The next issue was that Augustus didn't have the official first place to preside over senatorial business. It was the consul who had the privilege to either speak or propose legislation. This could cause a problem because of Augustus' determination to make it seem that the Republic was still functioning. This was not only cumbersome but could also cause difficulty if the senators didn't know what Augustus' desires were at the beginning of a debate.
In Augustus on page 228: "So in 19 B.C. some form of consular imperium was conferred on the princeps although he did not actually have to hold consular office (following the same principle as with tribunicia potestas). The ancient sources disagree on, and are unclear about, the precise nature of this authority or the term for which it was awarded. It may be that Augustus' proconsular imperium, granted for ten-year periods and renewed, was simply extended to include Rome and Italy. A certain vagueness at the time may have suited all sides. Whatever form it was couched in, though, this new power completed Augustus' political mastery of the state."
Augustus made another intelligent decision by restoring the office of consul to its former glory. This office had become "cheapened" during the triumvirate. The triumvirs (of which Augustus was one at the time) developed a new policy where a consul would serve only a part of their term and would many times be replaced by "suffect" consuls. This was a great way to reward a man's loyalty to the triumvirate but needless to say-demeaned the office and angered many nobiles. The civil wars and proscription had already devastated the nobility and the ones who were left were very happy to have the consulship (which they considered a birthright) restored to them. They were also very thankful to Augustus for undertaking efforts to restore their ancient dignitas.However, it can't be stated enough how "cosmetic" in nature all of Augustus' efforts were. The Roman citizens still elected officeholders-BUT these officeholders were nominated or preapproved by Augustus. Indeed, from here on out, the role that Roman citizens had in politics lessened each year. However, I think we should ask ourselves here- and I think this question is particularly relevant to any Americans reading this who are deeply saddened by the various assaults on our Constitution over the last 30 to 4o years -whose fault was it really that led to the loss of political freedoms in ancient Rome?
Was this the fault of the scheming, manipulative Augustus? (Of course the Republic fell before him -but could have been restored up to a certain point if enough people cared I think). Or was it the fault of the mass of Roman citizenry, who it seems, after the carnage of the civil wars were more than happy with "security" rather than "liberty"-especially as Augustus was such a great make-up artist and didn't waste any chance to try to cover up what he was doing at every turn? Thanks again to Jon, Autumnforest, human being and anyone who has commented here before! All the best to anyone stopping by!
No comments:
Post a Comment