The historiographical question on Empire and Republic is vast. One aspect has to do with Caesar, who in the 20th century has been typically praised as the genius who brought rights to the masses. Yes, he had a few faults but geniuses are like that. This is the burden, basically, of Gelzer's very good biography. A rather different tack was taken by Christian Meier, whose book on Caesar is available in English very cheaply, and is an excellent three-dimensional view. I also recommend Guiglielmo Ferrero's Greatness and Decline of Rome. The problem with the late Republic is that it may not have been worth the lives of Cato and Cicero who endeavored to save it. In Nero's time, Seneca the younger (thinking probably of himself as Nero's chief minister) asks Cato, what difference did it make to him which gangster, Caesar or Pompey, became dictator. A said question and all to relevant to our own times.
As Ferrero points out, Augustus--in contrast with Caesar--managed to incorporate a good deal of republican virtues and traditions into the Empire. The period from the Third Punic War to the the Augustan principate I like to describe as a transition from an imperial republic to a republican empire. There is much more to be said on this.
Very interesting! I would like to do more reading on early Rome up to the late Republic, and compare and contrast it with, say Athens or the Greek poleis in general. (Did I remember the plural form of polis? I don't have my dictionary handy.)
No comments:
Post a Comment