Roman Perplexity

I've always been perplexed by one thing about Rome (the antique political entity, not the city itself). Actually, a lot of things about Rome perplex me, but the main one is this: given that the Roman people seemed so profoundly disinclined toward the notion of kingship, why did they tolerate a system of emperors, in many cases hereditary emperors, that look a whole lot like kingship? What's the difference?

The story goes that the city of Rome before the advent of the Republic was ruled by seven kings. The last, Tarquin the Proud, supposedly raped a woman named Lucretia. She committed suicide due to the trauma, but before she did, she told her brother Brutus (not the Brutus, merely a Brutus) about the attack. Brutus went on to raise the people of Rome against Tarquin and inaugurated the Roman Republic, with its system of elected magistrates and checks on power in the form of the tribunes of the plebs. From then on, the Romans tended to react quite negatively to the notion of kingship, the way third grade boys tend to react to the notion of girls. Kings, like girls, apparently have cooties.

It's arguable that one of the threads of resentment that led to the assassination of Julius Caesar was the dark suspicion in some quarters that Julius intended to have himself named king. That business where Marc Antony tried to lower a king's crown on Julius's head and he ostentatiously refused it notwithstanding, I wonder if some people worried that he was going to turn into a new Tarquin. That isn't the only thread, of course. Not even the main one. I think the main one was simply Julius Caesar's complete inability to compromise with the senatorial class, and vice versa.

Rome didn't really have political parties in the modern sense of the word, but there were two identifiable lines of political thought in those days. The Optimates generally seemed keen to preserve the rights and privileges of the patricians in general and the senatorial class in particular, while the Populares exhibited a sort of populism and claimed to act in the best interests of all citizens. Any reading of the fate of the Gracchus brothers would reveal that one tinkered with the rights and prerogatives of the senatorial class at one's peril, and one could argue that the day thugs in the employ of the Senate clubbed the elder Gracchus to death, the Republic took its first long step toward autocracy. There was that unpleasantness with Cornelius Sulla and Gaius Marius and all that, but the politically-motivated murders of the Gracchi seem to me to mark a line of departure, the day the Republic started to fall.

(But curse it all, it's very complicated. Another thing that led to the fall of the Republic was winning the first and second Punic Wars and the discovery that the Republican form of government that might be suitable for a small inland Italian city-state was simply not up to the demands of running a country that spanned most of the western Mediterranean. Empire was simply more efficient than Republic, especially since the Romans kept ending up with a bigger and bigger empire to administer, and not always intentionally either.)

But maybe what allowed the Romans to accept the notion of emperors was the idea that emperors had a different public face than kings. Both were absolutist leaders, both tended to be hereditary. But kings were seen as remote and distant - they lazed in their posh villas and were basically never seen by the common people (either patrician or plebian), as distant and unapproachable as the gods on Olympus. But the emperors were much more public. The Romans often referred to them as princeps, or "leading man" or "first citizen". Yeah, there were absolutist leaders, but they were public ones. They were expected to be seen, and to exemplify the hallowed virtues of Rome, virtus and all that. And unlike kings, they had to at least pretend to maintain relations with the senatorial class (in Rome, as in every society, money buys power, often through the direct method of buying soldiers who in turn generate power). It seems notable to me that the emperors that lasted the longest were the ones who were most able to keep peace with the Senate (Augustus, for example, even though Augustus was careful to never refer to himself as an emperor, but he clearly set the stage for Tiberius, who everyone agrees was an emperor).

Anyway. That's all the thinking on Rome I can manage without coffee. I'd make a terrible emperor.

"Princeps, the barbarians are attacking again!"

"Tell them to go away; I haven't finished waking up yet."