Chapter 5

From tyrant kings to oligarchic republic, 509 to 287 b.c.e.

The period of Roman history known as the Republic extended from the end of the Monarchy about 500 (traditionally 509) b.c.e. until Augustus became the first Roman emperor (30–27 b.c.e.: the process took several years). The term “republic,” from the Latin res publica (common wealth, public thing) has come to mean a certain form of political constitution. Although in a republic the people play a role in the governing of the state (mostly through the election of officials), a republic is not necessarily democratic: a republic need not be structured so that every citizen’s vote is counted equally. Even so, a republic is fundamentally different from the form of government that exists under a king or an emperor.

To the Romans, the words res publica originally signified common property and public affairs, as opposed to private property and affairs. After Rome was ruled by an emperor who had assumed almost unlimited private control over what once had been common and public, res publica took on new meaning for Romans opposed to one-man rule. They associated res publica with the unwritten constitution that had evolved into its classic form through a complex mixture of custom, precedent, and legislation during the fifth and fourth centuries b.c.e. The Roman people always voted on magistrates and legislation, but the Roman Republic remained far from democratic: governmental institutions were structured to favor the wealthy and those few families that were members of the senatorial class. Still, the conduct of public affairs had come to be shared among those who constituted the senatorial aristocracy. They governed via laws and institutions that limited the arbitrary exercise of power. Also, for a considerable time, they showed at least minimal concern for the lower ranks of society.

The evolution of that system is not well documented. All one can hope to do is construct a reasonable outline of what must have been a complex process. In any such attempt, however, there is nothing that cannot be or has not been challenged.

This chapter outlines several crucial phases of the Republic’s constitutional development. First is the transition from kingship to the earliest form of the Republic at the end of the sixth and beginning of the fifth century b.c.e. Second is the creation of more formal rights and institutions that benefited plebeian citizens during the rest of the fifth century. The third phase, mostly during the fourth century, saw the culmination of plebeian rights, traditionally by 287 b.c.e. It also included the creation of new officers to perform the increasingly complex functions of war and government.

Many of the constitutional developments that are the focus of this chapter took place under the pressure of Rome’s almost constant wars with other peoples in Italy. Those wars and many of the changes accompanying them will appear in the next chapter. Here, it is necessary to keep in mind that the prize for plebeian leaders was access to the offices that conferred command of the wars. They were the major source of wealth, dignitas, auctoritas, and gloria in a state that was organized for war. At the same time, the ordinary plebeians, whose needs their leaders articulated, could not be ignored. They made up the bulk of the arms-bearing men, the populus, needed to fight the wars.

Sources of information for early republican history

The sources for this and the following chapter are essentially the same as those discussed at length in Chapter 3 (pp. 38–40). The two most extensive accounts are in Livy (Books 2–10) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Roman Antiquities, Books 4–20). Significant fragments from Books 4 to 10 of Cassius Dio’s Roman History survive for this period, and the Byzantine monk Zonaras presents a summary of the same material. Polybius, a major mid-second-century b.c.e. Greek historian who lived in Rome, treats the theory and development of the Roman constitution in Book 6 of his universal history of the Mediterranean world. Cicero devotes thirteen short chapters (25–37) to early developments in Book 2 of his De Republica. A few additional facts and important traditions are included in Plutarch’s biographies of Camillus, Coriolanus, Publicola, and Pyrrhus and in Books 10 to 20 (11–20 fully preserved) of Diodorus Siculus’ world history. The latter’s most important contribution is his list of Roman consuls (the chief yearly magistrates) beginning with approximately 486 b.c.e.

Like the various annalists and historians on whose lost works they based their own, these writers were often guilty of rhetorically exaggerated embellishments and anachronistic interpretation. Again, the surviving works of antiquarian writers mentioned in Chapter 3 preserve many alternative accounts and additional pieces of information culled from religious rituals, linguistic research, oral traditions, previous writers (Roman and non-Roman), and the more extensive documentation such as laws, treaties, and family archives that once were available for this period. Moreover, helpful archaeological evidence and inscriptions become more abundant at this point.

The Fasti

The most valuable inscriptions are those that preserve lists of the annual consuls, the consular Fasti. In many ancient states, years were not numbered in sequence from some special starting point but were named after one or more of the annual officials: in Athens, after the head archon; in Sparta, after the chief ephor; in Rome, after the consuls. All such officials are known as eponymous (naming) magistrates. Such a system made phenomenal demands upon the memory unless lists were at hand for business, legal, and official purposes. Eventually, many such lists must have been available to public officials, priests, and private individuals.

The oldest list of Roman magistrates probably originated in the brief annual records of officials and major public and religious events that Rome’s chief priest, the pontifex maximus, began to keep in the earliest years of the Republic. During each year the information was written down on a whitewashed board. Apparently, it was transferred to linen rolls at the end of the year as a permanent record. For unknown reasons, the pontiffs stopped setting up the yearly boards in 130 b.c.e. The accumulated information seems to have been available to later annalists and historians. Nevertheless, the idea that P. Mucius Scaevola, pontifex maximus in 130 b.c.e., edited the records and published them in a lost work called the Annales Maximi now seems unfounded.

Even if all of the early material from the pontiffs’ records had not survived until 130 b.c.e., parallel records and other copies of information from the pontifical records that had been made for public and private use probably would have filled many gaps. It was possible, therefore, for Emperor Augustus in 18 b.c.e. to order the creation of a marble inscription that listed the entire chief yearly magistrates and triumphal generals since 509 b.c.e. This inscription was originally set up in the Forum but is referred to as the Capitoline Fasti because it is now housed in the Capitoline Museum. The consular list, half complete, has fragments of no year earlier than 483 b.c.e. The surviving names are remarkably consistent with the Fasti preserved in the literary sources and on the fragments of other inscribed lists that have been found. All versions of the Fasti, therefore, seem to be based on a common stock of source material, whose consistency can be attributed to the existence of a stable and fixed tradition from the earliest days of the Republic. Various attempts to challenge the reliability of the Fasti have failed. Scholars generally agree that the Fasti’s basically sound chronology allows the beginning of the Roman Republic to be dated about 500 b.c.e.

From kingship to republic, ca. 510 to ca. 490 b.c.e.

The transition from kingship to republic is one of the most disputed questions of Roman history. How that change actually took place will probably never be known. Still, Rome seems to have followed a pattern familiar from the contemporary Greek world. By 550 b.c.e., Rome had grown into a large and complex city comparable to the larger cities of archaic Greece at that time. The city itself covered about 660 acres and controlled a territory of about 300 square miles with a total population reasonably estimated to have been between 25,000 and 40,000. Similar cities in the contemporary Greek world had fallen under the domination of ambitious “popular” tyrants backed by armed followers (pp. 42–3). Rome, which was in close contact with the Greek world and shared similar social, economic, and political characteristics, most likely followed the same trend.

For example, the stories surrounding the name of Servius Tullius, the next-to-last king in Roman tradition, reflect a situation in which a military leader seized and maintained power with armed backing. Supposedly, King Tarquin the Elder had given Servius important military commands. That coincides with the tradition that he was called Macstrna in Etruscan. Macstrna seems to be the Etruscan equivalent of magister, which was an archaic Roman term for “commander,” as in magister populi, commander of the army. Servius is said to have succeeded to the throne with the help of Tarquin’s widow and an armed guard after Tarquin’s assassination. The story continues with Tarquin’s son, Tarquin the Proud (Tarquinius Superbus), assassinating Servius.

All of the beneficial “reforms” traditionally ascribed to Servius Tullius were probably not the work of a single individual, but rather they developed over a period of time during the late Monarchy and the early Republic. When stripped of anachronistic complexities, however, the military reforms attributed to Servius look like an attempt during the late Monarchy to create an army that owed allegiance to its leader alone. That would have reduced the power of the aristocratic patres, who previously had chosen the kings.

Under the new system, the rural citizens were organized into tribes just as the urban citizens were. The tribes represented geographic territories. They were dissociated from the curiae, whose members were hereditary on the basis of their gentes. Tribal membership was based on residence.

The tribes now supplied men for the centuries that made up a reorganized legionary field army (p. 52). Each century comprised similarly armed men chosen from across the geographic tribes. Every century would have represented a cross-section of all the tribes. Its men would not have been loyal to any one powerful local hereditary clan leader.

Rome’s last kings seem to have acted in the same way as popular Greek tyrants did. Probably, they used the army to pursue a popular program of expansion that opened up more land for Romans, promoted trade, and brought in booty to support public works. Archaeological evidence shows a great deal of building activity at Rome in the late sixth century b.c.e. It also confirms that the great temple of Capitoline Jupiter ascribed to Rome’s traditional last king, Tarquin the Proud, was begun right about the end of the Monarchy, as the literary sources claim. Furthermore, this Tarquin supposedly had taken over the neighboring territory of Gabii and was besieging Ardea when he was overthrown. According to Livy (Book 1.57–60), L. Junius Brutus, L. Tarquinius Collatinus, and their friend P. Valerius Poplicola (Publicola) overthrew him because his son had raped Collatinus’ virtuous wife, Lucretia, and caused her suicide.

The final struggles

Brutus, Tarquinius Collatinus, and Poplicola all appear as founders of the Republic in the patriotic, romanticized, and compressed saga of the literary sources. More likely, they were all struggling to supplant Tarquin themselves. That would explain the story of Collatinus suddenly being forced into exile with other male Tarquins in the first year of the Republic. It would also account for the stories that Poplicola had monarchic ambitions, particularly if he were the “Publius Valerius,” apparently the leader of a war band mentioned in the Lapis Satricanus (p. 62).

The Etruscan Lars Porsenna of Clusium is depicted besieging Rome as an ally of Tarquin and even temporarily conquering Rome in some stories. Perhaps, he was mainly a war chief taking advantage of the confusion to make himself king at Rome. Porsenna, however, seems to have overreached himself with further attacks in Latium and then to have withdrawn or been driven from Rome itself around 504 b.c.e. (The arrival of another possible war chief, Attus Clausus [Atta Claudius, Appius Claudius], and his alleged 4000 followers at Rome in 504 b.c.e. also may be connected with Porsenna’s loss of power.) Tarquin supposedly attempted to recapture Rome with help from Latin allies. The heroes of the story successfully resisted him and established what came to be known as the Republic.

Archaeology does support the idea of a violent end to the Monarchy at the end of the sixth or beginning of the fifth century b.c.e. Sites that can be associated with kings and popular tyrants were destroyed about that time. Around 500 b.c.e., the Regia was burned down, as was the Comitium. The Regia, as the name implies, was the old royal palace, and the Comitium was the place of assembly where popular tyrants could have addressed the people. Whatever the precise details may be, the Roman tradition seems based on a sound historical core: around 500 b.c.e., rule by popular royal tyrants at Rome was abolished in a violent upheaval that led to the establishment of a republican constitution.

The early form of the Republic

Although the republican constitution had roots in the institutions that had existed under the Monarchy, its earliest form bears the stamp of conservative aristocrats, primarily—but not exclusively—leading families from the patrician gentes (pp. 62–3). Probably, they were attempting both to end the chaotic power struggles that had characterized the last decade of the sixth century b.c.e. and to restore power and privileges that popular royal tyrants had usurped from them. They created a system that would keep them in control. They also made it difficult for any one aristocrat to acquire too much power at the expense of the rest as they competed for military honor and glory in defending or expanding Roman territory and power in central Italy. It is also clear that certain families excelled in that competition. In the consular Fasti from 509 to 367 b.c.e., fifteen gentes each held the consulship from ten to thirty-four times. Fifty each held it only from one to three times.

The consulship

The Fasti (p. 76) indicate that dual yearly chief magistrates were a crucial feature of the Republic right from the start. At first, they may have been the old army commander, the magister populi, perhaps now known as the praetor maximus (chief commander), and either the commander of the cavalry (magister celerum, magister equitum) or a civil judge (iudex). In the first case, the two commanders could have checked each other’s political ambitions. In the second case, one would have commanded the army in the field while the other oversaw affairs at home. For the sake of simplicity, however, this book will follow the later Romans and use the terms consul and consulship throughout, particularly because the term praetor became attached to another office in 367 b.c.e. (pp. 93–4).

One of the early consuls’ chief duties was to command the army. Regardless of possible origins, nomenclature, and ceremonial distinctions, the two senior magistrates who eventually came to be known as consuls each had the earlier kings’ power of military command (imperium). Furthermore, each had the full power to veto the other. In that way, the risk of one gaining too much power was reduced because each could check the other militarily and legally.

The consuls also shared other old royal powers and privileges. Besides commanding the legions, they acted as judges, summoned meetings of the comitia centuriata (p. 81), and placed legislative proposals before it. They even retained much of the old royal paraphernalia. Although only a purple hem distinguished their daily clothes, they wore the purple toga of the old kings at festivals and could be buried in it. They also sat on a portable ivory throne called a curule chair (sella curulis). Each was attended by twelve lictors carrying the symbols of power earlier associated with Etruscan kings. In the city, the lictors carried only fasces, bundles of rods symbolizing the power of punishment. Outside the city on military campaign, a double-headed ax was added to the fasces to symbolize the right of execution.

The office of dictator

At times, dire military or domestic crises made it imperative for one man to have sole power, as in the days of the kings. In that case, a magistrate with imperium (a consul, an interrex, or, after 367 b.c.e., a praetor) appointed a dictator, who received the sole power of the old magister populi for no more than six months. The dictator appointed as his subordinate a man with the old title of magister equitum. The consuls remained in office but were subordinate to him. His superior imperium was signified by his having twenty-four lictors to attend him.

Junior elected military officers

The tribunes of the cavalry, tribuni celerum (equitum), and the military tribunes, tribuni militum (p. 51), all from wealthy families, continued to be the highest junior officers in the early republican army. Because the number of heavy infantry reached 6000 before the legion was split into two smaller legions, the number of military tribunes in each legion became fixed at six. They were all elected until the number of legions exceeded four. After that, twenty-four military tribunes continued to be elected, whereas the consuls appointed those needed for additional legions.

The senate

Throughout the Republic, the senate technically remained what it had been for the kings, an advisory council of prominent and experienced men. Senators could officially meet only at the summons of a consul or some other holder of imperium (a dictator or interrex); later, a praetor (pp. 93–4) until the tribunes of the plebs (p. 85) obtained the right to convene the senate in the third century b.c.e.

The senate could not pass laws. A vote of the senate constituted only a decree, usually called a senatus consultum (abbreviated S.C.). Such a decree was simply advice to a magistrate and was not legally binding. A magistrate could legally enforce it, but he was also free to modify or reject it altogether. Later, when tribunes of the plebs could veto a decree of the senate, a vetoed decree was recorded as expressing the opinion of the senate, senatus auctoritas.

Despite lacking the official legislative power we might expect it to have, the senate usually controlled foreign affairs, including the assignment of military commands and, later, provincial governorships. It also controlled expenditures from the treasury and supervised the performance of public contracts. The various lawmaking bodies to be discussed later could, but rarely did, pass laws overriding decisions of the senate or interfering in something usually left to the senate’s discretion.

Meetings of the senate had to take place within a mile of the city’s gates in a public, consecrated place, like a temple. No matter whether the assembled senators were originally addressed as patres conscripti (enrolled patres) or patres et conscripti (patres and enrolled ones), many early senators probably were public priests called patres. The patrum auctoritas (sanction of the patres) and the practice of meeting in a sacred place (templum) assured that public actions approved by the senate were in accord with divine will. The Romans were careful to ensure that they acted only with divine approval. Filling that need helped secure a high degree of power and status for the patrician gentes, whose members had the hereditary right to hold the public priesthoods.

To the extent that public priesthoods were held for life, the patres may have constituted a core of permanent senators and given the senate a certain corporate identity. Other influential advisors in the senate besides the priestly patres may have been enrolled as conscripti each year by the consuls. They would have been lower magistrates, ex-magistrates, and trusted friends of the consuls. Since most of them would have come from the families eligible to supply the public priests, that is the patricians, the term patres probably came to include all senators, whether they held priesthoods or not. Even a few may have been enrolled from wealthy nonpatrician families who shared the same aristocratic outlook. That would explain the Roman historical tradition that all of the early republican magistrates and senators were from patrician gentes, even when modern research shows that they were not. As time went on, the aristocrats in the senate turned it into the major organ of government, by which they could dominate the state.

The comitia centuriata and comitia curiata

At the beginning of the Republic, the loyalty of the arms-bearing men who made up the populus was essential for the success of the new regime. Therefore, the comitia centuriata, the assembly of arms-bearing men organized into centuries, probably acquired at the start of the Republic the right to elect the chief magistrates and other officers above the rank of centurion. The comitia centuriata also heard the cases of citizens who exercised the right of appeal (provocatio) when they had been condemned on capital charges by the magistrates. Exactly when the comitia centuriata acquired that function is unclear. If there is any truth to the tradition that P. Valerius Poplicola (Publicola) had obtained the right of appeal for the people at the beginning of the Republic, it probably represents another attempt to secure the loyalty of the army. Under the royal tyrants, the centuriate organization may have already been used to approve formal decrees, declarations of war, and the acceptance of peace. It continued to do so as it became the early Republic’s sovereign assembly.

The comitia curiata probably was in decline after the so-called Servian reforms under the Monarchy (pp. 51–2). In the Republic, it was reduced to a pro forma meeting of thirty lictors representing each of the thirty curiae. It ratified the election of magistrates with imperium through passage of a lex curiata de imperio. In addition, it was convened to witness wills, adoptions, and the appointment of public priests. As time went on, male Roman citizens were organized into other, parallel popular assemblies that also had electoral, legislative, and judicial powers.

Women never had the right to vote or hold political office. Except for the likely exclusion of patricians in one case, all male Roman citizens were members of all assemblies. In each assembly, voters were broken up in voting units in various ways, but the organization of each assembly was such that the votes of the wealthy counted more than those of the poor. No one was elected to an assembly, nor were assemblies like modern parliamentary bodies: no one pursued a political career in an assembly. The members did not formally debate issues. They merely voted on the candidates or bills presented by the appropriate officials who summoned them, or they acted as mass juries in judicial cases brought before them. Speeches and discussions concerning issues to be voted on in assemblies could take place previously in public meetings called contiones (sing. contio) summoned by elected officials.

The priesthoods and priestly colleges

During the Republic, priestly colleges (boards of public priests organized for the correct performance of public rituals) played a major role in public life. During the early Republic, their membership was limited to men and women from patrician gentes. In a world in which the state could not act without divine approval (p. 69), the priests in charge of maintaining Rome’s relationship with the gods exercised great power and influence.

There were four priestly colleges: pontiffs (pontifices), augurs (augures), fetials (fetiales), and duovirs, originally a board of two men (duoviri), for conducting sacrifices (duoviri sacris faciundis). In addition, there were various societies or associations (sodalitates) of lesser priests. Priests were not necessarily individuals of exceptional piety or believed to be endowed with special psychic or clairvoyant powers. The men chosen for such honors were people of learning, political experience, and high social rank who did not form any professional priestly class, even though they did have to come from certain gentes. Their wealth enabled them to perform their priestly duties without financial reward. Many had been magistrates before becoming priests; some were priests and magistrates simultaneously; and most were members of the senate. The women selected for some public priesthoods were chosen as part of a married couple (as in the case of the rex and regina sacrorum and the flaminicae, wives of the various priests known as flamens): they were required to have married with a particular archaic wedding ceremony and could not divorce. Other women were chose precisely because they had never been married. The young girls selected to serve for thirty years as priestesses of the goddess Vesta, called Vestal Virgins, came from the most prestigious families and had to be free of any physical defect. Unlike all other public priests who continued to live with their families, the Vestal Virgins left home to live in a large complex next to Vesta’s temple in the Roman Forum. In that way, they were able to maintain the sacred fire in the temple twenty-four hours a day. The chief qualification for holding any of these priesthoods was the right pedigree. Less important was a deep knowledge of religious tradition, of divine law, and of correct ritual and ceremonial procedure.

The pontiffs

Originally, a pontiff (pontifex, literally a “bridgemaker”) performed rituals and incantations believed to give permanence to the flimsy wooden bridges in early Latium. Under the kings, there were three pontiffs (pontifices), who also acted as religious advisors. From the birth of the Republic, the membership of the college grew. The rex and regina sacrorum and the twelves flamens and their wives became full members. The Vestal Virgins came to be included as well. Under the leadership of the chief pontiff (pontifex maximus), the college of pontiffs assumed a larger and larger role in public and private life. They were keepers of temple archives and prescribed the various rituals, prayers, chants, and litanies for use in public worship and sacrifice. They also supervised the dedication and the consecration of temples and altars, the burial of the dead, and the inheritance of religious duties. It was they who organized the calendar that fixed the dates of festivals and the days on which a magistrate might not sit in court.

The pontiffs were the custodians and interpreters of the sacred law governing both the religious and legal relations of the community to the gods. They alone knew the exact formulae applicable in all secular legal transactions and the proper forms employed in the making of vows. The pontifex maximus, judge and arbiter of things human and divine, had the power to convene and the right to preside over the Curiate Assembly, which passed laws on adoptions and wills. As guardians of the laws, whose precise wording had to be followed in legal proceedings, pontiffs held a monopoly on jurisprudence during the first two centuries of the Republic. They were neither judges nor regularly practicing lawyers. Their contribution arose from their functions as consultants and interpreters of religious, public, and private law.

The augurs

Originally made up of three patricians, the college of augurs (augures) gradually increased to sixteen members from both patrician and plebeian gentes by the end of the Republic. The augurs were solely responsible for conducting the auguries and were experts in the taking of auspices (p. 69). Private individuals could take auspices, and public officials did so regularly. Officials might be assisted by an augur, and they regularly consulted the augurs on questions concerning the correct taking of auspices. The augurs had the right to block public business, particularly in the popular assemblies, by announcing unfavorable signs sent by the gods.

The fetials

The fetial priests (fetiales) were a board of twenty priests who dealt with issues of peace and war. In the early Republic, they dealt directly with enemy counterparts in Italy and accepted treaties with a ritual exchange of curses calling down punishment on the first to break faith. If the Romans had a grievance with another people, a fetial went to the latter, stated the Roman case, and demanded satisfaction. If satisfaction was not given in thirty-three days, the fetial went to the enemy’s border, declared war, and hurled a fire-hardened spear across the boundary. Even after that ritual was no longer practical, fetial law, which built up over the years, governed declarations of war.

Duovirs for making sacrifices (duoviri sacris faciundis)

A board originally of two men, later ten and then fifteen men (decemviri and quindecemviri), the duovirs had the special responsibility of protecting the Sibylline Books that Tarquin the Proud supposedly had brought from Cumae (p. 68). When ordered to do so by the senate, they consulted those sacred texts for guidance when unusual portents or disasters occurred. They were also responsible for overseeing foreign cults and rituals adopted in response to such occasions.

The sodalitates

There were three ancient associations (sodalitates) of lesser priests: the Salii, the Luperci, and the Arval Brothers (fratres arvales). The Salii, “Leaping Priests,” performed archaic war dances in annual rituals associated with Mars. The Luperci, whose name comes from lupus (wolf), were religious officials responsible for the Lupercalia festival at which they ran partially naked along a ritual circuit through Rome, smacking bystanders with leather thongs as they went (p. 65). The twelve Arval Brothers were the ancient priests of Dea Dia, a goddess of agriculture. They maintained her sacred grove and, in conjunction with the Ambarvalia (p. 66), celebrated her festival in May with a special hymn.

The dynamics of change, 509 to 287 b.c.e.

By ca. 300 b.c.e., many of the priesthoods were no longer restricted to members of patrician gentes. The process whereby they were opened to individuals from gentes now specifically identified as plebeian appears in the annalistic sources as part of the so-called Struggle (Conflict) of the Orders. First, writers like Livy assumed that, from the beginning, Roman society was rigidly divided into two distinct orders or classes: the rich patrician aristocrats and the poor plebeian commoners, the plebs. Then, they wove together separate kinds and episodes of conflict during the early Republic into an overly schematized “Struggle (Conflict) of the Orders.” As in any attempt to create a clear narrative, convenient labels and generalizations usually mask a much more complex reality.

For example, it was said that patrician gentes had an absolute monopoly of the chief magistracies and membership in the senate from the start of the Republic. No amount of convoluted argument, however, can explain away the fact that the Fasti show no absolute monopoly. Between 509 and 486 b.c.e., a number of solidly attested and unassailably nonpatrician names appear in the consular lists. From 485 to 470, however, there are none. Then, only a few appear from 469 until 445, the year when those identified as plebeians supposedly were specifically allowed to hold the new office of military tribune with consular power (p. 90).

The most logical explanation is that, at the beginning of the Republic, the sharp patrician-plebeian dichotomy reflected in the late sources is oversimplified. Even in earlier sources, informal usage may have simplistically lumped together as patricians all of those who governed the early Republic as priests, magistrates, and senators, whether or not they were from patrician gentes. Similarly, those who were not part of the governing elite, even if they were wealthy and influential within certain segments of society, came to be identified in the sources as members of the plebs. In later times, plebs did signify the poor lower order of Roman society, but originally it probably meant the undifferentiated mass of citizens in general.

Despite the oversimplifications and over-dramatizations of the ancient sources, tensions and discontented groups certainly existed within the young Republic. Some wealthy and ambitious nonpatricians managed to get elected to high office. Others would not have been able to make such a breakthrough and would have been resentful. Small farmers, day laborers, shopkeepers, and artisans did not have the means to qualify for the classis, which supplied the heavy infantry and cavalry and dominated the original comitia centuriata. They were effectively disenfranchised, even though they may have served in a rank below the classis (infra classem) as light-armed and support troops. Not only they but also probably some of those who marginally qualified as heavy infantry faced serious economic problems that aggravated social and political tensions.

Many farmers suffered losses in the constant attacks by surrounding peoples. The need to divide family land among heirs also must have meant that small proprietors, even those who were modestly well off, rapidly found their holdings too small to support them. Moreover, as time went on, large landowners began to monopolize access to public lands for themselves, at the expense of poorer citizens.

The expansion of the Persian Empire into the eastern Mediterranean in the late sixth and early fifth centuries b.c.e. probably disrupted the flow of goods to Italy from Greece and the Near East. That flow had helped Rome prosper and grow. Indeed, archaeological evidence seems to confirm a drop in Greek imports during the early fifth century. As trade contracted, the urban economy probably declined so that hardship ensued for the poorer segments of the population in the city.

Those who contracted loans from wealthier neighbors ran afoul of Rome’s harsh laws of debt. Creditors could summarily seize a defaulting debtor’s property, force him to work off his debts (a practice called debt bondage), sell him into slavery, or even kill him. The unsettled conditions also created periodic food shortages that posed severe hardship for the poor. Therefore, there were many people who had reason to protest and demand changes from those who governed, the so-called patricians.

Growing plebeian identity and rights, ca. 500 to ca. 400 b.c.e.

During the first half of the fifth century, growing discontent and protests fueled the growth of a self-conscious nonpatrician group identified as the plebs. This group constituted an independent political force that expressed the will of the discontented. Moreover, the constant need for manpower and unity during the wars against outside enemies described in the next chapter often forced those in power, the patricians, to make concessions to the discontented. Probably some patricians even sided with some of the discontented to gain support for personal political purposes.

The Council of the Plebs (concilium plebis)

According to tradition, the first step in creating a self-conscious plebs took place in 494 b.c.e. during a war with Rome’s Latin neighbors. The patricians had refused to curb the abusive practices of creditors during a debt crisis. Large numbers of aggrieved citizens departed from the city and refused military service. They then constituted themselves as the Council of the Plebs, concilium plebis, and elected their own independent yearly plebeian officials to protect their interests. Thus, they operated outside the regular apparatus controlled by those called patricians in the ancient sources. There is much that is problematical about this “First Secession of the Plebs,” and 494 b.c.e. may be too early for the creation of a concilium plebis and elected plebeian officials. Nevertheless, they eventually did appear.

According to the traditional dating, there was serious plebeian agitation again in 471 in the face of attacks from the Aequi and the Volsci. The supposed upshot of this agitation was the reorganization of the original way in which the concilium plebis voted. Among the many problems is that no one really knows how or when the plebs first voted in a formal council. Still, at some point in the early Republic, if not in 471 b.c.e., the concilium plebis began to vote by a system based on the residence of citizens grouped in the geographic territories called tribes (p. 62). This system gave more weight to the rural voters on whom the demands for military service were greatest. There were four urban and twenty-one rural tribes in the fifth century b.c.e. Eventually, ten more rural tribes were added as Roman territory expanded. After that, the number of tribes remained fixed at thirty-five. New citizens outside of Rome were simply assigned to one of the thirty-one rural tribes no matter where in Rome’s expanding territory they lived.

In an assembly of tribes, each tribe voted as a unit: that is to say, each tribe had one vote determined by the majority voting within it at a meeting. A simple majority of units, ultimately at least eighteen of thirty-five, was enough to win the vote. Thus, the rural tribes always outvoted the four urban tribes no matter how few rural voters showed up to vote at Rome, where all voting took place. Since many small farmers did not always have the time or the resources to go to Rome to vote, those who did show up had a large impact on the outcome. Most modern scholars agree that when the tribes met to vote as the plebs, patrician members of the tribes were excluded. Therefore, some modern scholars call the plebs meeting to vote by tribes the Plebeian Tribal Council (concilium plebis tributum). Since the term concilium plebis tributum has no ancient authority, this book will continue to use concilium plebis. An assembly of all citizens voting by tribes, the comitia tributa, apparently arose later than the first meeting of the plebs by tribes (p. 98).

Tribunes of the plebs

The new officials elected by the concilium plebis were the tribunes of the plebs (tribuni plebis). It seems most likely that, as their name implies, tribunes of the plebs originated as, or were patterned on, junior military officers like the tribunes of the soldiers or the tribunes of the cavalry (p. 51). Whatever the events surrounding their origin, tribunes historically played a major role in protecting ordinary citizens from excessive demands for military service. That would make sense if they originated as officers chosen by armed citizens from the lower ranks. The plebs considered the tribunes sacrosanct. If anyone violently attacked a tribune or interfered with the performance of his duties, that person would be considered accursed and could be killed with impunity. In that way, tribunes were encouraged to take the strongest possible stands on behalf of the plebs.

Probably there were only two plebeian tribunes each year at first, although the sources do not agree on this point. Only nonpatricians could be tribunes of the plebs. They were men of enough wealth to pursue unpaid political leadership. The well-to-do nonpatricians who held the tribunate or supported the plebs probably became identified as plebeians, too. Thus, the historical distinction between patrician and plebeian gentes probably emerged.

The early tribunes had two main powers. The first was the right of giving aid (ius auxilii). A tribune was supposed to protect the life, person, and interests of those who called upon him for help against a magistrate’s arbitrary use of power. The second was the right of intercession (intercessio), the right to veto (veto means “I forbid” in Latin) any official act, even another tribune’s, that he deemed detrimental to the plebs. Always on call, he had to keep his house open day and night and could never go outside the city limits.

Plebeian aediles

At some point, the concilium plebis also began to elect two plebeian aediles to assist the tribunes. They were originally caretakers of the temple of Ceres, the goddess of grain, on the Aventine, which was outside the walls of Rome at that time. Appropriately, a grain market and Greek trading center were near this site. Resident Greeks may have been a source of inspiration for popular political agitation. Contemporary Greek states were also experiencing popular upheavals, and one of the Greek artists who decorated the temple of Ceres was named Damophilus, which means “Friend of the People.” Also, Ceres’ connection with grain and the proximity of her temple to the grain market indicate that many of the plebs were concerned with having an adequate supply of food. Many of the aediles’ later functions are linked with providing for the material well-being of the average person. They acted as police and supervised markets, weights and measures, public works, food and water supplies, and public games. They also became custodians of the plebeians’ treasury and archives and, later, of senatorial decrees.

Plebiscita

The concilium plebis not only elected the plebeian tribunes and aediles but also could vote on motions placed before it by the tribunes. Such a vote constituted a plebiscite, “the sense of the plebs” (plebiscitum), but the patricians did not initially recognize plebiscites (plebiscita) as laws (leges). A suspect tradition says that as early as 456 b.c.e., a tribune named Icilius obtained a law granting land on the Aventine to the poor. Still, organized popular pressure could not easily be ignored. Eventually, plebiscita came to be recognized as laws binding on the whole community.

The Decemvirs and the laws of the Twelve Tables, 451 to 450 b.c.e.

One major source of popular discontent probably was the complete domination of the law, which was largely customary and unwritten, by the patricians, whose families supplied the public priests. Among these priests were the pontiffs, who exercised great control over determining what the law was and how it could be applied in particular situations. Around 452 b.c.e., as the story goes, during continuing conflicts with the Aequi and the Volsci, there were some unsuccessful attempts to pass a plebiscite restricting the powers of the consuls, who often executed the laws in ways that seemed unfair to the plebs. The tribunes suggested to the senate that a committee representing both parties be chosen to frame a just and equitable written body of laws. The senate turned down the suggestion of plebeian participation but did agree to set up a commission of ten men, decemviri, to codify the existing laws. The story that a group of senators first went to Athens to study the laws of Solon may be apocryphal, but many senators must have been aware of contemporary law codes in the Greek colonies of Magna Graecia.

The Decemviral Commission

Supposedly, at the end of 452 b.c.e. the regular consulship and tribunate were suspended. During 451 and 450 b.c.e., the Decemviral Commission, chaired by Appius Claudius, ran the government and codified the laws. Much of the story surrounding Appius Claudius and the commission is confused, contradictory, and overlaid with dramatic fictions. For example, the story that Appius lusted after Verginia, the beautiful daughter of an ordinary citizen, and that her father killed her to prevent her dishonor, seems entirely made up. It was used to brand Appius as a tyrant who forced the commission to adopt some laws that came to be seen as unfavorable to the plebs, such as the one banning intermarriage between patricians and plebeians.

The main purpose of that law may have been to guarantee a supply of men meeting the traditional requirements for public priests (patres). Still, that would also have reinforced the exclusivity of the patrician gentes. Another clause seemingly beneficial to the patricians said that bills against individuals or for imposing capital penalties had to be passed in the comitia centuriata, which tribunes could not convene.

The one generally accepted part of the account of the Decemviral Commission is that the Decemvirs did produce a codification of existing early Roman laws. Those laws were set up eventually, if not originally, on twelve bronze tablets in the Forum. This code was henceforth known as the Law of the Twelve Tables or, more simply, the Twelve Tables.

Style and content of the Twelve Tables

About one-third of the text of the Twelve Tables is preserved in quotations by later authors. The style is archaic, simple, brief, harsh, but legally clear and exact: Table I, “If he calls him to court, go he shall; if he doesn’t, plaintiff will call witness, then will take him”; Table VII, “They will keep road repaired; if they don’t cobble it, man may drive team where he wants to”; Table VIII, “If burglary be done at night, if (owner) kills him, he shall be killed by law; if by day, not, unless burglar defends himself with weapon.”

Significance of the Twelve Tables

The laws of the Twelve Tables fixed in writing the preexisting law of custom passed down among a privileged group. These laws also were capable of meeting future needs through interpretation. Among the most important provisions were those that spelled out powers of the paterfamilias, guaranteed the right to property and testament, provided for the intervention of the state in civil disputes, abolished family revenge, and provided that no one could be put to death without a trial. The Twelve Tables also abolished torture as a means of obtaining evidence from free men. In short, the basic importance of the Twelve Tables was that they publicly established in principle the equality of all free citizens before the law.

The creation of a written code of laws at Rome shares clear parallels with the codification of laws at Athens in the time of Draco. Both codes represent similar attempts by conservative aristocratic elites to solidify their dominance in the face of social and economic crises typical of archaic city-states. Since they both primarily codified existing practices, however, they did not really get at the roots of nonaristocratic discontent. They merely sharpened the perception of grievances that would lead to even stronger challenges to the existing order as some leaders sought support from outside the ranks of those who had traditionally monopolized political power.

The Valerio-Horatian laws of 449 b.c.e.

L. Valerius Poplicola Potitus and M. Horatius Barbatus, the patrician consuls of 449 b.c.e., provide a case in point. Although not all of the laws ascribed to them are authentic, they appear to have supported the plebs and their tribunes against an attempt by the Decemvirs to continue in office. At least they gave official recognition to the tribunate and the right of tribunes both to protect individual plebeians from the harsh and arbitrary actions of the consuls and to propose plebiscites. Whether or not they passed legislation giving plebiscites automatic recognition as laws, a plebiscite could become law if it received the approval of the patres in the senate, as comitial acts did. That would explain the attested tribunician laws of 445, 442, and 367 (below and p. 91).

The creation of another popular assembly, the comitia tributa, occurred around the same time. Modeled on the tribal organization of the concilium plebis, the comitia tributa was an assembly of all citizens, including the patrician gentes, voting by tribes. As in the concilium plebis, the rural tribes would have dominated the voting (p. 86). Being large landowners registered in the rural tribes, the members of the patrician gentes, who were only a small percentage of the population, may have had some influence on the votes of the rural tribes through their clients. Nevertheless, such influence probably could not have been decisive except when other, nonpatrician large landowners were narrowly divided. Because the comitia tributa included all male citizens, there was no question that measures passed by it and approved by the patres were binding on all.

The quaestors

No more than two years after its creation, the comitia tributa began to elect two annual patrician quaestors, originally mere appointed assistants to the consuls. Their number was increased to four in 421 b.c.e. when the office was first thrown open to men from plebeian gentes, but plebeian quaestors did not actually appear until 409 b.c.e. Although their original function was to investigate murders, minor crimes against property also came under their jurisdiction.

Two of the four quaestors accompanied the consuls to the battlefield, where they served as quartermasters in charge of supplies and the payment of troops. The other two remained in the city to serve as keepers of the public treasury and prosecutors of tax delinquents. Since the public treasury was in the temple of Saturn, they were also in charge of the official records and documents kept in that building.

Apparitores

The original quaestors probably were classed as apparitores—the scribes, secretaries, accountants, and other skilled appointees who aided the priests and magistrates in the performance of their duties. Those posts were open to ordinary citizens and conferred considerable prestige on their holders. Eventually, the apparitores received a salary.

The lex Canuleia, 445 b.c.e.

According to the simplistic traditional account of the “Struggle (Conflict) of the Orders,” the tribune C. Canuleius, taking advantage of the Valerio-Horatian law of 449 b.c.e., struck a blow for the plebeians by obtaining passage of a plebiscite, the lex Canuleia. It rescinded the recently adopted law against the intermarriage of patres and plebeians. The original purpose of the prohibition may have been to preserve the bloodlines required to hold certain priesthoods. Nevertheless, some ambitious individuals among both the patrician and the wealthier plebeian gentes may have seen the law as preventing politically advantageous marital alliances. Therefore, they may have worked together to overturn it by the lex Canuleia.

Military tribunes with consular power

Another milestone in the traditional accounts of the “Struggle (Conflict) of the Orders” occurred in 445 b.c.e. The patricians supposedly agreed to create as an alternative to the consulship a new office open to plebeians. The new officials were military tribunes who had consular power (imperium consulare). They differed from consuls because they could not celebrate triumphs and could not become senators after their year of office. They were equal in power to, and could veto, each other. One remained in the city during times of war to carry out civil functions, while the others took the field as commanders of legions. The senate decided whether to have consuls or military tribunes with consular power for a given year. The latter held office in only fifty of the years from 444 to 367 b.c.e.

No securely attested plebeian held the new office until 422 b.c.e. Others appear only rarely from 400 to 367 b.c.e. Therefore, it is difficult to see the establishment of military tribunes with consular power as part of a compromise in any “Struggle (Conflict) of the Orders.” Rather, the previous situation seems to have continued: the occasional success of a wealthy nonpatrician either through favor directly with the voters or as an ally of some ambitious patrician.

The fact that from three to six military tribunes with consular power served in most of the years for which they are recorded may reflect incomplete records. More likely, it indicates that there was a need for two or more legions and their commanding officers in years during which Rome faced military threats from Ardea, Veii, the Aequi, the Volsci, and the Gauls (p. 100ff). Subsequently, new pressures culminated in the reforms of 367 b.c.e., which regularized the titles of and qualifications for various magistracies and organized them into the classic hierarchical cursus honorum, “course of offices” (p. 94). Until then, however, there probably was no formal provision allowing members of plebeian gentes to hold high office.

The censors

In 444 b.c.e., the censorship appeared, which patrician gentes seem to have monopolized until 351 b.c.e. (p. 94). Two censors were elected at irregular intervals by the comitia centuriata. They compiled the census (the official list of Roman citizens eligible for military service, voting, and taxation). In time, they were elected every five years for a period of eighteen months. Censors did not have the imperium or the right to the fasces, they could not call meetings of the people or the senate, nor could they nominate their own successors. They did, however, sit on the curule chair (sella curulis), the sign of a senior magistrate (p. 79). After 339, censors acquired the power of appointing senators and of removing them from the senate if they did not meet the standards of the Roman moral code. By putting a black mark opposite a man’s name, the censors could reduce him to a lower census class, move him from a rural tribe to a city tribe, or take away his civil rights altogether for at least five years. Such power made censors even more prestigious than consuls.

The censors also became concerned with the spending of funds appropriated by the senate or released by the consuls. Control of contracts for public works, of the tax registers, and of the state revenues gave censors considerable power. They leased public lands, mines, salt works, and fishing rights as well as the collection of certain taxes to private contractors, publicani (publicans). The only kind of revenue that they did not control was war booty.

A new period of reform, 367 to 287 b.c.e.

Between approximately 400 and 370 b.c.e., a strenuous war against the Etruscan city of Veii, a disastrous invasion of the Gauls, and hostilities with neighboring Latin cities probably created the conditions that led to further reforms by 367 b.c.e. Supposedly, during ten contentious years in office, two plebeian tribunes, C. Licinius Stolo and L. Sextius Lateranus, proposed major reforms that were finally enacted into the so-called Licinio-Sextian laws. There are many problems with details in the existing account of the Licinio-Sextian laws, particularly the tribunes’ ten-year tenure in office. Nevertheless, most scholars accept that three major reforms associated with the names of Licinius and Sextius became law around 367 b.c.e.

First, that military tribunes with consular power were abolished seems certain. No more appear after 367. The legislation probably specified that one of the restored consulships each year could be held by someone from a plebeian gens. That one must be held by a plebeian was probably not specified until a law of L. Genucius in 342 b.c.e. Second, some kind of restriction on the growing concentration of land in the hands of large proprietors also seems reasonable. Soon, large tracts of public land were acquired through Roman conquests in central Italy, and many thousands of small holdings were created for impoverished peasants. Third, there was some kind of attempt to deal with debt, a perennial source of discontent.

Attempts to help debtors continued. Laws restricted interest rates to probably 8.6 percent a year in 357 and 4 1/6 percent in 347. In 342, a law of Genucius impractically abolished lending at interest and soon became a dead letter. A much more practical move in 352 b.c.e. created a governmental board of five men who helped debtors in trouble by assuming mortgages that could be adequately secured—in many cases probably by the new allotments of land that were now being distributed. Finally, the lex Poetilia of either 326 or 313 b.c.e. so severely limited the circumstances whereby a person could be enslaved for debt that the practice soon disappeared.

Military changes and reform of the Comitia Centuriata

With the permanent establishment of two annual consulships, the Roman army probably consisted of a regular levy of two legions, one for each consul. Three things increased the number of men who could regularly meet the demand: the principle of pay for military service established during the war with Veii, the distribution of land occasioned by the Licinio-Sextian reforms, and provision of at least some equipment by the state. Men who formerly did not have the means to serve in the heavy infantry and were thus infra classem (below the classis) in the census could now do so.

These changes seem to be reflected in the comitia centuriata, which elected the magistrates above the rank of aedile and could pass legislation. Its membership was expanded to include centuries of the citizens who were previously infra classem. Centuries no longer supplied specific units of the field army, but all voters, whether or not they physically served, were now organized into groups still called centuries. These centuries were ranked in several census classes based on the type of military equipment that able-bodied men of their property valuation could have afforded before receiving pay and equipment.

In fact, the less wealthy citizens were still effectively disenfranchised in the comitia centuriata. The reform seems to represent an attempt (perhaps as a concession to certain patricians or the wealthy in general) to minimize the impact of all but the highest census class, the original classis, on the election of the highest magistrates and on any legislation placed before it. The crucial aspects of the comitia centuriata are the number of centuries in each class, the way in which votes were counted, and the practice of voting from the wealthiest centuries downward.

The first census class comprised eighteen centuries of men who were ranked as cavalry (equites) and eighty centuries (forty senior and forty junior) of men who were ranked as heavy infantry. Thus, the wealthiest voters had a total of ninety-eight centuries. There were twenty centuries each (half senior and half junior) for classes two through four (those who could have supplied some arms and armor), thirty (half senior and half junior) for the fifth class (those without armor), and five centuries for people below the minimum property assessment required for armed service (two for craftsmen, two for trumpeters, and one for the proletarians). The total of all centuries, therefore, was 193.

Each century voted as a unit. A simple majority of each century determined its one vote. The voting proceeded in hierarchical order from the highest class to the lowest. It started with the eighteen equestrian centuries of the first class and continued with the eighty first-class infantry centuries, then the twenty second-class centuries, and so on. Voting on legislative and judicial questions stopped once a simple majority of ninety-seven votes was reached. Therefore, the wealthiest centuries would determine the vote if a majority in each voted in the same way. Voting would not likely reach the fifth class unless the outcome of voting in the ninety-eight wealthiest centuries was closely split. In elections, where, presumably, all centuries voted, candidates favored by the first four classes would usually poll the most votes to fill available positions.

Accordingly, the hierarchical, unit-vote system was far from democratic, even for free males, the only ones allowed to vote. The rich, with their ninety-eight centuries, always had more votes than the lower census classes. The old could always outvote the young, because the seniors, though numerically fewer, had as many centuries as the juniors. Moreover, close votes within some centuries might mean that the outcome of the unit vote did not reflect the will of the majority in the total number of units voting. Similarly, in the Electoral College system for electing presidents of the United States, it is possible for a candidate to lose the total popular vote but win a majority of the Electoral College.

The creation of a new nobility

The Licinio-Sextian legislation of 367 b.c.e. formally opened up the consulship to wealthy members of plebeian gentes. Their circumstances permitted a career of unpaid public service. Such a moment was bound to come anyway because the old patrician families that had dominated the early Republic were inexorably dying out. The universal tendency of upper classes to have small families, many patricians’ refusal to intermarry with plebeians even after the lex Canuleia of 445 b.c.e., and deaths in battle during the numerous wars with Rome’s neighbors had severely reduced their ranks. For example, only twenty-nine of fifty-three patrician gentes recorded for the fifth century appear in the fourth century. Men from plebeian gentes frequently after 367 b.c.e. (and regularly after 342) held the consulship. As a result, a patricio-plebeian consular nobility replaced the old, exclusively patrician nobility within the ranks of the broader senatorial aristocracy. It comprised those families who had a consular ancestor in the male line. A man who was the first of his family to reach the consulship thereby ennobled his family and enjoyed the undying gratitude of succeeding generations.

Despite the formal opening of the consulship to wealthy men from plebeian gentes after 367 b.c.e., the hardline patricians did not immediately surrender all of their control. They still monopolized the censorship, for example. They even created new magistracies open only to themselves. Gradually, however, those positions and important religious offices were opened to men of plebeian gentes.

The new praetorship

The growing complexity of war and public business made it desirable to create a junior colleague of the consuls. In 367 b.c.e., the patrician-dominated senate, therefore, revived the ancient office of praetor and restricted it to members of patrician gentes. Originally, there was only one praetor. His full title was praetor urbanus. Like the consuls, he was elected annually by the Centuriate Assembly. He came to be seen as a junior colleague of the consuls. He possessed imperium, but it was less than theirs: they were allowed to command two or more legions; he could command only one legion and was accompanied by only six lictors with fasces. Still, he had the purple-bordered toga, the curule chair (sella curulis), and all the other insignia of a higher magistrate. In the absence of the consuls or if deputized by them, a praetor could summon meetings of the Centuriate Assembly or the senate and perform all the executive functions of a consul.

The praetor’s ordinary duties may have been primarily the administration of justice within the city. That would have allowed the consuls to give their undivided attention to military and foreign affairs, and the patricians could still maintain internal control through the legal system. Eventually, however, men from plebeian gentes gained access to the praetorship, too.

Around 244 b.c.e., a second praetor was created, the praetor inter peregrinos (later, praetor peregrinus). His duties probably involved maintaining Roman authority among the foreign people (inter peregrinos) whom Rome had conquered in Italy and Sicily. Thenceforth, the praetorship took on the character of a separate magistracy independent of the consulship, and more praetors were added as the administrative needs of the state increased.

The curule aedileship

Another office, the curule aedileship, was also created in 367 to help with the expanding burdens of municipal administration. There were two curule aediles, so called because, unlike the two existing plebeian aediles, they had the right to the curule chair. The first curule aediles were patricians, but men from plebeian gentes were later eligible in alternate years. They were elected by the comitia tributa. Their functions were basically the same as those of the plebeian aediles (pp. 86–7).

The cursus honorum

The hierarchical course of offices (cursus honorum) that marked an aristocratic political career for centuries was now all in place: quaestor, aedile, praetor, consul, and censor, in ascending order. Because they were officers of the plebs only, not magistrates of the whole state, the tribunes of the plebs stood outside of this cursus. So, too, did the office of dictator, which was an emergency creation and not an expected part of a regular career.

After 367 b.c.e., offices not open to leaders from plebeian gentes soon yielded to their pressure. The dictatorship fell to a plebeian in 356; the censorship in 351. Then, in 339, the lex Publilia of the plebeian dictator Q. Publilius Philo provided that one censor had to be a plebeian. Finally, plebeians gained access to the praetorship in 337. To prevent any one person from monopolizing power in high offices, it was also made illegal for a magistrate to hold more than one curule office (an office that allowed the holder a curule chair: curule aedile, praetor, consul, censor) in any one year or the same curule office twice within ten years.

Promagistracies

As Roman affairs became more complicated, the yearly magistrates were not numerous enough to handle all of the administrative and military tasks required. In order to create officers with the requisite authority, therefore, the senate resorted to the creation of acting magistrates called promagistrates. The first use of this new device was at the siege of Naples in 327 b.c.e., at the start of the Second Samnite War (p. 108). It seemed advisable that the consul who started the siege remain in command after his normal year of office. Therefore, the senate voted to retain him in place of a consul, pro consule, when his consulship officially ended. A magistrate who had his power extended in this way was said to have been prorogued. Although prorogation was used sparingly at first, promagistrates became quite common, especially proconsuls and propraetors, as the empire grew.

Admission of plebeians to religious offices

Another legislative reform of 367 permitted plebeian gentes to a share in the responsibility of looking after and interpreting the Sibylline Books. This task had been an exclusive prerogative of the patrician duoviri sacris faciundis (p. 93). Some duoviri had used the Sibylline Books to block proposals for social, political, and economic reform. The college was expanded to a board of ten men (decemviri), five of whom had to be from plebeian gentes, to take charge of these books.

One of the last patrician bulwarks was control of the major priesthoods. In 300 b.c.e., the lex Ogulnia increased the pontiffs to eight and the augurs to nine. It required four pontiffs and five augurs to be plebeian. The only priests who still had to be patricians were the rex sacrorum; the flamens of Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus; and the Salii, or Leaping Priests.

Lifetime senators and the senatorial aristocracy

By the end of the fourth century b.c.e., appointment to the senate conferred lifetime membership. Two hundred years of almost yearly warfare (see next chapter) had made clear the need for some permanent body to provide experienced and consistent guidance in the face of annually changing generals and high officials. Since the yearly consuls appointed many senators from the ranks of ex-consuls, there was already a shared identity between senators and consuls. That and an innate Roman respect for precedent probably favored the reappointment of senators year after year, even in the fifth century b.c.e. The lex Ovinia (dated between 339 and 318 b.c.e.), however, formalized the automatic admission of ex-magistrates to the senate for life.

Senators had to be worth at least 100,000 of Rome’s basic monetary unit, the bronze as, which weighed one Roman pound (p. 115). The censors could remove from the senate anyone who fell below that limit or acted immorally. The censors could also add men whom they deemed worthy in order to keep up the number of senators, probably around 300 by this time.

Some men who had no senatorial ancestors but met the property requirement were elected to one of the lower magistracies of the cursus honorum and gained admission to the senate. Such a man was a “new man” (novus homo). As a wealthy landowner, however, his interests usually coincided with those of men from established senatorial families. His family now joined them as part of the hereditary senatorial aristocracy and usually shared their conservative outlook. Still, there were always some senators willing for one reason or another to help those nonaristocrats who were not satisfied with the status quo.

Removal of patrician control over law and voting

In 339 b.c.e., when the dictator Publilius Philo promulgated the law which said that one of the censors had to be from a plebeian gens, Rome was at war against former Latin allies (pp. 105–6), and the lower classes were angry over the unfair distribution of land. Against that background, Publilius Philo was able to obtain passage of one or two other laws that reduced patrician power. One, if genuine, affirmed that plebiscites were legally binding on all citizens. The other required that the patres give their sanction (patrum auctoritas) to bills before the assemblies started voting. In this way, the patricians had to state any objections beforehand. They could not find another excuse to block a bill after a vote had occurred.

During the Second Samnite War (p. 108), Appius Claudius Caecus, censor in 312 b.c.e., was a patrician who sought support among the lower social orders. That he enrolled sons of freedmen in the senate may be an exaggeration. It was radical enough that he registered lower-born urban citizens throughout the twenty-seven then-existing rural tribes instead of just the four urban ones, where an individual’s vote carried less weight. This move was highly unpopular with other aristocrats. Therefore, in 304 b.c.e., the new censors reregistered them in only the four urban tribes.

This measure may well have been aimed at preventing the rise of social parvenus who would compete with the established patrician and plebeian families in the senate. In that very year, Cn. Flavius, the son of a freedman and supposed protégé of Appius Claudius, had been elected aedile and, therefore, qualified for admission to the senate. That may be the basis of the story that Appius enrolled the sons of freedmen. As aedile, Flavius made available for the first time in convenient form the procedures and official calendar necessary to give the average citizen better access to the courts. He even advertised his support of the lower classes by dedicating a shrine to the goddess Concordia (Harmony) in the Forum.

In 300 b.c.e., the consul M. Valerius Maximus obtained a law that guaranteed the right of appeal, provocatio, from a magistrate’s sentence of death or whipping within the city. About 290, another law abolished the patricians’ veto over the election of magistrates. It also required that they ratify the results of elections in advance.

Finally, in ca. 287 b.c.e., the aftermath of the long, tedious Samnite wars (pp. 104–5) apparently brought another crisis over debts, with the plebs seceding to the Janiculum Hill across the Tiber. According to the traditional view, the consuls appointed the plebeian Q. Hortensius as a dictator to deal with the situation. He supposedly obtained a law, the lex Hortensia, which specified that whatever the plebs had enacted bound the whole people. That principle, however, seems already evident in both 449 (p. 89) and 339. The “law” ascribed to Hortensius may be no more than a standard legal formula attached to some unknown plebiscites, or Hortensius may have been only a pontiff issuing some legal ruling. The latter view is consistent with evidence that he also modified the Roman calendar, which the pontiffs controlled, to permit people to conduct legal business in Rome on market days. That measure would have been popular with small farmers from the countryside because those days would have been the most convenient for them to be in Rome.

The oligarchic realities of the Roman republican constitution after 287 b.c.e.

Whatever the precise nature of the lex Hortensia might be, an analysis of known laws enacted from about 300 to the end of the Republic shows that tribunes introduced about half of them in the concilium plebis. Therefore, some historians have called the republican constitution that had evolved by ca. 287 b.c.e. truly democratic. Others, like the second-century b.c.e. Greek historian Polybius (p. 75), have called that constitution a mixture, a blend of the three “good” types of constitution defined by Greek theorists: monarchy, represented by the magistrates; aristocracy, represented by the senate; and democracy, represented by the tribunes of the plebs and the popular assemblies. According to this theory, each branch balanced the other, so that one could not become more powerful at the expense of the other two. Both views are wrong.

The Republic was controlled by a powerful oligarchy. It was made up of those wealthy landowners from patrician and plebeian gentes who had held the office of consul. They constituted a consular nobility within the senate, whose lower-ranking members were also wealthy patrician and plebeian landowners from the highest census class. Moreover, they and their families were linked together by countless intermarriages, adoptions, personal friendships, shared experiences, and business dealings.

In a society that was extremely hierarchical and conscious of rank and prestige, modern egalitarian ideals did not exist. It was naturally assumed that some men were better than others. Business in the senate, for example, was conducted along strict lines of seniority in rank. At each census, the censors designated one of the prestigious ex-consuls as the princeps senatus, first man of the senate. This man gave his opinions first in debate. Then the other senators gave their opinions in descending order of rank according to the highest office yet held: censor, consul, praetor, aedile, quaestor, and, after the eventual admission of tribunes, tribune. Usually, the current holders of each office were the first of their rank to speak, but in 82 b.c.e. the magistrates-elect received that honor. Debate seldom went beyond senators of praetorian rank before the topic was exhausted. At that point, the membership voted by dividing, walking to one side of the room or the other. The men of the lower ranks were called pedarii because the only way that they usually had to express themselves was with their feet, pedes, as they walked across the room.

Under this system, then, it is clear that senatorial debate would have been framed by the consular nobility and would have proceeded along lines laid down by the early speakers. That is especially true because most of the men of lower rank often had been elected to their magistracies through the help of consular nobles and looked to their continued goodwill for election to higher office. Therefore, they were most likely to side with their consular patrons on a particular issue to avoid giving offense.

For the same reason, magistrates during their brief year of office were not really independent of the noble-dominated senate. They depended for advice on the collective wisdom of the ex-magistrates who constituted the senate. They themselves were looking to become senators if they were not already. Those who already were senators hoped to advance in rank. Just to stand for election, candidates for the offices of the senatorial cursus honorum normally had to be of a certain age, be of the highest census class, and have their candidacies accepted in person in Rome by the existing magistrate presiding over the voting. Even the consuls were dependent on the senate for funds and for appointment to prestigious or lucrative military commands and, after the acquisition of an overseas empire, provincial governorships. Accordingly, there was great pressure to conform to the wishes of the powerful consulars in the senate, who formed a virtual oligarchy.

Some of the tribunes of the plebs, wealthy men from plebeian gentes who started out as protectors of the common citizens, became co-opted by this oligarchy. As the number of plebeian families who had held high office and joined the senate grew, many of the new tribunes tended to be young men from their ranks who were starting out on political careers. Naturally, most of them desired to cooperate with the consular nobles, who controlled the senate. They were willing to exercise their vetoes over fellow tribunes in the interest of powerful nobles. Although it is not clear when, tribunes eventually were admitted to the ranks of senators, even though they were not strictly part of the cursus honorum.

Finally, one must not confuse the strong element of popular sovereignty represented by the various popular assemblies with democracy. Assemblies could not even meet unless they were summoned by one of the tribunes or magistrates, all of whom came from the wealthy land-owning class. Moreover, that same class dominated the voting in these assemblies. During most of the Republic, of course, the comitia curiata was merely a pro forma carryover from the past, so that there was little need to influence it one way or another. The comitia centuriata, comitia tributa, and concilium plebis were different, however. They had exclusive rights to elect magistrates and pass legislation, and they had important judicial functions. As already explained, because of the unit-voting procedure, the 193 centuries of the comitia centuriata were dominated by the ninety-eight centuries belonging to men of the wealthiest census class, the large landowners (p. 92). The situation was hardly changed by a slight reform, sometime between 241 and 215 b.c.e. (probably 220 b.c.e.), that necessitated voting by the second-highest census class before a majority could be reached.

The unit-vote rule also stifled the vote of the ordinary citizen in the comitia tributa and concilium plebis. In both of these meetings, voting took place by tribe. After 241 b.c.e., the number of tribes in which all Roman citizens were enrolled became fixed at four urban and thirty-one rural. Obviously, the large numbers of landless urban dwellers, who had only four votes, were outweighed by the thirty-one votes of the rural tribes. Furthermore, since all voting had to be done at Rome, the small landowners in the rural tribes were at a great disadvantage in comparison with the wealthy landowners, who maintained houses in Rome or could afford to go to Rome to vote. Even if a small landowner did get to Rome to vote, he was probably a client of a neighboring large landowner who was his patron. He often would have voted as his patron wished (p. 60). Thus, wealthy landowners heavily influenced many voters in the rural tribes of the comitia tributa and concilium plebis at the same time that they dominated the comitia centuriata, the senate, and the magistracies, and served as priests who could block public business by religious means.

After the wealthy landowners from plebeian gentes had gained political equality with the patricians, the interests of all large landowners were essentially the same for a long time. Therefore, wealthy landowners outside the senate had little incentive to challenge the patricio-plebeian consular nobles who dominated it. Although debt probably continued to be a problem for many, the ordinary citizens had made some important gains over the preceding two centuries: removal of the threat of enslavement for debt, protection from the arbitrary use of magisterial power, a more open legal system, and some successful attempts to obtain land for those without it. These gains sufficed to make them willing to accept the rule of their “betters” in the socio-political hierarchy. It is not coincidental that in the phrase which came to stand for the Roman government, “The Senate and the Roman People” (Senatus Populusque Romanus [S.P.Q.R.]), the senate came first.

Consequently, for a long period, there was no serious challenge to the small group of consular nobles in the senate who exercised great influence over the affairs of state. That would come 150 years later, only after conditions had greatly changed. Even then, however, the popular will could not be legally expressed except through the election of tribunes and magistrates from the ranks of the highest census classes who were willing to promote popular legislation in the teeth of fierce and often successful opposition from the ranks of those peers whom they were challenging for political leadership.

Suggested reading

Lintott , A. W. The Constitution of the Roman Republic. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Raaflaub , K. A., ed. Social Struggles in Archaic Rome: New Perspectives on the Conflict of the Orders. 2^nd ed. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

Stewart , R. Public Office in Early Rome. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999.