in ancient and modern literature and scholarship. By looking at some key texts and inscriptions, we will explore the nature of the Roman constitution, the impact of the ‘military dynasts’ and the expansion of the empire on the ‘Republic’. What was the ‘Republic’ and what do we mean when we say that it ‘fell’? Aims: - to examine the fall of the Republic using a variety of evidence (literary, epigraphic, archaeological). - to engage with and assess critically modern approaches to the ancient material.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 5: Roman Comedy: Plautus Pseudolus
    MDS1TRW: The Roman World Lecture 5: Roman Comedy: Plautus Pseudolus h"p://www.utexas.edu/courses/moorecomedy/comedyimages/naplesrelief.jpg ROMAN COMEDY fabula palliata – story in Greek dress • Plautus (c. 254 to 184 BCE) – 20 comedies including Pseudolus • Terence (195-160 BCE) - 6 comedies Italian influences on the fabula palliata • Fescennine Jesng – obscene abuse, verbal duelling [e.g. Pseudolus and Simia (Pseud. 913-20 – pp. 251-2)] • Saturnalia 17 December - overturning of social norms [e.g. slave in charge mo\f] • Atellan Farce: innuendo, obscenity, visual comedy [everywhere! – see Ballio and slaves scene] Plautus vs. Terence • Terence: v Athenian New Comedy v family drama • Plautus: v Roman elements • e.g. Aulularia (Pot of Gold 107): Euclio visits the Roman magistrate v Farce v Metatheatrics Performing Plautus’ Pseudolus • 191 BCE • Ludi Megalenses • Plautus = 63 years old Mosaic of two actors with masks Sousse Museum, Tunisia http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/paula_chabot/theater/pctheater40.jpg Plautus: use of stock characters • Young man (adulescens) • Slave (servus, ancilla) • Old man (senex) • Pros\tute (meretrix) • Pimp, bawd (leno) • Soldier (miles) • Parasite (parasitus) Mosaic of comic masks: flute girl and • Nurse (nutrix) slave, Conservatori Museum, Rome http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/paula_chabot/theater/pctheater.30.jpg Plautus: stock characters in Pseudolus • Young man (adulescens) - Calidorus • Slave (servus) – Pseudolus [and Simia] • Old man (senex) – Simo • Pimp, bawd (leno) – Ballio • Cook (coquus) –unnamed • Pros\tute (meretrix) - Phoenicium Mosaic of comic masks: flute girl and slave, Conservatori Museum, Rome http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/paula_chabot/theater/pctheater.30.jpg Names with meaning • Slaves: Pseudolus; Harpax; Simia • Soldier: Polymachaeroplagides = lit.
    [Show full text]
  • THE PRINCIPATE – LIFEBELT, OR MILLSTONE AROUND the NECK of the EMPIRE? John Drinkwater* the Augustan Principate Was the Produc
    THE PRINCIPATE – LIFEBELT, OR MILLSTONE AROUND THE NECK OF THE EMPIRE? John Drinkwater* The Augustan Principate was the product of crisis – a response to the challenges that precipitated the fall of the Republic. The Principate worked because it met the political needs of its day. There is no doubt that it saved the Roman state and the Roman Empire: it was a lifebelt. But it was not perfect. In its turn it precipitated more challenges that had to be responded to – more crises – in particular that known as the ‘third century Crisis’. In the long run it was a problem as much as a solution: a millstone as much as a lifebelt. In the end, it had to go. I will brie y deal with the Principate as a problem, and then suggest a new way of discerning the strains that brought about its demise. The Principate was created by Augustus and continued by the Julio- Claudians. However, there is a case for arguing that the Principate had still to establish itself as ‘the of\ ce of emperor’ as late as the death of Nero. The continuing challenges and responses that created and developed the Principate sometimes also broke it open to show its workings, and what contemporaries made of it. Thus Plutarch reports that in A.D. 68, Galba, on his way from Spain to take up power in Rome, entertained a group of senators in southern Gaul. Though he could have used the imperial furniture and servants sent to him by the Praetorian Prefect, Nymphidius Sabinus, initially he chose not to, which was remarked upon favourably by his guests.1 Galba’s modesty is explicable in various ways but, following Wiedemann’s appreciation of Galba’s family pride, I believe that he rejected this ‘family silver’ basically because it was the silver of an alien family.2 Galba, born in 3 B.C., had lived under all the Julio-Claudian rulers.
    [Show full text]