Tuesday, August 05, 1997

Politics in Republican Rome

Roman Politics


The composition and operation of the Roman Republic has had a great influence on many subsequent governments in the western world. One can observe many parallels, as the republic straddles political ideology in both antiquity and modern times. Yet it must be noted that the
republic as it existed in Rome was fundamentally determined by its place in history, and modern values must therefore not be equated with those in antiquity. While the vote of the people was part of the system, Rome was largely oligarchical. Herein will be examined the arrangement of the governmental system and the practice of getting elected as it existed largely in the mid- to late- republic. Additionally, the methods by which power was controlled, especially by the aristocracy will be noted.
Fundamentally, the republic was structured on ancient tribal groupings that had existed for centuries before its foundation. These tribes, which were based on familial ties and ancient land holdings, gathered together to form the tribal assembly, or comitia tributa. The fate of legislation presented to this assembly was determined by a majority vote of the tribes, which in turn was determined by a majority vote of the individual members of each tribe. A second assembly was also used for voting purposes, although this one, the comitia centuriata, was organized by age and wealth in addition to tribal divisions. From this assembly can be felt the power of the nobility as voting was taken by century, those of the poor being greatly outnumbered by those of the aristocratic class. One of the main purposes of these assemblies was to elect the various magistracies that existed at Rome to govern both the city and the provinces. The lesser magistracies–the quaestors, aediles, and tribunes–were determined by the comitia tributa, while the most important positions–the praetors, consuls, and censors–were elected by the vote of the centuries. The third important assembly in Rome was the Senate, which was constituted of ex-magistrates. By the late republic its authorization was required to pass legislation and any decrees it issued were to be strictly adhered to. Ironically, the power of the senate was increased by the attempts of two plebian tribunes to bypass its power. In order to pass land redistribution and other laws to aid the lower and middle classes, the brothers Gracchi demonstrated the power of the tribunate to appeal to the people. In response to this the senate issued the senatus consultum ultimatum, which declared martial law and resulted in the deaths of the Gracchi. In subsequent decrees of the S.C.U., the senate ratified the bill to persecute its enemies, declaring them ‘enemies of the state.’ Subsequently, the power of the tribunes were greatly diminished, and the senate became further empowered. Therefore, it can be easily observed that structurally, power in Rome was under tight control of the nobles.
Nobility was of great importance in obtaining political office in Rome. There was never a salary paid to the various magistracies of Rome, therefore the political system revolved around an individual’s ambitions for power, honor, and fame. There were many methods to gain all three during an individual’s political career. In order to advance through the cursus honorum, which was the established legal sequence of holding the various magistracies from quaestor to censor, an aspiring politician had to establish a good public image. Such could be most immediately accomplished through military victory and its consequent triumph; additionally, a triumphator could immortalize their victory by erecting statues and monuments to themselves. Furthermore, military crises could result in the continual support of a prominent military officer to retain imperium longer than was legally allowable. Similarly, the senate may have been anxious that the glory that some politicians would gain in triumph would undermine their power, and thus they may have attempted to influence consular elections: in the war against Hannibal, the senate did not want M. Terentius Varro, a consul who was critical of their abilities, to validate his claims by defeating Hannibal and therefore another consul was given the command. What the senate feared most was that a triumphant consul who was critical of them would be elevated to the censorship, as did C. Flaminius.
A second method of advancement, and one which was far more accessible than military command, was public oratory, either before the assemblies or in one of the various courts of Rome. An aspiring politician who was a competent speaker could easily sway the assembly to their ideologies. One of the more common tools used by politicians was to stress the important, or even divine, status of their ancestors: Gaius Gracchus emphasized the supernatural events of his family history by relating a ‘prophetic’ dream that he had pertaining to his then-deceased brother Tiberius. Additionally, prestige and political respect derived from the public’s belief that a politician conducted himself in an appropriate manner in both the public and private spheres and that he was not influenced by ‘enemies of the state’ or by gaining profit at public expense. Consequently, many attacks were made against opponents using these suspicions as a basis to promote a rising politician’s own cause. Respect and prestige could also be gained be the display of oratorical skills in the popular courts. A successful prosecution or defense would greatly increase a budding politician’s popularity, as demonstrated by Cicero’s winning prosecution of Verres. Alternately, a politician might use the courts to conspire against his opponents and improve his popularity. A common tactic was to accuse an opponent of bribery to lessen his support. Other charges, such as extortion, were used against political opponents in an effort not only to discredit them, but also to advance the interests of a politician and his supporters. It seems likely that the trial of Rutilius Rufus was conducted to ensure the economic interests of the equites in Asia and their support of G. Marius against certain senators. Such accusations were common enough to warrant a politician’s attention. Therefore they needed to secure a good sized group of friends, or amici, to protect him from public charges: these friends would act as witnesses, jurors, magistrates, and advocates in court; they would also be important in election times.
Ironically, many of these supporters were gained through bribery, either implicitly or explicitly displayed. While monetary ‘donations’ to potential supporters were common enough, more often a politician would be more discrete, gaining sponsors by presenting lavish diners, purchasing expensive clothes for them, and treating them to free seats at spectacles. While many laws were enacted to curtail the extent of bribery in politics, such laws were easily bypassed. Instead of a politician presenting dinners himself, he could employ his friends to do so for him; additionally, a politician could use the divisores, tribal officials, to distribute bribes among a tribe of which he was not an official patron. If support was not to be found through an open wallet, it could also be gained with a closed fist. Physical harassment of voters was common enough to force reforms in the assembly: secret ballots provided anonymity and the narrowing of the galleries that led to the tribunal decreased violence before elections. It is notable that the use of bribery and violence as means to persuade the voters and eliminate political rivals was largely executed by the senators and other members of the wealthy aristocracy; it was they alone who could afford bribes and gangs of toughs to support their desires through physical coercion. The issuing of the senatus consultum ultimum to execute G. Gracchus and many of his followers is a good example of this. Similarly, the nobility could control the vote of the assemblies by securing the rural vote, either through bribery or violence. Therefore it can be easily seen that many successful politicians in the mid- to late-republic were wealthy aristocrats.
The republic in Rome cannot be called a democracy as it was largely oligarchical in nature. From it’s structure to the methods of getting and keeping power, the republic emphasized the power of the wealthy. Indeed, there are many instances of the nobles’ keeping control over the republic against lower class politicians, or supporters of lower class values, from usurping too much power over the state; the massacres of the Gracchi and their followers are prime examples of this. Therefore, because of this, the democratic nature of the republic should not be over stressed.


Bibliography

Alexander, M. “How Many Roman Senators Were Ever Prosecuted?” Phoenix 47 (1993), 238-255.

Kallett-Marx, R. “The Trial of Rutilius Rufus,” Phoenix 44 (1990), 122-139.

Lintott, A. “Electoral Bribery in the Roman Republic,” JRS 80 (1990), 1-16.

Marsh, Frank Burr. A History of the Roman World from 146 to 30 B.C. London: 1963.

McDonald, A.H. Republican Rome. London: 1966.

Millar, F. “Politics, Persuasion, and the People Before the Social War (150-90 B.C.),” JRS 76
(1986), 1-11.

Rawson, E. “Religion and Politics in the Late Second Century B.C. at Rome,” Phoenix 28 (1974),
192-212.

Rosenstein, N. “Competition and Crisis in Mid-Republican Rome,” Phoenix 47 (1993), 313-338.

Wiseman, T.P. “Competition and Co-operation,” Roman Political Life 90 B.C. - A.D. 69. Ed. T.P. Wiseman. Exeter, U.K.: 1985.