|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Aristocracy and the ruling elite Abstract: In crude classifications, ancient Rome
and China both transitioned from aristocracy to monarchy. Yet the absolute
monarch needed the cooperation of a loyal and competent ruling elite to govern
effectively. The Roman elites were wealthy landlords. The Chinese imperial
elites were Confucian literati. Both succeeded to establish mutually
beneficial relations with the emperor, consolidating his power and growing
their own privileges as they worked together to hold the people in place. The
peculiar characteristics of the Roman and Chinese ruling elites, which
colored the characteristics of the empires, were legacies of pre-imperial
aristocracies. The secular elite
in many ancient societies are loosely called aristocrats. In the classical sense, “aristocracy” carries some connotation of the
best, and “oligarchy” often implies rule of the rich. Combining a power elite
with major components of a social elite, a cultural elite, and an elite of
wealth, an aristocracy enjoys great privileges and licenses, which it
jealously guards. Aristocrats deem themselves superior in status and virtue,
and treat inferiors haughtily if not oppressively. They need not have
hereditary ranks. Rome’s senatorial aristocrats were nonhereditary, as were
imperial China’s literati-officials who constituted an “ideological
aristocracy”. However, even those without
heritable ranks rely heavily on blood tie to accrue prestige over generations. Strong
family bounds were common to the Roman and Chinese aristocrats. Chinese
feudal aristocrats had heritable ranks, fiefs, and ministries. The Roman did
not; everyone had to win elections for magistracies. However, because of the
restriction on candidacy, a small number of core families controlled
government over centuries, even as the country expanded tremendously. A study of the Roman ruling circle found
“new men” accounting for only about one fifth of all the consuls
elected in the last 150 years of the Republic, and they tended to be local
aristocrats from conquered territories.[1] Chinese
feudal aristocrats were organized around the family, with relatives serving individual
family cum state. Because the realm fragmented into hundreds of rivaling
states, aristocratic power was greatly diffused and fraught with internal
disputes. The Chinese cherished private feelings and made the love of
relatives the prime political principle. The Romans too cherished feelings;
camaraderie of aristocrats was so strong they tolerated defeated commanders
in politics, even when military victory was the highest aristocratic glory.[2] In addition,
Republican Romans developed a strong public spirit, which the Chinese lacked.
The Roman aristocracy enjoyed the advantage of a corporate organization, the
Senate, which served a single state. The Senate concentrated aristocratic
power and instituted laws to resolve disputes. The most important rules were
the regular elections of magistrates who wielded active power and the
passages of bills by the popular assemblies. By allowing the people to be the
arbiters in aristocratic competition, they simultaneously mobilized the
people’s pride and patriotism. Aside
from the Senate, the Roman aristocracy had another power base, wealth.
Official census classified all citizens according to their wealth. The
wealthiest echelon constituted the “senatorial order”. Belonging to it was
the foremost criterion to stand for the Senate and magistracies. Laws
defining absolute property rights were only one manifestation of the
uncompromising way in which Roman aristocrats guarded their wealth. When
agrarian reforms in the late Republic tried to mitigate skyrocketing economic
inequality by distributing public land to poor citizens, aristocrats who had
appropriated the land as their own reacted violently and murdered the
reformers, including the Gracchi brothers and their followers. Stories of
would-be tyrants also circulated to justify the drastic measure: Consul
Cassius proposed legislation to distribute land to the people. Maelius bought grain for distribution to the poor during
a famine. Manlius, who had saved the Roman capitol from the Gauls, used his own money to rescue debtors from
debt-bondage. None showed indication of instigating riot. Their efforts at
poor relief alone were enough for accusations of demagogy. All three were
killed execution style, Cassius allegedly by his own father.[3] These stories
helped to deter anyone with similar ideas. Aristocratic
collective rule was the deepest tradition of the Roman Republic. When
military dynasts threatened it, civil wars resulted. After Augustus finally
defeated the Republicans, he suppressed the aristocracy by destroying the
political power of its corporate organization; the Senate continued only as a shell. Yet he
retained the senatorial order and furthered elevated its wealth
qualification. The plutocratic characteristics of the Republic
grew in the Empire, where agrarian reforms disappeared and poor citizens lost
the civil rights they won in the Conflict of the Orders.[4] As
Rome expanded, it systematically selected local aristocrats and propped up
the wealthy to control the masses. The wealthy shared common economic interests.
By uniting economic and political interests, Rome was able to cream off
elites from local communities and using them to rule for it. Solidarity of
the wealthy ruling elite was a cornerstone for Pax Romana. Lacking
a corporate organization, Chinese feudal aristocrats maintained their sense
of identity through ritual, etiquette, and knowledge of a small set of
classics that would become the Confucian Canons. Basking in elegant
affability among peers, they became impractical and headed for decline.
Meanwhile, the advent of Iron Age, economic development, and intense
interstate competition brought abundant opportunities that stimulated diverse
intellectual activities. Able commoners rose on merit to challenge aristocrats.
Among the “hundred schools” of the warring-states period, Confucians and
Legalists left the most influential legacy. Originating as masters of
ceremony, Confucians idealized the past, tried to rehabilitate the feudal
aristocracy, and styled themselves as virtuous masters of rulers. Their ideal
of rule by man envisioned good governance following automatically once the
ruler attained personal virtue. They won plush patronage but little power in
these demanding times. In contrast, Legalists gained power because they were
capable organizers and administrators dedicated to solving present problems.
They led land distribution programs to promote independent farmers and built
up bureaucratic institutions to centralized power. The rule by law they
introduced included regulations that suppress aristocratic abuses.[5] Based
on institutions developed by century-long Legalist reforms, Qin unified
China. The First Emperor abolished the feudal aristocracy and ruled the
empire via a centralized bureaucracy, with officers promoted on ability and
merit. The rational decision was ahead of its time.
Meritocracy requires a talent pool large enough to staff the large
bureaucracy and cohesive enough to provide long-term stability. The
aristocracy used to provide the default talent pool. With it gone, and
without public education, an elite vacuum was created under the emperor.
Equality under the law was unpalatable to the ruling elites and dangerous to
the emperor. Elites embittered by the loss of privileges contributed to the
fall of the Qin Dynasty.[6] The Han Dynasty experimented with ways to siphon elites for its
service. Enshrinement of Confucianism as state ideology was the crucial step
toward success. Government offices and the power and wealth they entailed
would entice all brain power into studying the Confucian Cannons. To protect
the privileged status they received from the emperor, the “ideological
aristocrats”[7] would happily deploy their doctrines of rule by man to serve their
master.[8] The circulation of elite well served both the
empire and the ruling elites, but at heavy social costs. The wealth criterion
of Rome sacrificed the welfare of the poor masses. The ideological criterion
of China sacrificed the nation’s intellectual vitality. |
||||||||
|
|
|
