- This topic has 5 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
HelloI have started a Roman History class at my college covering the time period from 266 BCE to 14 CE. One of our first class discussions came after reading Polybius' description of the Roman Constitution. It appears from what I have seen thus far that, being an unwritten constitution, the system in the Roman Republic must have relied on tradition, a knowledge of how things were done in the past that was passed down through the generations. However, my professor brought up the point that the senate were the most educated group, and they were the only citizens (for the most part) who would have knowledge of the traditions through their elite educations. This, my professor maintains, essentially gave the senate power over the tradition itself. If they said that something was tradition, then it was tradition and society as a whole would accept it, as the Senate were the only ones who could claim knowledge of tradition. She gave the impression that it was common for senators to fabricate "traditions" to support their cause or case, and that "the way things were done in the past" became a very abused and changing concept. I would like to know if anyone really knows just how common of an occurrence this was, if there are any textual sources that deal with the subject of tradition in Roman political development, and/or if we today know of any concrete instances of this fabrication and abuse of tradition occurring. How sacrosanct was tradition in the Roman Public? Was it sacrosanct enough that no citizen would lie about it?Thank you.
First off, hello and welcome to the forum. 🙂I cannot think of any off-hand examples of what you're looking for, and I did a search through some sources and could not find any blatant examples there, either. The way you suggest it was told to you sounds like the senate intentionally manipulated, or artificially created certain "traditions" that they used to convince other senators or the masses that a certain course of action was needed. I would be skeptical of this since the Romans on the receiving end would have been more cunning than to believe just anything. Believing in traditions taught to you since childhood is one thing, but believing in them when they're introduced out-of-the-blue is another thing that would have been transparent for its political ramifications.This is not to say that certain aspects of tradition could not have been emphasized for effect. Skilled orators would have been able to do that. Perhaps someone else here knows of a specific example. Otherwise, your professor might be able to give you an example of what she was referring to when she said what she did.
What abut the Twelve Tables? Weren't they a written copy of the Roman Constitution or at least the Law Code?
Well you could regard the whole reign of Augustus as an exercise in bogus tradition. For example rather than abolish the tribunes, which would have been a block to his power, he simply acquired the role of tribune himself. Virtually everything he did early in his reign was consciously maintaining the outward forms of the republic to mask his actual absolute power.
Well you could regard the whole reign of Augustus as an exercise in bogus tradition. For example rather than abolish the tribunes, which would have been a block to his power, he simply acquired the role of tribune himself. Virtually everything he did early in his reign was consciously maintaining the outward forms of the republic to mask his actual absolute power.
That was actually pretty slick of him. He managed to maintain the polite fiction of the continuation of the Republic while gathering all the reigns of power into his own hands. Apparently he learned quite a bit from the failed attempt of Julius Caesar. Augustus even refused the title of Emperor instead preferring the title of First Citizen.
Well you could regard the whole reign of Augustus as an exercise in bogus tradition. For example rather than abolish the tribunes, which would have been a block to his power, he simply acquired the role of tribune himself. Virtually everything he did early in his reign was consciously maintaining the outward forms of the republic to mask his actual absolute power.
But one could say that the fact that people bought into the system meant that it worked. That he did not get assassinated or overthrown over the course of his 40+ year reign is remarkable in itself, as is his ability to provide for a peaceful and successful transfer of power at his death. Yes, he did consciously craft an image of himself that was meant to promote a particular socio-political agenda, but it was one which at least seemed to have Rome's best interest in mind.I am not one who frowns upon consolidated power in itself. While most of the time it does corrupt and leads to great peril for a citizenry, at times it can be very beneficial; in the case of Augustus, it led to a time of great peace and prosperity.
