To what extent can we attribute the conditions of the late Republic to the actions of individuals - Essay Example

To what extent can we attribute the conditions of the late Republic to the actions of single individuals? Or were the actions of these individuals actually attempts at restoring order? Introduction The Roman Republic is today regarded as one of the greatest civilizations in the history of mankind. Replete with epic tales of battle and seminal leaders’ personalities such as Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Brutus, ancient Rome also holds incredible intrigue for scholars and casual students of history. With the considerable academic emphasis placed on Roman civilization, an endless array of investigative criteria has emerged. Still, one of the most predominant means of scholarly analysis remains the conditions of the late Republic. Varying perspectives have considered the actions during this period in relation to a number of contextual criteria. The main modes of investigative inquiry situate the late Republic as either attributable to the actions of specific individuals, or the actions of these individuals merely attempts at restoring order. Analysis Sallust provides a broad ranging historical account of Rome. Rather than merely recounting historical events, Sallust works to diagnose the city in terms of psychic qualms. He first establishes Rome as a city of great courage and valor that later gives way to avarice and desire for power. He states, “At first these vices grew slowly, from time to time they were punished; finally, when the disease had spread like a deadly plague, the state was changed and a government second to none in equity and excellence became cruel and intolerable.”1 While Sallust does not refer to a specific period of the Roman republic where such a situation emerged, there is the general qualitative recognition of Rome as not simply beholden to individuals, but rather, an entire state that had lost its way. To a large extent, the aforementioned psychic criticisms of the state are presented as a crumbling tapestry that gives way to conspiracies against the government. For instance, Sallust articulates Gnaeus Piso’s effort to overthrow the government. While, strictly speaking, this is the effort of an individual, within the epistemological context of the text, it appears to be the result of both general political strife, as well as the reduced values that overtook the late Republic. This, then, is the further recognition as the actions of the late Roman republic as occurring to restore order, rather than to respond to the ill-will of specific individuals. While Sallust articulates a late Roman republic that had experienced a widespread abandonment of proper values, he balances this depiction with criticism levied specifically at Lucius Sulla. Sallust states, “After Lucius Sulla, having gained control of the state by arms, brought everything to a bad end from a good beginning, all men began to rob and pillage. One coveted a house, another lands; the victors showed neither moderation nor restraint, but shamefully and cruelly wronged their fellow citizens.”2 Sallust extends these considerations of Lucius through recourse to specific historical events, as he indicates that Lucius permitted the army great liberties. The army, then, contributed to the sordid state of Roman society. This is the presentation of the late Roman republic as falling into squalor directly through the influence of an individual, Lucius Sulla. Another major area of consideration area issues related to Lucius Catiline. Sallust establishes a late Roman republic that, partly through the influence of Lucius Sulla, had collectively abandoned its values and given way to avarice. Sallust portrays Catiline as taking advantage of this social squalor. As Catiline emerges in Sallust text, there are conflicting accounts of his virtue and intentions. At one instant, Sallust portrays him as an opportunist, taking advantage of the youth and ill-social climate to achieve his aims. In another portrayal, Catiline is depicted as rebelling against a corrupt political order in a sort of Robin Hood-like way. In Catiline’s own speech he notes, “They amass paintings, statuary and chased vases, tear down new structures and erect others, in short misuse and torment their wealth in every way” and offers rebellion to, “help you carry out as your consul, unless haply I delude myself and you are content to be slaves rather than to rule."3 This way Sallust presents an ambiguous perspective on the late Republic where individuals are motivated to overthrow corrupt social practices, but also where corrupt individuals are working to disrupt the social order. Plutarch considers the conditions of the late Republic in great detail through his exploration of the lives of great Romans. One prominent biographical consideration is the Life of Marius. Similar to Sallust writings, Plutarch displays a diversity of perspectives on the role of the individual vs. that of society in the late Republic. For instance, Marius is depicted as a charismatic leader that goes against the law and custom at times. Plutarch writes, “He was elected triumphantly, and at once proceeded to levy soldiers contrary both to law and custom, enlisting slaves and poor people.”4 From one perspective this would indicate that Marius was an individual that shaped the events around him to his own will. Still, there is the recognition that these actions are in response to corrupt or elitist social practices. One also considers that Plutarch also notes that upon Marius’ taking power he instituted laws that restricted the wealthy from interfering in elections. This is a general theme of Roman society that is reflected in Sallust account of Catiline as a sort of Robin Hood figure. This perspective, then, embraces these individuals as merely attempting to restore order. Further enhancing this perspective in relation to Marius is the recognition of his military conquests. While later rulers, such as Caesar, would arguably be cast as conquerors, Plutarch largely positions Marius as defending Rome for invasion and doom. Speaking of the invading Germanic tribes, Plutarch writes, “Several of the greatest Roman commanders with their whole armies that advanced for the defence of Transalpine Gaul were ingloriously overthrown… The Romans, being from all parts alarmed with this news, sent for Marius to undertake the war, and nominated him the second time consul.”5 In this way Marius is not simply depicted as an individual that sought glory or power for his own self-glorification, but merely as an individual attempting to restore order during turbulent times. While Plutarch depicts Marius as attempting to restore order his descriptions in the Life of Sulla and the Life of Caesar greatly position these men as individuals who shaped their world. To a large degree, Plutarch presents Sulla as an individual that greatly was concerned with personal gain and glorification. From a strictly historical perspective, Plutarch notes that Sulla invaded both Athens and Rome. The rhetoric with which Plutarch casts these intentions, however, is highly revealing to his perspective on Sulla’s character. For instance, Plutarch writes, “Sylla had a vehement and an implacable desire to conquer Athens.”6 In this way Sulla’s military aims are positioned out of personal ambition rather than stabilizing order. This quest for individual glorification is also greatly witnessed in Plutarch’s depiction of Caesar. In these regards, Plutarch depicts Caesar’s Gaulic conquests as questions for a new life of action. The same is true of much of Caesar’s actions. Rather than being depicted as engaging in warfare out of the goodwill of Roman society, Caesar is instead positioned as a brilliant military commander that was driven out of his own talent and ambition. Still, there are areas of Caesar is articulated as advancing much of the earlier themes of restoring order. Plutarch notes, “When his power at last was established and not to be overthrown, and now openly tended to the altering of the whole constitution” and that “There being two factions in the city, one that of Sylla, which was very powerful, the other that of Marius, which was then broken and in a low condition, he undertook to revive this and to make it his own.”7 Additionally, after Caesar assumed the consulship he is indicated to have made a number of effective and widespread social changes. The consideration in these regards is that Caesar’s actions were great measures at reform and the stabilizing of order, rather than merely rogue actions. Conclusion In conclusion, this essay has evaluated the extent that the conditions of the late Republic are attributable to the actions of single individuals, or whether the actions of these individuals were actually attempts at restoring order. Specifically, these considerations have been examined within the prism texts of Sallust and Plutarch. The essay has revealed that these authors present a complex late Republic where the established order is in frequent conflict with individuals aimed at self-glorification. While the complexity of the situation avoids any distinct answer, what emerges then are tendencies for powerful and charismatic individuals to take advantage of social inequalities as a means of personal advancement. Ultimately, then it seems that the late Republic is both beholden to individuals, but also to its own inequitable political and economic structure. References Plutarch (1994). The Internet Classics Archive | Browse. [Online] Available at: http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/index-Plutarch.html [Accessed: 20 Jul 2012]. Sallust (1931). LacusCurtius Sallust — The War With Catiline. [Online] Available at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Sallust/Bellum_Catil inae*.html [Accessed: 20 Jul 2012]. Read More