{"id":6334,"date":"2022-10-29T00:00:19","date_gmt":"2022-10-29T00:00:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/brendans-island.com\/catholic-citizen\/?p=6334"},"modified":"2024-12-13T18:49:03","modified_gmt":"2024-12-13T18:49:03","slug":"pax-romana-augustus-to-nero","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/brendans-island.com\/catholic-citizen\/pax-romana-augustus-to-nero\/","title":{"rendered":"Pax Romana: Augustus to Nero"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Hubert<\/a>
“The Fire of Rome,” July 64 A.D., by Hubert Rober. (1785)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Pax Romana had been in progress for eight decades on July 19, A.D. 64.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A fire started in a retail district near Rome’s Circus Maximus. It was a windy night.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fire spread. Fast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Great Fire of Rome burned for six days before folks extinguished it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Make that almost extinguished it. The fire got its second wind, roared through the city for another three days. Then it went out for good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It destroyed three of the city’s 14 districts. Another seven needed repairs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, four districts hadn’t<\/strong> been scorched. Even so, I figure that most Roman residents didn’t feel that they were living in a golden age. Particularly since some arsonists claimed they’d been told to torch the city.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“…And no one dared to stop the mischief, because of incessant menaces from a number of persons who forbade the extinguishing of the flames, because again others openly hurled brands, and kept shouting that there was one who gave them authority, either seeking to plunder more freely, or obeying orders.<\/strong>“
(“The Annals<\/a>,” 15.38<\/a>; Tacitus (ca. A.D. 116) Translation based on Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb (1876) via Wikisource [emphasis mine])<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I gather that there had been a half-dozen mainstream rumors about Rome’s big fire. One said it was an accident. The remaining rumors blamed Nero, but disagreed on why he started the fire, and gave him credit for blaming an already-unpopular minority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tacitus pointed out that Nero was out of town when the fire started, opened his own gardens to displaced Romans, and had shelters built for them. The rumors kept going anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I figure maybe Tacitus was right about that: and that he wrote “Annals.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, starting in the 18th century, assorted academics have said that Tacitus didn’t write “Annals” \u2014 because he didn’t write like a proper historian, or because some Italian Renaissance humanist wrote “Annals.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me? I’d be mildly surprised if a first century Roman politician wrote as if he was an Enlightenment-era French historian. Make that very surprised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’ve talked about history and documentation, attitudes and assumptions, before.1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Nero’s Public Relations Problem<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\"Henryk<\/a>
“Nero’s Torches,” by Henryk Siemiradzki. (1876)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Nero had a massive public relations problem on his hands after the fire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Way too many Romans either assumed he’d started the fire or had hired arsonists; that he’d watched the blaze from a tower or sang and played a lyre on a private stage while the city burned, or both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I figure many or most of the ‘Nero did it’ rumors sprouted from the well-fertilized soil of Roman politics and public angst. I’m also pretty sure that Romans weren’t any more likely to think straight after a major disaster than Americans are. Or anyone, for that matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>\"In<\/a>After London’s big 1666 fire, for example, an official investigative committee decided that Catholics and other foreigners had started the fire. One of them was tried, convicted, and hung. In that order, remarkably enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Never mind that Robert Hubert hadn’t arrived in England until two days after the fire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, a dozen years later, in the interest of national security, the proper authorities killed 22 folks before juries started wondering if being Catholic should be a capital offense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Getting back to first century Rome and Nero’s public relations problem, he blamed a minority “hated for their abominations:” Christians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“…Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat.<\/strong>…”
(“P. Corneli Taciti Annalivm Liber Ovintvs Decumvs\/Annals,” 15.44<\/a>; Tacitus (ca. A.D. 116) via thelatinlibrary.com [emphasis mine)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“…But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.<\/strong>…”
(“The Annals<\/a>,” 15.44<\/a>; Tacitus (ca. A.D. 116) Translation based on Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb (1876) via Wikisource [emphasis mine])<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

His solution made sense. From a political perspective, at any rate. Until he overdid it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the fire, decent Roman citizens had been doing the right thing: rebuilding their city; consulting the Sibylline Books; praying to Vulcanus, Ceres, Proserpina and Juno; holding sacred banquets and nightly vigils. (“Annals,” 15.43-44)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for Christians, Tiberius saw their “mischievous superstition” as the sort of “hideous and shameful” aberration that kept slithering into Rome.2<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“…Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition,<\/strong> thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.<\/strong> … an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.<\/strong>…”
(“The Annals<\/a>,” 15.44<\/a>; Tacitus (ca. A.D. 116) Translation based on Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb (1876) via Wikisource [emphasis mine])<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Attitudes and Authority, Respect and Rules<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

\"Wiley<\/a>Can’t say that I blame him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ideally, Tiberius would have set aside the beliefs and attitudes he’d grown up with: listened carefully to what Christians said, watched what they did, and considered the possibility that they might be right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, as I keep saying, we don’t live in an ideal world. So Tiberius classified Christians and Christianity with “all things hideous and shameful,” and recorded that Nero overdid his scapegoating of that much-hated minority. (“Annals,” 15.44, Tacitus (ca. A.D. 116))<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maybe Tiberius hadn’t had opportunity to notice Christian behavior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We were, at that point, a minority in Rome: and a suspect one, at that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again, can’t say that I blame Tiberius. From his viewpoint, Christianity was a weird foreign cult about some troublemaker in a troublesome province.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Worse yet, the Christians wouldn’t even worship Roman gods. Refusal to worship a dead emperor made them look treasonous. From a post-Augustan Roman viewpoint.3<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Correspondence we call the letters to Romans and Timothy were mostly about screwball notions we’re still dealing with. But both included reminders that authority matters, and that respect for secular authority comes with being a Christian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
“Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
(Romans 13:1<\/a>–2<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone,
“for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity.
“This is good and pleasing to God our savior,
“who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.
(Timothy 2:1<\/a>–3<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Well, respect for legitimate authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Everybody’s got responsibilities, including citizens and secular authorities. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2207-2243)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ideally, the folks in charge would make and enforce rules that follow natural law: ethical principles woven into the fabric of reality. (Catechism, 1905-1912, 1950-1960, 2235-2237)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And folks like me should follow the rules and do what the authorities say. (Catechism, 2238-2243)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Obedience, Yes; Blind Obedience, No<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

\"Dick<\/a>Here’s where it gets tricky.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Respect for authority is a good idea. Obedience is a good idea. That’s reasoned<\/strong> obedience. Blind obedience is a bad idea and I shouldn’t do it. No emperor, king, president or boss is above natural law. (Catechism, 1900-1903, 2242-2243)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sometimes the folks in charge give orders that defy natural law. When that happens, the right thing to do may be to not<\/strong> follow orders, or to break a law. (Catechism, 2242-2243)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like I said: that’s where it gets tricky.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even if the rules are wrong \u2014 if they go against natural law \u2014 that doesn’t mean I can do whatever I like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bad laws and daft-or-worse leaders don’t make bad behavior okay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’ve said this before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Armed resistance to an oppressive authority is an option. But only<\/strong> if that\u2019s the only option left. And<\/strong> success is likely. And \u2014 no, really<\/strong> \u2014 if there is no other option.<\/strong> (Catechism, 2243)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And that brings me to the Roman patriots who thought they were saving the Republic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>The Roman Republic: Wars, Revolts and Pesky Ethics<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\"Jacques-Louis<\/a>
“Oath of the Horatii” \u2014 a Roman legend, as imagined by Jacques-Louis David. (1784))<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Rome’s Senate predates the Roman Republic by at least two centuries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sorting out legend, myth and history from Rome’s origin stories isn’t what I’m doing this week, so I’ll boil the seven centuries before Caesar down to a couple hundred words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rome’s last king assassinated his way to first place, and committed many atrocities. Then the virtuous Romans decided they’d had enough of kings and formed the Roman Republic. According to the Republic’s folklore.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Republic’s government had three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. If that sounds familiar, it should. My country’s founders modeled their new government on Rome’s, with improvements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Republic changed, a lot, during the five centuries after they threw out their last king.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plebes\/plebians got more political and economic clout. Not on a par with patricians, but enough to make “plebian nobility” a real, if paradoxical, phrase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think letting folks other than the top five percent have a say is a good idea, but I’m well into the other 95 percent: so I would.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maybe the Punic Wars (264 to 146 B.C.) and Servile Wars (135 to 71 B. C.) felt like threats to the Republic at the time, but I think was their main problem was Rome’s upper crust in general and the Senate in particular.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Picking up new populations of slaves after each war didn’t help, either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This isn’t quite the same as 18th and 19th notions regarding “decadence,” and that’s another topic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Senate had an admirable system of checks and balances which, along with their code of ethics, would have helped Senators deal with the occasional bad apple in their ranks.4<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Would have, that is, if Senators hadn’t kept finding ways around those pesky ethical standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Saving the Republic \u2014 From the Pax Romana<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\"Jean-L\u00e9on<\/a>
“The Death of Caesar” in the Theatre of Pompey, as imagined by Jean-L\u00e9on G\u00e9r\u00f4me. (ca. 1859-1867)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

But after five centuries of high ideals and dirty tricks, a hotshot general and politician got himself appointed dictator \u2014 the title didn’t mean then what the epithet does now \u2014 and started sorting out Republican Rome’s latest mess.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His attempted reforms were bad enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I suspect what really upset Rome’s defenders of the status quo was that Gaius Julius Caesar was making his reforms work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And so, quite possibly with the best interests of the Republic at heart, they dry gulched Julius Caesar at a meeting in what we’d call Pompey’s convention center.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They saved the Republic, all right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of Julius Caesar’s scary reforms, the Roman Republic got three bosses: tresviri rei publicae constituendae, the triumvirate for organizing the republic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Second Triumvirate split the Republic’s territory three ways. Each ruled his own share, while trying to take over the other two parts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That led to what I gather is now called the War of Actium, although I prefer the older “Last War of the Roman Republic” or “Final War of the Roman Republic.” When the dust settled, Gaius Octavius was the surviving member of the Second Triumvirate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gaius Octavius let the Roman Senate look like they were still in charge, and got himself named Augustus. Roman naming conventions are \u2014 complicated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Augustus also launched the Roman imperial cult by deifying Julius Caesar, became the Roman Empire’s first emperor, and established Pax Romana.5<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Pax Romana, Emperors and Reputations<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\"Thomas<\/a>
“The Consummation of Empire” from Thomas Cole’s “The Course of Empire” series. (1836)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I figure Augustus folklore from the last two millennia of says as much about his successful public relations work as it does of what sort of person he was. That said, Augustus was a remarkable leader.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Once he’d survived the Last War of the Roman Republic, Augustus continued Julius Caesar’s unsettling willingness to accommodate the lower classes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But he also set up the Principate, which let the Senate pretend they were still living in the good old days of the Republic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’m not sure when folks started calling time from the 27 B.C. to A. D. 180, the start of the Roman Principate to the death of Marcus Aurelius, the Pax Romana.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another version of when the Pax Romana happened is from the Last War of the Roman Republic’s end in 31 B. C. to A. D. 250. I’m not sure why someone picked 250 as that termination date. Maybe because the Plague of Cyprian was in progress then.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And I’m not sure when Seneca the Younger’s “Romanae pacis” became “Pax Romana.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Romanae pacis” is from his “De Clementia,” “Of Clemency.” It’s a sort of ‘how to be an emperor’ book for Nero.6<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n


“…Rege incolumi mens omnibus una;
amisso rupere fidem.
“Hic casus Romanae pacis <\/strong>exitium erit, hic tanti fortunam populi in ruinas aget; tam diu ab isto periculo aberit hic populus, quam diu sciet ferre frenos, quos si quando abruperit vel aliquo casu discussos reponi sibi passus non erit, haec unitas et hic maximi imperii contextus in partes multas dissiliet, idemque huic urbi finis dominandi erit, qui parendi fuerit. Ideo principes regesque et quocumque alio nomine sunt tutores status publici non est mirum amari ultra privatas etiam necessitudines<\/strong>; nam si sanis hominibus publica privatis potiora sunt, sequitur, ut is quoque carior sit, in quem se res publica convertit. Olim enim ita se induit rei publicae Caesar, ut seduci alterum non posset sine utriusque pernicie; nam et illi viribus opus est et huic capite….”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“…Bees have but one mind, till their king doth die,
But when he dies, disorderly they fly.
“Such a misfortune will be the end of the peace of Rome<\/strong>, it will wreck the prosperity of this great people; the nation will be free from this danger as long as it knows how to endure the reins: should it ever break them, or refuse to have them replaced if they were to fall off by accident, then this mighty whole, this complex fabric of government will fly asunder into many fragments, and the last day of Rome’s empire will be that upon which it forgets how to obey. For this reason we need not wonder that princes, kings, and all other protectors of a state, whatever their titles may be, should be loved beyond the circle of their immediate relatives<\/strong>; for since right-thinking men prefer the interests of the state to their own, it follows that he who bears the burden of state affairs must be dearer to them than their own friends. Indeed, the emperor long ago identified himself so thoroughly with the state, that neither of them could be separated without injury to both, because the one requires power, while the other requires a head….”
(“De Clementia<\/a>,” IV<\/a>; L. Annaei Senecae ad Neronem Caesarem; Lucius Annaeus Seneca (55-56 AD) via Wikisource
“Of Clemency<\/a>,” IV<\/a>; Addressed to Nero Caesar; Lucius Annaeus Seneca; translated by Aubrey Stewart (1900) via Wikisource [emphasis mine])<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Remembering Nero, Caligula and “True Detective” Magazine<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

\"Eduardo<\/a>I talked about history and viewpoints a few months back:<\/p>\n\n\n\n