Tribal assembly

Last updated

The Tribal Assembly (Latin : Comitia (Populi) Tributa) was an assembly consisting of all Roman citizens convened by tribes (tribus).

Contents

In the Roman Republic, citizens did not elect legislative representatives. Instead, they voted themselves on legislative matters in the popular assemblies (the Comitia Centuriata, the Comitia Tributa, and the plebeian council). Bills were proposed by magistrates and the citizens only exercised their right to vote.

In the Tribal Assembly, citizens were organized on the basis of thirty-five tribes: four urban tribes of the citizens in the city of Rome, and thirty-one rural tribes of citizens outside the city. Each tribe voted separately and one after the other. In each tribe, decisions were made by majority vote, and its decision counted as one vote regardless of how many electors each tribe held. Once a majority of tribes had voted in the same way on a given measure, the voting ended, and the matter was decided. [1]

The Tribal Assembly was chaired by a magistrate, usually a consul or praetor. The presiding magistrate made all decisions on matters of procedure and legality. His power over the assembly could be nearly absolute. One check on his power came in the form of vetoes by other magistrates. Also, any decision made by a presiding magistrate could be vetoed by the plebeian tribunes.

The Tribal Assembly elected the quaestors, and the curule aediles. [2] It conducted trials for non-capital crimes. However, the dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla gave this responsibility to special jury courts (quaestiones perpetuae) in 82 BC.[ citation needed ] There are disagreements among modern historians regarding the number and nature of the tribal assembly (see below).

Definitions of types of assemblies

The Romans distinguished between two types of assemblies, the comitia (or comitatus) and the contio (contracted from conventio). The word comitia (coming together), which was the plural of comitium (a purpose-built meeting place), referred to assemblies convened to make decisions on legislative or judicial matters, or to hold elections. The word contio (coming together) referred to meetings where 'nothing was legally enacted'. They were convened to hear public announcements and pronouncements, speeches and debates, to witness the interrogation of someone accused of in a trial, and to watch executions. Opinions expressed in a contio did not have any legal validity. [3] The Tribal Assembly was a comitia. Private citizens who did not hold political office could make speeches in a contio, but not before a comitia or a concilium. [4] Citizens always assembled first in a contio to hear debates or to enable canvassing by electoral candidates before voting. The actual voting took place in a comitia or concilium (for this term, see below). [5]

Gellius wrote about a further distinction between comita and concilium, which he based on a quote from a passage written by Laelius Felix, a jurist of the early second-century:

He who orders not the entire people (populus) but some part thereof to be present ought to proclaim not a comitia, but a concilium. Moreover, the [plebeian] tribunes neither summon patricians nor have the power to propose anything to them. Thus, measures which were accepted on the proposal of the plebeian tribunes are not properly called laws (leges) but plebiscites. Patricians were not bound by these bills until the dictator Quintus Hortensius [287 BC] carried that law whereby all the Quirites (the Roman people) were bound by whatever the plebs had determined. [6]

This has been taken as referring to the assembly which was reserved for the plebeians (or plebs, the commoners), thus excluding the patricians (the aristocracy), and which was convened by the tribunes of the plebs – see plebeian council. Since the meetings of the plebs excluded the patricians, they were not considered as representing the whole of the Roman people and because of this, according to Laelius Felix, the term concilium applied to them. By contrast, the term comitia applied to assemblies which represented the whole of the Roman people. Measures passed by assemblies of the whole citizen body were called leges (laws), whereas those passed only by the plebeians were called plebiscites (resolutions of the plebs). Until the lex Hortensia passed by Quintus Hortensius in 287 BC, the patricians refused to accept the plebiscites as being binding on them on the ground that, because of their exclusion, did not apply to the whole of the people. [7]

Disagreements on the number and nature of tribal assemblies

Chart showing the checks and balances of the constitution of the Roman Republic Roman constitution.png
Chart showing the checks and balances of the constitution of the Roman Republic

Andrew Lintott notes that many modern historians follow Theodor Mommsen's view that during the Roman Republic there were two assemblies of the tribes and that the ancient sources used the term Comitia Tributa with reference both of them. One was the assembly by the tribes which was used for plebeian meetings to which the patricians were excluded and which was convened by the plebeian tribunes. The other assembly based on the tribes was convened by the consuls or the praetors, and was an assembly of the whole of the Roman people, both patricians and plebeians. However, the ancient sources did not have a differentiation in terminology for the two of them and used the term Comitia Tributa for both. [8]

Many modern historians use the term Comitia Tributa or Comitia Populi Tributa (Comitia Tributa of the people) to indicate meetings by the tribes which involved the whole of the Roman people (populus) and the term Concilium Plebis or Concilium Plebis Tributum (plebeian council by the tribes) for assemblies based on the tribes which were exclusively for the plebeians. However, they are not found in the ancient Roman literature related to the Roman Republic. Therefore, they denote a distinction which can be disputed. It is based on the text by Gellius quoted above.

Lintott notes that some modern historians reject the Comitia Tributa/Concilium Plebis distinction and the use of the quote by Gellius as its basis. They argue that this terminology is a convention established by modern historians which ancient writers did not make and that there was no assembly based on tribes other than the one where the plebeians met to vote and which was presided over by the plebeian tribunes, who submitted bills to its vote. References to laws which were submitted to the Comitia Tributa by the consuls in the ancient literature must have pertained to bills they presented to the Comitia Centuriata (the assembly of the soldiers, another voting assembly), a deviation from correct procedure found in the late Republic, or instances in which these officials had the plebeian tribunes propose bills for them. [9] [10] [11] Lintott disagrees with the notion that there was only one assembly based on the tribes, which was the one of the plebeians. He notes that there are examples in which laws were proposed to the Comitia Tributa by the consuls, who did not preside over the assembly of the plebeians. For example, the law that increased the number of quaestors to twenty, attributed to Lucius Cornelius Sulla; the lex Gabinia Calpurnia de insula Delo of 58 BC; and the lex Quinctia of 9 BC. Moreover, the consuls conducted the elections of the curule aediles, who were not plebeian officials, before the tribes. Therefore, it is likely that the term Comitia Tributa was used both for the assemblies presided over by the consuls and the praetors and the assemblies presided over by the plebeian tribunes. [12] Further, Livy mentions a Comitia Tributa that was convened by the consuls in 446 BC, during the early Republic. [13]

Forsythe presents a more recent account of the argument that the Comitia Tributa/Concilium Plebis distinction is a misplaced convention established by modern historians. He argues that it is found only in the quote by Gellius which comes from a text which was written in the imperial period; that is, after the fall of the Roman Republic and long after the assemblies of the Republic had ceased to function. This implies that Laelius Felix was not sufficiently familiar with these republican institutions. Forsythe argues that the distinctions between two assemblies based on the tribes "has no support in the extensive writings of Cicero and Livy, who must have been far more knowledgeable in these matters than Laelius Felix." Cicero lived during the late Republic. Livy was born during the late Republic and wrote a detailed history of the republican period. Forsythe also argues that the word comitia was used for formal assemblies convened 'to vote on legislative, electoral and judicial matters', and that concilium was a generic term 'for any kind of public meetings of citizens, including both comitia and contio.' His conclusion is that the mentioned distinction is an artificial modern construction with no authority in ancient texts, that 'the ancients speak only of a Comitia Tributa' and that it is likely that in Republican times there was a single tribal assembly known as Comitia Tributa. [14]

According to Roman tradition, in 494 BC, fifteen years after the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of the Roman Republic, the plebeians seceded from the city of Rome, which started the two hundred-year Conflict of the Orders between the patricians and the plebeians. During this first secession, the plebeians created their own institutions which were separate from those of the Roman state, which at that time was controlled by the patricians, and were intended to protect the interests of the plebeians. These included the plebeian tribunes, the plebeian aediles and the plebeian assembly.

Forsythe takes the revisionist view further. He rejects the idea there was a plebeian assembly and maintains that the Comitia Tributa was an assembly of the whole of the Roman people, and opines that the plebeian secession was a myth created in later times. Roman historians emerged in the late third and early second century BC, some three hundred years after the date attributed to this secession and the events of Rome's early history were poorly documented. Based on T. P. Wiseman's view that many of Rome's early historical traditions 'were created, propagated, accepted and reshaped' from the middle of the fourth century BC onward, through dramas played on the stage at religious festivals, [15] Forsythe argues that the story of the plebeian secession was invented to explain the origin of the temple of Ceres, and its plebeian associations. It was inspired by Herodotus' account of how Telines, a ruler of Gela, a Greek town in Sicily, used the rites of Demeter and Persephone to bring back to Gela a group of political exiles. This story of civil discord, reconciliation and integration and the cult of Demeter was used to fabricate the tale of the first plebeian secession where the plebeians seceded from Rome but were then reconciled and returned to the city. [16] The Ludi Ceriales (Games of Ceres) were held annually to celebrate the anniversary of the dedication of the temple of Ceres, which was dated by the tradition two years before the first secession. [17]

Assembly procedures

The convening of the assembly was announced three market-days (nundinae) in advance. The viatores (messengers) were sent "to inform those in country districts" about the convening of the assembly. [18] Later, for elections it was established that there should be a trinundinum, an interval of at least three market-days between the announcement of the election and the vote of the assembly, during which no legislation was permitted. The lex Caecilia Didia of 98 BC required a trinundinum interval between the announcement of a law and the vote. In the case of prosecutions before an assembly, the presiding magistrate was required to give notice (diem dicere) to the accused of the first day of the investigation (inquisitio), then at the end of each hearing he announced the adjournment to the next (diem prodicere). After this, there was a trinundinum interval before the assembly voted the verdict. [19] There are disagreements among scholars about how many days this interval lasted. Mommsen proposes 24 days, Michels 25 days. Lintott gives a flexible suggestion, 17 days or more. [20] [21] [22]

There could be only one assembly operating at a time. The augur Marcus Valerius Messalla Rufus (who was consul in 53 BC) wrote a rule book (On Auspices). Among other things, it established that lesser magistrates could not call off (avocare, call away) an assembly which had already been convened. Thus, "whoever of them first summons the people to an election has the law on his side, because it is unlawful to take the same action twice with the people nor can one minor magistrate call away an assembly from another." However, a consul could call off a comitia or contio convened by another magistrate and a praetor could call off one summoned by magistrates other than a consul. If an assembly was called "to address a contio without laying any measure before them, it was lawful for any number of magistrates to hold a contio at the same time. [23] Lintott suggests that this rule was intended to prevent rivalry among magistrates. [22]

In addition to the presiding magistrate of an assembly, several other magistrates acted as assistants, to help resolve procedural disputes, and to provide a mechanism for electors to appeal the decisions of the presiding magistrate. [24] Since the Romans believed that the gods communicated their approval or disapproval with proposed actions, the presiding magistrate performed augury (the divination of the omens of the gods) the night before a meeting. There were also augurs (priests who performed augury), either in attendance or on-call, who would be available to help interpret the omens of the gods. [25] The meeting could only proceed if the omens were favourable. On several occasions, presiding magistrates claiming unfavourable omens suspended sessions that were not going the way they wanted. If after the assembly, the augurs decided that some formality had been neglected, its vote became void. In the case of elections, those persons who had been elected to an office had to resign. [26]

There were several means by which an assembly could be adjourned. Besides unfavourable auspices, this could happen on religious grounds when the gods manifested their displeasure by rain, thunder, or lightning, or if the sun set before the proceedings were completed: the last because the auspices were considered valid only for one day, from dawn to sunset. Other reasons were the veto of a plebeian tribune, or if one of the assembled citizens suffered an epileptic fit (morbus comitialis). In the politically volatile years of the late Republic, assemblies were sometimes broken up by riots. If an assembly convened as a court, its being broken up was equivalent to an acquittal of the accused. [26]

On the day of the vote, the tribes convened at dawn. The meeting started with a prayer, unaccompanied by sacrifice. [27] For legislative meetings, the presiding magistrate was the one who proposed the bill (rogatio legis) to be voted on, and after the prayer he laid his bill before the people. For electoral meetings, he announced the names of the candidates. If the meeting was for a trial, he acquainted the people with the nature of the offence on which the people had to pass a verdict. He concluded the announcement with the words velitis, jubeatis Quirites (command your wish, citizens). A rogatio was read out by the praeco (the crier or herald). Then the contio begun. The voters were not sorted into their tribes. For legislative matters there was a debate on the rogatio in which private citizens had to ask the presiding magistrate for permission to speak. This debate took place before the bill was vetoed or put to the vote. [26] [28] If the vote was for an election, the candidates used the contio for canvassing, and there were no speeches by private citizens. [29]

After the above, the voters were told to break up the contio and to arrange themselves by the tribes with the formula discedite, quirites (depart to your separate groups, citizens). The tribes voted one by one. The voters assembled in enclosures called saepta [30] and voted by placing a pebble or written ballot into an appropriate jar. The baskets (cistae) that held the votes were watched by officers (the custodes) who then counted the ballots and reported the results to the presiding magistrate. [31] The majority of votes in each tribe decided how that tribe voted. The presiding magistrate (either a consul or a praetor) ensured that each tribe had at least five members voting; if a tribe did not, then individuals from other tribes were reassigned to the vacant places in that tribe. [32] The order in which the tribes voted was determined by lot. An urn into which lots were cast was brought in. From this point, the plebeian tribunes were not allowed to exercise their right to veto. [33] The first tribe to vote was called praerogativa or principium and the result of its vote was announced immediately. [34] The tribes which voted next were called jure vocatae. [26] When a majority of tribes had voted the same way, voting ended. The results of votes of each tribe was announced in an order also determined by lot before the announcement of the final result. This announcement was called renuntiatio. [27] The praerogativa or principium was usually the most important tribe, because it often decided the matter through a bandwagon effect. It was believed that the order of the lot was chosen by the gods, and thus, that the position held by the tribes which voted earlier was the position of the gods. [35] If the voting process was not complete by nightfall, the electors were dismissed, and the voting had to begin again the next day. [36] Laws passed by the comitia took effect as soon as the results were announced. [27]

It has been speculated that the word suffragium (vote) indicates that in the early days the men in the assembly made a crash with their arms to signal approval, rather than vote. Another speculation is that the term rogatores (sing. rogator, a teller, an official who asked the people for their votes or collected votes) indicates that in later times, but before the introduction of the written ballot, the assembled men were asked to express their votes verbally, and that this was recorded with marks inscribed in tablets. However, there is no evidence for either of these. The written ballot was introduced by a series of laws, the lex Gabinia tabellaria (139 BC) for elections, the lex Cassia tebellaria (137 BC) for non-capital punishment trials, the lex Papiria (131 BC) for legislation, and the lex Coelia (106 BC) for capital punishment trials (which were conducted before the Comitia Centuriata ). This was an introduction of secret ballots, which reduced undue influence or intimidation by the powerful elites, which had until then been a problem. [37]

Although the order of voting was determined by lot, there was also an official order of the tribes, known as the ordo tribuum. The first four tribes were the urban tribes, in the order: Suburana, Palatina, Esquilina, Collina. The rural tribes followed, concluding with Aniensis. Crawford postulates that the rustic tribes were enumerated along the major roads leading from Rome (the Viae Ostiensis, Appia, Latina, Praenestina, Valeria, Salaria, Flaminia and Clodia), in a counter-clockwise order: Romilia, Voltinia, Voturia, Aemilia, Horatia, Maecia, Scaptia, Pomptina, Falerina, Lemonia, Papiria, Ufentina, Terentina, Pupinia, Menenia, Publilia, Cornelia, Claudia, Camilia, Aniensis, Fabia, Pollia, Sergia, Clustumina, Quirina, Velina, Stellatina, Tromentina, Galeria, Sabatina, Arniensis. This list omits the tribus Popillia, one of the earlier tribes. [38]

The location of the meetings of the Tribal Assembly varied. Up to 145 BC, they were centred on the comitium , a templum (open-air space) built for public meetings at the north end of the Roman Forum. The rostra , a speaking platform on the southern side of the comitium, was used for speeches. It was also used as a tribunal; that is, as a platform to deliver the votes. Once this place became too crowded, the steps of the Temple of Castor and Pollux at the forum's south-east end were used as the tribunal. Elevated gangways (pontes) which provided access to the tribunal were built by the second century BC. Meetings were also sometimes held in the area Capitolina, an open space in front and around the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, on the southern summit of the Capitoline Hill. In the late Republic, the meetings were held outside the city walls, at the Campus Martius (the Field of Mars) a large flat area that could accommodate the simultaneous voting of all the tribes, thus speeding up the process. [39]

Decline

In the politically volatile final years of the Roman Republic, the popular assemblies were susceptible to corruption, and vulnerable to politically-motivated violence by contending political factions. The establishment of the Second Triumvirate in 43 BC effectively abolished the functions of the comitia, as the triumvirs were granted authority by the lex Titia to appoint practically all offices without consulting the senate or the people. [40] Some actions were still passed using the assemblies, with certain laws providing for the erection of temples, the remission of rents in 41 BC, and the lex Falcidia governing inheritance in 40 BC; [40] similarly, various laws granting the triumvirs the right to wear the civic crown [40] were passed by plebiscite, as it would have been unseemly for them to grant themselves those honours. [40]

With the establishment of absolute rule by the emperors after the fall of the Republic, the Republican assemblies were emasculated. Augustus, the first emperor, became the real legislator and the comitia's role in passing laws became only a ceremonial one. He also removed the comitia's judicial functions, though these functions had fallen into disuse long before. [41] This assembly's electoral functions also became nominal, with the assemblies being dominated by the emperor. [42] Augustus filled half of the magistracies with his own candidates, though the magistracies as a whole had, by this point, so little political importance that imperial control over elections was minimal. [42] His successor, Tiberius transferred the comitia's remaining electoral authority to the senate. [42] Although the emperors received many of their powers from the Comitia Tributa, this was only a formality. The Comitia Tributa continued to exist until the third century AD, but its remaining functions were only symbolic. It took auspices and gave prayer. It conferred the emperor's legislative powers and other authority only in a ceremonial manner. It proclaimed the laws presented to it for approval by acclamatio , rather than a real vote. [27]

Tribes

The thirty-five tribes were not ethnic or kinship groups, but geographic divisions into which Roman citizens were distributed. They were administrative districts which served for the purposes of taxation, the military levy, and for the registration of citizens. This registration occurred regularly during the census, and the names of citizens and their families were entered in the registers of the tribes. Lintott notes that "the tribe was the critical indicator of Roman citizenship" for the adult sons of Roman fathers and also for "those incorporated into the citizen body from the outside". A man who came of age was enrolled as an adult in the tribe of his father, and could change it only through adoption into another family. Inhabitants of Italic towns who were incorporated into the Roman state by being given Roman citizenship were also registered in tribes. Consequently, "the tribe might therefore, come to bear little relationship to the whereabouts of the citizen's domicile or property." [43] With regard to the tribal assembly, the tribes were its voting districts. Each tribe had further subdivisions, which in the urban tribes were called vici (sing. vicus, in an urban context it meant neighbourhood) and in the rural tribes were called pagi (sing. pagus – which were rural sub-districts with a number of vici (which in a rural context meant villages and hamlets) and had a fortress. Professional guilds (collegia), were organised along tribal lines.

The tribes were originally presided over by tribuni aerarii (tribunes of the public treasury) who had the tribal register, collected the property tax, and paid the soldiers registered in the tribe. [44] Later this title became obsolete, and the heads of the tribes were called curatores tribuum. [45] Besides these curatores there were also the divisores tribuum, who were treasurers. These two types of officials probably had their own registers; the curatores were involved in the census. [8] By the late republic, their main task was to distribute bribes. Because tribal membership was re-registered once every five years in each census, it became possible to crudely gerrymander the tribes. While land could never be taken away from a tribe, the censors had the power to allocate new lands to existing tribes as a part of the census. Thus, the censors had the power to apportion tribes in a manner that might be advantageous to them, or to their partisans. [32]

See also

Notes

  1. Taylor, L. R., Roman Voting Assemblies, p. 40
  2. Taylor, L. R., Roman Voting Assemblies, p. 7
  3. Lintott, A.,The Constitution of the Roman Republic, p. 42
  4. Abbott, F. F., A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions, p. 252
  5. Taylor,L. R., Roman Voting Assemblies, p. 2
  6. Gellius, Attic Nights, 15.27.4
  7. Botsford, George Willis (1909). The Roman Assembly. New York: Cooper Square Publishers Inc. p. 330.
  8. 1 2 Lintott, A., The Constitution of the Roman Republic, p. 53
  9. Botsford, George Willis (1909). The Roman Assemblies. New York: Cooper Square Publishers Inc. p. 119.
  10. Develin, E., "Comitia Tributa Plebis", Athenaeum (1975) 53, pp. 302–37; "Comitia Tributa Again", Athenaeum (1977) 55, pp. 425–6
  11. Sandberg, K., The Concilium Plebis as a Legislative Body', in Paanen, U., et al, Senatus Populesque Romanus: Studies in Roman Republican Legislation, (Acta Inst. Rom. Fin 13) (1993), pp. 74–96
  12. Lintott, A., The Constitution of the Roman Republic, pp. 54–55
  13. Livy, The History of Rome, 3.71
  14. Forsythe, G., A critical History of Early Rome, pp. 180–81
  15. Wiseman, T. P., Remus, a Roman Myth (1995), p. 129
  16. Forsythe, G., A Critical History of Early Rome, pp. 172–75
  17. Dionysius of Halicanassus, Roman Antiquities, 6.17.3
  18. Appian, The Civil Wars, 1.29
  19. Lintott, A., The Constitution of the Roman Republic, pp. 44–45
  20. Mommsen. T., Romische Staadtrecht (1887), I, pp. 375–6
  21. Michels, A. K., The Calendar of the Roman Republic (1967), pp. 88, 191ff.
  22. 1 2 Lintott, A.,The Constitution of the Roman Republic, p. 44
  23. Gellius, Attic Nights, 13.16
  24. Taylor, L. R., Roman Voting Assemblies, p. 63
  25. Taylor, L.R., Roman Voting Assemblies, pp. 6, 63
  26. 1 2 3 4 Smith, W., Wayte, W., Marindin, G. E., (Eds), A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890): Comitia
  27. 1 2 3 4 Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, Second Edition, Harry Thurston Peck, Editor (1897): Comitia
  28. Lintott, A., The Constitution of the Roman Republic, p. 45
  29. Taylor, L. R., Roman Voting Assemblies. pp. 2, 16
  30. Taylor, L. R., Roman Voting Assemblies, p. 2
  31. Lintott, A., The Constitution of the Roman Republic, pp. 46–47
  32. 1 2 Taylor, L. R., Roman Voting Assemblies, p. 66
  33. Lintott, A.,The Constitution of the Roman Republic, p. 46
  34. Taylor, L. R., Roman Voting Assemblies, p. 77
  35. Taylor, L. R.,Roman Voting Assemblies, p. 76
  36. Lintott, A.,The Constitution of the Roman Republic, p. 48
  37. Lintott, A., The Constitution of the Roman Republic, pp. 46–7
  38. Crawford, M. H., "Tribus, Tesserae, et Regions," in Comptes rendus de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (2002) vol. 146, pp. 1125–1135
  39. Lintott, A., The Constitution of the Roman Republic, pp. 46, 55
  40. 1 2 3 4 Botsford, George Willis (1909). The Roman Assemblies. New York: Cooper Square Publishers Inc. p. 459.
  41. Taylor, Thomas Marris (1899). A Constitutional and Political History of Rome. London: Methuen & Co. pp.  428.
  42. 1 2 3 Taylor, Thomas Marris (1899). A Constitutional and Political History of Rome. London: Methuen & Co. pp.  427.
  43. Lintott, A., The Constitution of the Roman Republic, p. 51
  44. Oxford Classical Dictionary , 2nd Ed. (1970): "Tribuni Aerarii."
  45. Smith, W., Wayte, W., Marindin, G. E., (Eds), A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890): Tribus

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribune</span> Elected Roman officials

Tribune was the title of various elected officials in ancient Rome. The two most important were the tribunes of the plebs and the military tribunes. For most of Roman history, a college of ten tribunes of the plebs acted as a check on the authority of the senate and the annual magistrates, holding the power of ius intercessionis to intervene on behalf of the plebeians, and veto unfavourable legislation. There were also military tribunes, who commanded portions of the Roman army, subordinate to higher magistrates, such as the consuls and praetors, promagistrates, and their legates. Various officers within the Roman army were also known as tribunes. The title was also used for several other positions and classes in the course of Roman history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Senate of the Roman Republic</span> Governing and advisory assembly of the aristocracy

The Senate was the governing and advisory assembly of the aristocracy in the ancient Roman Republic. It was not an elected body, but one whose members were appointed by the consuls, and later by the censors, which were appointed by the aristocratic Centuriate Assembly. After a Roman magistrate served his term in office, it usually was followed with automatic appointment to the Senate. According to the Greek historian Polybius, the principal source on the Constitution of the Roman Republic, the Roman Senate was the predominant branch of government. Polybius noted that it was the consuls who led the armies and the civil government in Rome, and it was the Roman assemblies which had the ultimate authority over elections, legislation, and criminal trials. However, since the Senate controlled money, administration, and the details of foreign policy, it had the most control over day-to-day life. The power and authority of the Senate derived from precedent, the high caliber and prestige of the senators, and the Senate's unbroken lineage, which dated back to the founding of the Republic in 509 BC. It developed from the Senate of the Roman Kingdom, and became the Senate of the Roman Empire.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Citizens' assemblies of the Roman Republic</span> Political institutions in Roman Republic

The legislative assemblies of the Roman Republic were political institutions in the ancient Roman Republic. According to the contemporary historian Polybius, it was the people who had the final say regarding the election of magistrates, the enactment of Roman laws, the carrying out of capital punishment, the declaration of war and peace, and the creation of alliances. Under the Constitution of the Roman Republic, the people held the ultimate source of sovereignty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conflict of the Orders</span> Political conflict in the Roman Republic, 500–287 BC

The Conflict of the Orders or the Struggle of the Orders was a political struggle between the plebeians (commoners) and patricians (aristocrats) of the ancient Roman Republic lasting from 500 BC to 287 BC in which the plebeians sought political equality with the patricians. It played a major role in the development of the Constitution of the Roman Republic. Shortly after the founding of the Republic, this conflict led to a secession from Rome by the Plebeians to the Sacred Mount at a time of war. The result of this first secession was the creation of the office of plebeian tribune, and with it the first acquisition of real power by the plebeians.

Tribune of the plebs, tribune of the people or plebeian tribune was the first office of the Roman state that was open to the plebeians, and was, throughout the history of the Republic, the most important check on the power of the Roman Senate and magistrates. These tribunes had the power to convene and preside over the Concilium Plebis ; to summon the senate; to propose legislation; and to intervene on behalf of plebeians in legal matters; but the most significant power was to veto the actions of the consuls and other magistrates, thus protecting the interests of the plebeians as a class. The tribunes of the plebs were typically found seated on special benches set up for them in the Roman Forum. The tribunes were sacrosanct, meaning that any assault on their person was punishable by death. In imperial times, the powers of the tribunate were granted to the emperor as a matter of course, and the office itself lost its independence and most of its functions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plebeian council</span> Principal assembly of the ancient Roman Republic

The Concilium Plebis was the principal assembly of the common people of the ancient Roman Republic. It functioned as a legislative/judicial assembly, through which the plebeians (commoners) could pass legislation, elect plebeian tribunes and plebeian aediles, and try judicial cases. The Plebeian Council was originally organized on the basis of the Curia but in 471 BC adopted an organizational system based on residential districts or tribes. The Plebeian Council usually met in the well of the Comitium and could only be convoked by the tribune of the plebs. The patricians were excluded from the Council.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Curiate assembly</span> Peoples assembly in ancient rome

The Curiate Assembly was the principal assembly that evolved in shape and form over the course of the Roman Kingdom until the Comitia Centuriata organized by Servius Tullius. During these first decades, the people of Rome were organized into thirty units called "Curiae". The Curiae were ethnic in nature, and thus were organized on the basis of the early Roman family, or, more specifically, on the basis of the thirty original patrician (aristocratic) clans. The Curiae formed an assembly for legislative, electoral, and judicial purposes. The Curiate Assembly passed laws, elected Consuls, and tried judicial cases. Consuls always presided over the assembly. While plebeians (commoners) could participate in this assembly, only the patricians could vote.

The lex Hortensia, also sometimes referred to as the Hortensian law, was a law passed in Ancient Rome in 287 BC which made all resolutions passed by the Plebeian Council, known as plebiscita, binding on all citizens. It was passed by the dictator Quintus Hortensius in a compromise to bring the plebeians back from their secession to the Janiculum.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roman tribe</span> Grouping of Roman citizens

A tribus, or tribe, was a division of the Roman people for military, censorial, and voting purposes. When constituted in the comitia tributa, the tribes were the voting units of a legislative assembly of the Roman Republic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the Roman Republic</span>

The constitution of the Roman Republic was a set of uncodified norms and customs which, together with various written laws, guided the procedural governance of the Roman Republic. The constitution emerged from that of the Roman kingdom, evolved substantively and significantly – almost to the point of unrecognisability – over the almost five hundred years of the republic. The collapse of republican government and norms beginning in 133 BC would lead to the rise of Augustus and his principate.

Sacrosanctity or inviolability is the declaration of physical inviolability of a place, a sacred object, or a person. Under Roman law, this was established through sacred law, which had religious connotations. Festus explained that: “Sacred laws are laws which have the sanction that anyone who broke them becomes accursed to one of the gods, together with his family and property”. In some cases the law may have been applied to protect temples from being defiled. It could also be applied to protect a person who was declared sacrosanct (inviolable). Those who harmed a sacrosanct person became sacer (accursed) through the declaration sacer esto!. The offender was considered as having harmed the gods or a god, as well as the sacrosanct person and therefore accursed to the gods or a god. This meant that the offender became forfeit to the god(s) and on his death he was surrendered to the god(s) in question. The implication was that anyone who killed him was considered as performing a sacred duty and enjoyed impunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roman Constitution</span> Set of guidelines and principles

The Roman Constitution was an uncodified set of guidelines and principles passed down mainly through precedent. The Roman constitution was not formal or even official, largely unwritten and constantly evolving. Having those characteristics, it was therefore more like the British and United States common law system than a sovereign law system like the English Constitutions of Clarendon and Great Charter or the United States Constitution, even though the constitution's evolution through the years was often directed by passage of new laws and repeal of older ones.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roman assemblies</span> Assemblies active in the time of Roman rule

The Roman Assemblies were institutions in ancient Rome. They functioned as the machinery of the Roman legislative branch, and thus passed all legislation. Since the assemblies operated on the basis of a direct democracy, ordinary citizens, and not elected representatives, would cast all ballots. The assemblies were subject to strong checks on their power by the executive branch and by the Roman Senate. Laws were passed by Curia, Tribes, and century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive magistrates of the Roman Republic</span>

The executive magistrates of the Roman Republic were officials of the ancient Roman Republic, elected by the People of Rome. Ordinary magistrates (magistratus) were divided into several ranks according to their role and the power they wielded: censors, consuls, praetors, curule aediles, and finally quaestor. Any magistrate could obstruct (veto) an action that was being taken by a magistrate with an equal or lower degree of magisterial powers. By definition, plebeian tribunes and plebeian aediles were technically not magistrates as they were elected only by the plebeians, but no ordinary magistrate could veto any of their actions. Dictator was an extraordinary magistrate normally elected in times of emergency for a short period. During this period, the dictator's power over the Roman government was absolute, as they were not checked by any institution or magistrate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic</span>

The history of the Constitution of the Roman Republic is a study of the ancient Roman Republic that traces the progression of Roman political development from the founding of the Roman Republic in 509 BC until the founding of the Roman Empire in 27 BC. The constitutional history of the Roman Republic can be divided into five phases. The first phase began with the revolution which overthrew the Roman Kingdom in 509 BC, and the final phase ended with the revolution which overthrew the Roman Republic, and thus created the Roman Empire, in 27 BC. Throughout the history of the Republic, the constitutional evolution was driven by the struggle between the aristocracy and the ordinary citizens.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Centuriate assembly</span> Roman assembly that elected all magistrates holding imperium

The Centuriate Assembly of the Roman Republic was one of the three voting assemblies in the Roman constitution. It was named the Centuriate Assembly as it originally divided Roman citizens into groups of one hundred men by classes. The centuries initially reflected military status, but were later based on the wealth of their members. The centuries gathered into the Centuriate Assembly for legislative, electoral, and judicial purposes. The majority of votes in any century decided how that century voted. Each century received one vote, regardless of how many electors each Century held. Once a majority of centuries voted in the same way on a given measure, the voting ended, and the matter was decided. Only the Centuriate Assembly could declare war or elect the highest-ranking Roman magistrates: consuls, praetors and censors. In addition, the Centuriate Assembly served as the highest court of appeal in certain judicial cases, and ratified the results of a Census.

<i>Rogatio</i> Ancient Roman legislative process

In the Roman republic, a rogatio is a proposed piece of legislation. All legislation during the republic was moved before an assembly of the people. The rogatio procedure underscores the fact that the Roman Senate could issue decrees, but was not a legislative. Only the people, organised in an assembly, could pass legislation.

<i>Lex Publilia</i> (471 BC) Ancient Roman law

The lex Publilia, also known as the Publilian Rogation, was a law traditionally passed in 471 BC, transferring the election of the tribunes of the plebs to the comitia tributa, thereby freeing their election from the direct influence of the Senate and patrician magistrates.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Volero Publilius</span> 5th-century BC Roman tribune of the plebs

Volero Publilius was tribune of the plebs in Rome in 472 and 471 BC. During his time as tribune, he secured the passage of two important laws increasing the independence of his office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elections in the Roman Republic</span>

Elections in the Roman Republic were an essential part of its governance, with participation only being afforded to Roman citizens. Upper-class interests, centered in the urban political environment of cities, often trumped the concerns of the diverse and disunified lower class; while at times, the people already in power would pre-select candidates for office, further reducing the value of voters’ input. The candidates themselves at first remained distant from voters and refrained from public presentations, but they later more than made up for time lost with habitual bribery, coercion, and empty promises. As the practice of electoral campaigning grew in use and extent, the pool of candidates was no longer limited to a select group with riches and high birth. Instead, many more ordinary citizens had a chance to run for office, allowing for more equal representation in key government decisions.

References

Further reading