Principles of Roman Political Virtue

Well folks, we are getting very close to the end of an entire system of things. As the center of power shifts in the Mediterranean world toward Rome, we edge closer to the end- the season 1 finale (Friday folks!). There is no doubt that the Roman Republic and early Empire produced many vigorous statesmen, including leaders of the famous Senate, and many discussions of basic political principles. Although some leaders seized power by military force or by manipulating support, others were selected because they seemed to exemplify sound political virtues. Unlike Athenians, who in their democratic period chose many officials by lot, most Roman republican leaders were elected by the Senate or the popular assembly, and this prompted frequent discussions of what qualities a good statesman should possess. Correspondingly, when political life in the Republic became more contentious and unstable, ultimately giving way to the formation of the Empire, and again later when the Empire itself began to function badly, many observers blamed a deterioration of leadership quality rather than any larger problems.

The passage that I would like you to read was written by a Greek politician and writer, Plutarch (whom you've read already hopefully) during the early stages of the Empire (specifically during the early part of the pax romana period) when republican values continued to be widely touted even though institutions were changing. Entitled Precepts of Statecraft, this document was designed to relate examples of success and failure for the training of a Greek aristocrat, Menemachus. Plutarch belonged to a wealthy family in the Greek city of Chaerona. He was fascinated with Roman political affairs, because the Romans had ruled his region for some time. He compiled a host of biographies of Roman emperors and other political figures, advised the emperor Trajan, and ultimately became both a citizen of Rome and an ambassador. Plutarch's method, using historical example to illustrate and deriving basic lessons in political behavior, included abundant references to past figures such as Pericles (whom Plutarch admired) or the popular but ultimately assassinated Roman reformers, the Gracchus brothers (whom Plutarch judged unwise for disrupting the late Republic).

Plutarch's summary of Mediterranean political values at the height of the Roman period obviously deserves comparison with earlier statements from leaders of Greek city-states and with political philosophers in other classical civilizations, such as Confucius. Please click on the following link (Precepts of Statecraft) to read excerpts from Plutarch's Precepts of Statecraft.

Once you have read the passage, I would like for you to think about and discuss the following: What are the main qualities a good leader should aspire to, according to Plutarch? What are the main functions of a good leader and a good state? Why would Plutarch have been so attracted to Roman--which was, to him, foreign--rule, in your opinion? Why was Plutarch relatively uninterested in the specific structure of a state? In your opinion, was this a potential weakness in his political approach? How do his principles for leadership compare with those earlier implied by Pericles? What would Plutarch have thought of attempts to form a democracy? What are the similarities and differences between Plutarch's concept of leadership and that of Confucius? Which approach was most useful for forming an effective bureaucracy? Finally, how do Plutarch's political principles and his goals for the state compare with more modern formations?

Also folks, I've been thinking (I know, dangerous!), as I look at the Roman Empire that will come into being during the reign of Caesar Augustus, I can't help but notice some clear similarites between the Roman Empire and the Han Empire in China (both of which existed around the same time). The two empires were arguably the most powerful and influential states in their respective parts of the world. Both states, in different ways, instilled tremendous loyalty in their subjects. Neither state was inspired by a passionate religious fervor. Both empires made use of philosophical foundations. What lessons could the modern state planner learn from the Chinese and Romans in your opinion? Also, I can't help but continue comparing Rome to the United States. Was the Pax Romana different from the Pax Americana in your opinion? As you saw in Plutarch's document, and as you will see in American documents later, both the Romans and the early Americans placed tremendous emphasis on the question of character. What were the foundations of these different definitions of character? What did they have in common? Interestingly, during the empire the Romans eventually began to fear that they had strayed from their simple values. Plutarch’s examination of Marcus Cato, in his Lives, displays a romantic longing for a perceived simpler and purer time. Did the Roman character change? Is this happening, or has this already happened, in the United States? Has the American character changed? Is character key to a successful state? Your thoughts... (I know this was a long post, but so much to think about here)...