Greece, Rome, Democracy

Although the Constitution of the United States borrowed from both Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic, I believe that, while Athenian democracy more closely resembles what most people think of when they consider democracy, the U.S. Constitution, particularly in its original form, more closely resembles the Roman Republic, particularly with regard to the institutions established to govern and the manner in which the people obtained representation through these institutions.

Ancient Athens operated on a model of direct democracy, in which the people regularly participated in aspects of governance, including legislation and trial by jury. In this regard, it differed significantly from the United States, which operates on a model of representative democracy, in which deputies are elected to represent constituencies of citizens every two years (although some states, notably California, in implementing extensive plebiscite systems, have adopted aspects of direct democracy). Regarding participation, only between 10% and 25% of the Athenian population -- consisting entirely of free, property-owning, adult men -- could participate. In this regard, Ancient Athens perhaps most closely resembled the early U.S., in which it was also true that only free (i.e., white), property-owning, adult men (21 years old) could vote.[1]

The Roman Republic, in contrast, endowed the greatest power in the Senate, which was a legislative body whose members were appointment by the consuls (the executive powers of the state), who in turn were elected by the patrician class, who in turn were the descendants of the original 100 members of the Senate. In this fashion, the Senate was a sort of closed society with a feedback loop of power concentrated in the hands of around 5% of the population. Eventually the plebian class was enfranchised through the creation of its own legislative assemblies and the office of tribune, although the Senate retained more power.[2]

In these regards, i.e., separation of executive and legislative power and a bicameral legislature with power unevenly distributed, the resemblance between the Roman Republic and the U.S. is clearest. However, the Athenian system is closer to what most people would regard as democracy. Neither had anything close to resembling universal suffrage, but the direct participation of  citizens in Ancient Athens and the greater equality among citizens without regard to class seem more democratic. In particular, because of its direct democracy, Ancient Athens actually seems more democratic than the U.S. today, in part because the U.S. is more a republic than a democracy.

=====

1. Mark Cartwright, "Athenian Democracy," Ancient History Web site, accessed December 12, 2015, http://www.ancient.eu/Athenian_Democracy/

2.  Jerry Bentley and Herbert Ziegler, Traditions and Encounters, Volume 1: To 1500, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012), 146.

Stuff I'm Reading

A History of Fascism, 1914-1945, Stanley G. Payne
Fascists, Michael Mann

Source Analysis: Res Gestae

Res Gestae Divi Augusti (The Deeds of the Divine Augustus)[1] is an account of the life and accomplishments of Caesar Augustus, the first Roman emperor. It was intended as a funerary inscription and was disseminated throughout the Roman Empire after the emperor’s death in 14 C.E. The author of Res Gestae was Augustus himself, and in so far as no writer of an autobiography can ever be unbiased about his/her topic, Res Gestae is undoubtedly biased and intended to promote an overwhelmingly positive view of the emperor. One way of determining this intention is to examine the manner in which Augustus portrays the increasing political power endowed on him by the Roman Senate, government organs, and people. While Res Gestae offers the impression that this power was offered rather than sought and accepted only reluctantly, likely to maintain the appearance of democratic rule, the historical record seems to disagree. 

Augustus states in the first paragraph, "the senate enrolled me in its order by laudatory resolutions . . . assigning me the place of a consul in the giving of opinions, and gave me the imperium."[2] He states in the same paragraph that he acted as propraetor, then consult, and then triumvir (with Marc Antony and Lepidus). However, much is omitted from this account. For instance, Augustus omits that he staged funeral games for his adoptive father Julius Caesar on borrowed money, essentially bribing Caesar's troops for their support. These troops then demanded the role of consul for Octavius (as Augustus was then known), essentially rendering the honor one that was extorted.[3] Moreover, that Augustus was made triumvir omits that, in receiving this role, he agreed to the liquidation of 300 senators and 2,000 aristocrats, some of whom were his own allies.[4]

Furthermore, in Paragraph 7, Augustus mentions that he served as high priest, and in Paragraph 10, he adds, "I was unwilling to be high priest in the place of my living colleague; when the people offered me that priesthood which my father had, I refused it. And I received that priesthood, after several years, with the death of him who had occupied it since the opportunity of the civil disturbance."[5] Here, Augustus omits that the high priest was his one-time co-triumvir Lepidus. Moreover, there is no mention of Augustus's defeat of Lepidus after the latter's challenge in 36 B.C.E. nor of Augustus's subsequent banishment from Rome of Lepidus for the remainder of Lepidus's life. In fact, Augustus does not mention by name Lepidus at all: the Lepidus referred to in Paragraph 17 was great-nephew to the triumvir. Nor does Marc Antony's name appear in Res Gestae anywhere. By deleting the names of the people with whom he shared power and from whom he eventually wrested it, Augustus gives the unrealistic impression of unilateral achievement.

Finally, in the penultimate paragraph before the Appendix, Augustus recounts that, "having obtained all things by universal consent, I handed over the state from my power to the dominion of the senate and Roman people. And for this merit of mine, by a senate decree, I was called Augustus."[6] On this point, Augustus grossly under-represents the extent of his power at this stage. In fact, historians have traditionally marked the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire with this event. As historian Garrett G. Fagan has written, "by means of this settlement, Augustus was simultaneously commander, leader, [and] savior."[7] Augustus’s account of this event is perhaps the greatest misrepresentation in the entirety of Res Gestae of how he accrued his power.

In conclusion, Augustus’s funerary inscription Res Gestae provides an overwhelmingly biased account of the emperor’s life. Particularly with regard to his amassing of political power, Augustus consistently misrepresents this process, whether it is his role as triumvir, consul, pontifex maximum, or emperor. In this regard, Res Gestae is ultimately more propaganda than autobiography, although, as noted, perhaps not more so than other autobiographies – particularly those by politicians. More than anything else, Augustus’s goal to maintain the appearance of democracy as monarchy emerged was accomplished via this propaganda.

---

[1] Augustus, "The Deeds of the Divine Augustus," translated by Thomas Bushnell, BSG, The Internet Classics Archive, accessed December 26, 2015, http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] Thayer Watkins, "The Timeline of the Life of Octavian, Caesar August," San Jose State University Web site, accessed December 26, 2015, http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/caesaraugustus.htm[4] Ibid.
[5] Augustus, ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Garrett G. Fagan, De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers, Loyola University Chicago Web site, accessed December 27, 2015, http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/auggie.htm