Popular Political Participation in the Late Roman Republic
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
POPULAR POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN THE LATE ROMAN REPUBLIC By Claudine Lana Earley A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Classics Victoria University of Wellington 2009 i ABSTRACT Roman democracy is in fashion. In particular, the publication of Fergus Millar’s The Crowd in the Late Republic (1998) has stimulated debate on the democratic elements in Roman government during this period. In this thesis I examine the nature of popular participation in the late Roman Republic. I focus on the decision-making power of the populus Romanus and popular pressure to effect reform in the favour of citizens outside the senatorial and equestrian orders. My findings are based on analysis of ancient literary and epigraphic sources, along with a critique of modern research on the topic. The first chapter introduces the subject with a survey of current scholarly opinion and discussion of key concepts and terms. Chapter Two investigates how power was shared between senatus populusque Romanus and the distribution of power in the assemblies, concluding that participation was widespread as a result of the changing circumstances in the late Republic. As farmers and veterans moved to Rome, and slaves were freed and granted citizenship and the right to vote, the balance was tipped ii in the favour of the non-elite voter. Each class of the populus Romanus could participate in Roman politics, and certainly members of each did. Having concluded my analysis of the formal avenues of participation, I move onto the informal. Chapter Three is the first of three chapters of case studies focusing on demonstrations and collective action which form the heart of this work. The first set of studies cover secession, mutiny and refusal of the draft. Chapter Four continues with studies of popular pressure to gain reforms to improve the food supply, restore tribunician power, obtain relief from crippling debt and land shortage. The final chapter of analysis, Chapter Five, investigates collective action at contiones , legislative assemblies, trials, ludi et gladiatores , triumphs, funerals, and elections. The findings of these three chapters bring me to the conclusion that Rome was a democracy, if of a particular type. The nature of popular political participation in the late Republic resembled that of an emerging democracy with the non-elite gaining an increasing role in the decision-making process, albeit without constitutional definition. The citizens’ right to participate in the formal assemblies was augmented by their ability to take part in less formal ways also. These informal methods ranged from popular involvement in contiones through to the application of pressure on senators iii through the threat of secession and mutiny. Only the rise of the principate, with formalised roles for the various sectors in society under one leader, brought these developments to an end. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe my office mates over the years a debt of gratitude for their good company and patience. Thank you Mamari Stephens, Stephanie Head, Kosal Kong, Joe Sheppard, Jody Connor, Pippa Ström, Cynthia Werner, Simon Perris and Tania Hayes. And I must not forget those in the office next door who had their influence through the wall, especially Jayendra Chhana. Hannah Webling deserves to be singled out for her outstanding service to the postgraduates in the Classics programme. I would also like to thank Jeff Tatum for sending me his (then) unpublished chapter “Roman democracy?” and my supervisor Professor Art Pomeroy for his fine editing skills. I would never have been able to conduct my research without the help of the awesome interloans team at the university library and the generous scholarships offered by the university. Finally, I dedicate this to Aaron and our boys, whose affection, support and understanding encouraged me to complete this thesis. v CONTENTS Abstract i Acknowledgements iii Contents iv CHAPTER 1: Introduction: Some kind of democracy? 1 CHAPTER 2: Senatus Populusque Romanus: 23 Power sharing between senate and people; The distribution of power in the assemblies CHAPTER 3: Demonstrations and Collective Action I: 102 Secession, mutiny and refusal of the draft; The nature of popular demonstrations, their leadership, organisation and composition CHAPTER 4: Demonstrations and Collective Action II: 150 food supply, restoration of tribunicia potestas , debt relief and agrarian reform CHAPTER 5: Demonstrations and Collective Action III: 246 contiones , legislative assemblies, trials, ludi et gladiatores , triumphs, champions, funerals, elections, senatorial responses vi CHAPTER 6: Conclusion: What kind of democracy? 312 Bibliography 316 1 INTRODUCTION: SOME KIND OF DEMOCRACY? Popular political participation in the late Roman Republic took many forms. The people voted in tribes to pass laws. Citizens gathered in centuries to elect consuls. The plebs refused the levy to secure new laws for debt relief. It is the purpose of this thesis to examine these formal practices and informal incidents in order to evaluate the nature of the democratic elements during this period. In this introduction, I will include a preliminary survey of political power in Rome, which will be continued in Chapter Two; a review of the latest scholarly opinions on the topic of the people’s role in Roman politics; some reflections on the state of democracy today; and finally definitions of democracy and the people involved in the late Republican context. The Roman people shared power with the senate. The Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus expresses the fundamentals of this power- sharing arrangement: We have had a law so long as we have inhabited this city by which the Senate is invested with sovereign power in everything except the appointing of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the declaration or termination of wars; and the power of determining these three matters rests with the people, by their votes. (6.66.3) 2 As Dionysius points out, Roman citizens decided who was invested with magisterial power, which bills became law and whether to begin or end conflict. These were the formal powers of the Roman people. I propose to assess the degree to which the people ( populus Romanus ) acted as the sovereign body of the late Roman Republic (ca. 133-50 BC), but will include episodes outside this period when they shed light on my analysis. 1 The focus of my thesis will be on the level and effect of popular participation in both the formal side of the political process (especially elections and legislation) and the informal influence of the people on decision-making via demonstrations at public events and the contiones that preceded leglislative assemblies. There is currently no agreement on the arena in which the people exercised more power. Jeff Tatum, for instance, holds that “the people exercised its powers only when it was articulated into one of the city’s voting assemblies” for this was the only occasion in which they acted officially, 2 while Moses Finley suggests that popular power was expressed through 1 Analysis is best limited to this period because more sources from antiquity survive that were recorded during or shortly after the last 100 years of the Republic. See discussion below. 2 Tatum (2009: 4ff.). He finds the democratic element in the legislative assemblies but not the centuriate, whereas Yakobson (1999) argues that popular participation in electoral assemblies was significant and often decided the successful candidates. Based on the evidence of candidates’ focus on winning over the wider popular strata and analysis of property classes, Yakobson concludes that the votes of the many did count. 3 demonstrations and not assemblies, because magistrates dominated these and formal devices left little scope for popular participation. 3 Much will turn on the way we choose to define “the people” and “democracy” (along with its cognates). Millar’s The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic constitutes a preliminary study of the role of the people; my thesis will respond to Millar’s conclusions which, among other things, equate public performance of politics with the existence of democracy. 4 I am inclined to agree with Mary Beard and Michael Crawford who question Millar’s findings on two accounts. First, they point out that public action does not necessarily mean democratic action. 5 For this reason the following chapters include case studies of public action to assess its democratic elements. They also suggest that Millar broach the topic of population numbers, as we need to know how many participated before we can call a system participatory. 6 While they make a valid point, recent efforts have revealed that it is nigh on impossible to make any progress on the hoary old subject of population 3 Finley (1983: 86f., 91). 4 Millar (1998). 5 Similarly Mouritsen (2001: 46): “The fact than political proceedings are public does not in itself make them ‘democratic’. That depends entirely on who attends them and …. on the relationship between the meetings and the political decision-making.” 6 Beard and Crawford (1999: 90 f.). Cf. Millar (1998: 225). 4 numbers, so this topic, although discussed in my thesis, is not a focus of my work. I expect to find that popular opinion and pressure had a greater influence at the decision-making level of Roman government than previously supposed; there were democratic aspects in the late Republic. Popular power to influence decision-making increases in proportion to the limits placed on magisterial power. Recent research has suggested that we reconsider the power dynamic of Roman politics. 7 The unwritten Roman constitution, a combination of leges and iura tempered by mos and consuetudo (Cic. Leg. Man. 60), dictated that power was shared between the senate and people of Rome. Yet for a period classicists held that the elite controlled the state through clientela ,8 so that power lay in the hands of the senate.