[Galba: one of the short-lived 'pretenders' of AD 69 that ultimately failed to succeed Nero]
"Rome is not like primitive countries with their kings. Here we
have no ruling caste dominating a nation of slaves. You are called to be the
leader of men who can tolerate neither total slavery nor total liberty."
[Tacitus, Histories, I.16]
The imperial usurper Galba's advice to his prospective heir, Piso -
as put into words, by the cynical historian Tacitus.
-------
The sentiment reminds us that the position of a Roman Emperor was far from simple,
or indeed, comfortable. Imperial stability required a powerful and largely
autocratic ruler. And yet Roman sensibility, as moulded by many centuries of
Republican and distinctly xenophobic prejudice, would not tolerate even the
semblance of a tyrant. Or even worse, a derided foreign King!
It was a bitterly ironic paradox; the lack of
understanding of which proved the undoing of Caesar, Caligula and Nero.
"I am Caesar, and no King"
[Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar, 79]
To little, too late, proved the unconvincing protestations of the great dictator ... and he paid for his mistake on the floor of the Senate House.
-------
Despite commanding (or at least seeming to command) the semblance of
absolute power and spectacular wealth, the stability and security of an Emperor's
rule, was always a complex and delicate affair. In the broadest of human terms, the Stoic wisdom of Seneca recognised that we should not automatically envy those in lofty positions. Not when we consider that:
"... what look like towering heights are indeed precipices. ... there are many who are forced to cling to their pinnacle because they cannot descend without falling ... they are not so much elevated as impaled."
[Seneca, Dialogues: On Tranquillity of Mind, 10 ]
To wear the Imperial purple was without doubt the most lofty of such pinnacles; and a descent from its heights, even for those few who it might be argued genuinely sought it, was riven with dangers that were all but insurmountable.
For State, a relinquishment of imperial rule risked a return to the bitter murder and incessant civil war that had so blighted the last ages of the Republic. For the ruler who would so relinquish that power, the risk was total oblivion. As Octavian himself considered before the establishment of the very Principate:
"The question we are considering is not a matter of seizing hold of something, but of resolving not to lose it and thus expose [ourselves] to further danger. For you will not be forgiven if you thrust the control of affairs into the hands of the populace, or even if you entrust it to some other man. Remember that many have suffered at your hands, that virtually all of them will lay claim to sovereign power and that none of them will be willing to let you go unpunished for your actions or survive as a rival."
[Cassius Dio, Roman Histories, LII.17]
Thus was it a somewhat reluctant Emperor [Tiberius] who had
deftly perceived that to rule Rome was indeed like:
"... holding a wolf by the
ears."
[Suetonius, Life of Tiberius,
25]
An Emperor was only safely in control, in so long
as he held the power and guile not to release the unpredictable and savage animal that he
so sought to dominate. Fail to dominate that savage animal and he was as good as dead.
---------
To the casual observer a Roman Emperor seemed all powerful, but ever was
his position actually vulnerable and fraught with threat. To rule was inherently dangerous and yet to relinquish rule could be more dangerous still. What looked like towering heights, were indeed, precipices for some ....
