The Belly and the Limbs: Reconsidering the Idea of a Plebeian “State Within the State” in the Early Roman Republic DISSERTAT
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Belly and the Limbs: Reconsidering the Idea of a Plebeian “State Within the State” in the Early Roman Republic DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Gregory George Pellam, Jr. Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2012 Dissertation Committee: Professor Nathan Rosenstein, Advisor Professor Greg Anderson Professor Kristina Sessa Copyright by Gregory George Pellam, Jr. 2012 Abstract This dissertation offers a reevaluation of a long-standing model for the early history of the Roman Republic. Modern scholars have generally believed that the Roman plebs in the first two centuries of the Republic (roughly the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.) was essentially a revolutionary political organization, dedicated to increasing the rights and opportunities of plebeians and overthrowing the patrician monopoly over political, social, religious, and economic power. According to this model, a series of institutions which were dominated by patrician authority (the consulship, the senate, the centuriate assembly) represented the state, and the plebeian organization created its own institutions to mirror these (the tribunes and aediles of the plebs, and a plebeian tribal assembly). Further, the plebs established for itself an administrative center for its political activities on the Aventine hill. They even created their own cult center in the temple of Ceres, Liber, and Libera, to mirror the “state” cult of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva on the Capitoline. This plebeian organization is often referred to in modern scholarship as a “state within the state”. It is shown, however, that the evidence for the plebeian “state within the state” does not stand careful scrutiny. The notion that the plebs was a self-conscious organization opposed to patrician power finds little support in the evidence. Instead, it is seen that during the early Republic it is likely that plebeian leaders had to compete with the patricians to gain the support and favor of the majority of citizens. Further, chapters ii on the cult of Ceres and on the Aventine hill show that these were not associated particularly with the plebs, but were rather integral to the civic identity and ideology of the community as a whole. Finally, it is shown that the tribunes, aediles, and tribal assembly, far from constituting an extra-constitutional “state within the state”, operated very much like the institutions usually considered to be the state. Instead, the political struggle between plebeian and patrician institutions was a struggle among aristocrats from each group over the extent of the power of the institutions. Far from being a struggle between patricians and plebeians per se, the political contests of this period represented a struggle between patricians and prominent plebeians over the support of the mass of plebeians. iii For Plutarch, Julio, Nestor, Penelope, Kalypso, Hadrian, Scipio, and Cornelia— PARVIS FVRENTIBVS iv Acknowledgments The young scholar who often seeks but too rarely heeds the advice of his betters incurs many debts, which he gets few opportunities to repay. Therefore, I take great joy in being able at last to acknowledge some of the people who have helped me along the way. First, I must express my gratitude to my advisor, Nathan Rosenstein, not only for his intellectual guidance, but also for his patient tutelage of a frustrating student. Greg Anderson has helped me immeasurably over the years to improve as a scholar and as a professional. Thanks are due, too, to the final member of my dissertation committee, Kristina Sessa, who took on the duty at very late notice and was still able to offer many helpful comments. I could not have hoped for a better committee to embolden me to challenge long-held theories. I have also benefitted countless times from the wisdom and sound good sense of William Batstone, who has done more than anyone else to turn me from a decipherer of Latin grammar to a reader of texts. So much of my intellectual development took place outside of the classroom, in exchange with Leon Wash, amicus humanissimus, that an idea can hardly be found herein whose seeds were not sown in conversation with him. I will forever be grateful to my mother, Laura Edwards, and sister, Sara Showkeir. So often it seemed as though the three of us were alone in the world, but we made it together, and each of us prospers in our own way. Finally, I owe everything to my wife, Samantha, without whose love, v support, advice, cajoling, and understanding, I would still be a community college dropout and a very unhappy man. vi Vita March 22, 1982 ..............................................Born, Fountain Valley, CA 2000................................................................Gordon Keifer Independent Study School 2005................................................................B.A. Classics, SUNY at Buffalo 2008................................................................M.A. History, The Ohio State University 2005- 2011 .....................................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of History, The Ohio State University 2010- 2011 .....................................................Adjunct Professor, Department of History, Capital University 2010- 2012 .....................................................Adjunct Professor, Department of Classics, Wright State University 2011- 2012 .....................................................Visiting Instructor, Department of Classics, Ohio Wesleyan University Fields of Study Major Field: History vii Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………...….ii Dedication …………………...………………………………………………………...…iv Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….….v Vita…………………………………………………………………...…………..……...vii List of Figures………………………………………………………….……...……….…ix Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………....1 Chapter 2: Ceres and the Religion of the Plebs………………………………………….33 Chapter 3: The Aventine and the Plebs…………………………………………………..89 Chapter 4: The Development of the Roman State……………………………………...117 Chapter 5: Conclusion……………………………………………………………….….182 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………186 Appendix: A Peculiar Episode from the “Struggle of the Orders”?................................193 viii List of Figures Figure 1. Suggested locations of the Temple of Ceres. ................................................. P.52 ix Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 The Problem In many ways, what I am about to propose is a radical revision of early Roman history. In many respects, however, the view which I will propose is a very old one. It is new in that it calls into question a major element of the interpretive model which modern scholars have used to understand the social and political history of the early Republic— the notion that the plebs Romana constituted a self-conscious political movement, which created for itself an extra-constitutional and revolutionary “state within the state”, complete with its own religion, territory, and political and civic institutions. My proposal is old, however, insofar as it finds as its firmest support a reconsideration of how ancient authors of later periods understood their own early history. The primary goal of the following dissertation is to answer the most important question about the domestic history of the early Roman Republic. Modern scholars generally believe that a struggle between patricians and plebeians began in the early years of the Republic (beginning with the death of Tarquinius Superbus in 495 BC) and did not end until the passage of the lex Hortensia of 287 BC granted to the assembly of the plebs the power to legislate without restriction. But this narrative raises a severe problem. Even at the height of its powers, the patriciate represented only a tiny minority of the Roman population. On the other hand, our ancient sources identify the plebs as reflecting the entire Roman citizen body outside of the patriciate. But besides consisting of nearly 1 the entire population, the plebs was also, from its inception, a political movement—one that had all of the trappings and self-conscious identity of a separate state. How can it be that the “struggle of the orders”, reckoned as a sustained and open conflict between patricians and plebeians, the dominant theme of the political social history of the early Roman Republic, lasted for more than two centuries? My solution to this problem will rest with a reconsideration of what, exactly, the plebs was. I shall argue that we ought to follow our ancient sources when they state, universally and unequivocally, that the plebs even in the early Republic was, in fact, the entire citizen body outside of the patriciate. As such, the word itself was in essence a way of referring to the Roman population. That is not to say that the word was from the earliest Republic interchangeable with populus, as it would become for later generations of Romans, but that it was a particular way of thinking and speaking of the Roman people. In this sense, it was the patriciate which excluded and separated itself from the Roman people—setting itself above the rest of the population—rather than the plebs separating itself from the community as a whole. The plebs, then, being the great majority of the population, consisted of such diverse elements that it would be very difficult to imagine it ever coalescing as a unified political movement opposed to the patricians as a class. But a powerful edifice has been