Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:03:42.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Significance of the Consular Tribunate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

E. S. Staveley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Livy preserves two explanations of the Senatorial decision of 445 B.C. to suspend the election of consuls and to confer imperium consulare upon tribuni militum. One, which he himself accepts, is that it was a political compromise designed to appease agitation for plebeian representation in the consulship. The other is that the military situation demanded the appointment of at least three holders of imperium. Until some forty years ago the majority of scholars, even if ready to admit that the reform had military advantages, joined with Livy in laying the chief emphasis on the political motive. More recently, however, the tendency has been to disown the connection between the innovation and the struggle for office. The change is explained as necessitated wholly by growing military commitments or administrative needs. My purpose here is merely to defend once again the traditional account that the decision of 445 B.C. marked an important stage in the Struggle of the Orders and to remove the major difficulties which have discouraged its acceptance.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 1-2 , November 1953 , pp. 30 - 36
Copyright
Copyright ©E. S. Staveley 1953. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Livy IV, 1–6 passim. cf. Dion. Hal. XI, 53–61; Zonaras VII, 19; Digest 1, 2, 2, 25 (Pomponius).

2 Livy IV, 7, 2: ‘Sunt qui propter adiectum Aequorum Volscorumque bello et Ardeatium defectioni Veiens bellum, quia duos consules obire tot simul bella nequirent, tribunos militum tres creatos dicant, sine mentione promulgatae legis de consulibus creandis ex plebe.’

3 cf. Schwegler, A., Röm. Geschichte III (Tübingen, 1858), 117 ff.Google Scholar; Lange, L., Röm. Altertümer I3 (Berlin, 1876), 556 f.Google Scholar; Mommsen, Th., Röm. Geschichte I (Berlin, 1874), 288 Google Scholar; Röm. Staatsrecht II3, 176 ff.; De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani II (Turin, 1907), 56 Google Scholar; and more recently Jones, H. Stuart, CAH VII, 519 fGoogle Scholar.

4 cf. Soltau, W., ‘Zur röm. Verfassungsgeschichte,’ Philologus XXVIII (1916), 524–9Google Scholar; Meyer, Ed., Kleine Schriften II (Halle, 1924), 280 ff.Google Scholar; Altheim, F., Epochen der röm. Geschichte (Frankfurt, 1934), 152 Google Scholar; Cornelius, F., Untersuchungen zur frühen röm. Geschichte (Munich, 1940), 59 ff.Google Scholar; Meyer, Ernst, Röm. Staat und Staatsgedanke (Zurich, 1948), 65 ff.Google Scholar; von Fritz, K., ‘The Reorganization of the Roman Government in 366 B.C.’, Historia I (1950), 37 ffGoogle Scholar.

5 Livy IV, 8, 2; Dion. Hal. XI, 63; Zon. VII, 19; Cic. ad fam. 9, 21, 2.

6 Livy VI, 35, 5.

7 Livy IV, 8, 3; Digest 1, 2, 2, 17 (Pomponius).

8 Röm. Staatsrecht II3, 336.

9 o.c, 117 f.

10 A. Bernardi connects the creation of the new office not with the introduction of the consular tribunate but with the Canuleian plebiscite of the same year which removed the ban on conubium between patricians and plebeians (‘Dagli ausiliari del rex ai magistrati della respublica’, Athenaeum N.S. XXX (1952), 38 f.). In so doing, however, he makes the unwarranted assumption that a proportion of the plebeians did not belong to the gentes (see below, p. 33); and in any case he fails to explain why censors were not needed before the ban was imposed.

11 Livy IV, 6, 10; 7, 7; 25, 1 and 14; 30, 1 and 16; 35, 10–36, 5; 43, 6–8; 50, 7–8; 53, 13; 54, 8; 55, 6; V, 29–30.

12 cf. in particular Hoffmann, W., Gnomon XIX (1943), 80 ff.Google Scholar; Bernardi, art. cit., 39 ff.

13 Livy IV, 17, 6–7; 25, 14–26, 1; 31, 2.

14 Livy records the appointment of ten dictators for purposes of conducting wars in years when consular tribunes were in office (IV, 23, 5; 31,5; 46, 10; 57, 6; V, 19, 2; 46, 10; VI, 2, 5; 11, 10; 28, 3; 42, 4), and he further states on two occasions that the dictator was nominated with a view to checking wrangling between the various commanders and extricating Rome from the difficulties into which it had led her.

15 No wars are recorded in the tribunician years 438, 434, 433, 432, 425, 424, 420, 419, 417, 416, and 384 B.C. The attempt of Cornelius (o.c, 59–67) to meet this objection involves much arbitrary manipulation of the ancient evidence.

16 o.c. 11, 19 ff., ‘Le origini dell' ordinamento centuriato,’ Rivista di Filologia LXI (1933), 289 ffGoogle Scholar.

17 ‘La storia dell' antichissimo esercito romano,’ Atti del 2° Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani III (1931), 91 ff.Google Scholar; ‘Ancora sull“ età della ordinamento centuriato,’ Athenaeum N.S. XII (1934), 57 ff.

18 The view of De Sanctis (art. cit., 294–8), Ernst Meyer (o.c, 51 f.), and Bernardi (art. cit., 50) that the division of the total force into two legions coincided with the restoration of the consulship in 366 B.C. is perhaps more attractive. If, as is probable, the complement of the college of tribuni militum during the period of the consular tribunate was six, and it was raised to twelve in 362 B.C. (Livy VII, 5, 9), the doubling may well have been occasioned by the creation of the two legions.

19 Bernardi (art. cit., 21–3) attributes an army of only 4,000 to Servius, relying upon the reference in Gellius (VI, 13, 1) to a time when the members of the first class alone were called classici (as opposed to those who were infra classem) and upon a possible designation of the Roman legionary army in 426 B.C. as the classis (Livy iv, 34, 6). The case is weak. For it is not clear from Gellius either that there was ever a time when there were less than five classes within the centuriate organization, or that, if there was, the so-called classis contained only as many centuries as the later first class. The fact that the Roman legion continued to contain sixty centuries irrespective of its total complement certainly suggests that the original centuriate organization had been one in which the legion contained sixty centuries each of 100 men.

20 Before the Servian reforms there had been three tribuni militum, one for each of the three tribal contingents (Varro, LL V, 81). It is natural that the doubling of the total army personnel should have been accompanied by a corresponding doubling in their number. Later six tribuni seem to have been appointed for each legion (Livy VII, 5, 9; XXVII, 36, 14; Polyb. VI, 19, 7).

21 It is possible that the total number who could properly be invested with the imperium was six throughout: cf. Livy IV, 16, 6; Dion. Hal XI, 60, 5; Zon. VII, 19.

22 Livy V, 17, 10–18, 1. Many examples are provided of concessions wrung from the governing class in time of war by tribunician threats and the obstruction of the levy (cf. Livy IV, 6, 6; 30, 15; 55, 5; 58, 11 ff.).

23 von Fritz, art. cit., 39.

24 cf. in particular Livy IV, 6, 8: ‘per haec consilia eo deducta est res, ut tribunos militum consulari potestate promisee ex patribus ac plebe creari sinerent, de consulibus creandis nihil mutaretur.’

25 ‘Patrizi e plebei nella costituzione della primitiva repubblica romana,’ Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo, cl. lett., LXXIX (1945–1946), 1 ffGoogle Scholar.

26 Röm. Geschichte (Berlin, 1926), 9 ffGoogle Scholar.

27 This was the view of Schwegler (o.c, 141 ff.).

28 Bernardi himself is the latest exponent of this view (Athenaeum, 1952, 33).

29 Patrician consuls are only twice represented as having attempted to exercise their right to refuse candidature in the late fourth century B.C., and on both occasions their efforts were unsuccessful (Livy VII, 22, 8; VIII, 15, 9). The annulling of elections in pursuance of an augural decree is mentioned once only in the fifth century–in 444 B.C. (Livy IV, 7, 3). The refusal of auctoritas or of a lex curiata is never mentioned in this period.

30 ‘The Servian Reforms,’ JRS XXXV (1945), 30 ffGoogle Scholar.

31 Athenaeum, 1952, 20, 32 ff.

32 Livy V, 52, 16.

33 Livy v, 13, 3.

34 Livy V, 18, 1–2. The significant phrase here is iure vocatis tribubus. Nothing can be proved from the corrupt MSS. reading praerogativa … creant.

35 Sallust, Bell. lug., 63,4.

36 Röm. Staatsrecht II3, 181.

37 Ann. XI, 22.

38 Livy IV, 43, 5.

39 Plebeians were elected only in 444, 422, 400, 399, 396, 383, 380, 379, and 378 B.C.

40 Athenaeum, 1952, 39 ff.

41 His one argument on this point is that the comitia centuriata as opposed to the comitia curiata met outside the pomerium. This is to be explained, he thinks, by the fact that the post-Servian army contained men who could not participate in the sacra of the gentilician state (p. 28). Such an argument depends for what slight force it has, however, upon the entirely unproved suggestion that the curiate organization was originally military in purpose; and it involves the further equally unwarranted assumption that the curiate levy of pre-Servian times was held within the pomerium.

42 Livy IV, 44, 2.

43 Livy VI, 37, 11.

44 Livy IV, 25, 10–11; 35, 6–11; V, 2, 9.

45 Livy IV, 43–4.

46 Livy V, 17, 5.

47 Livy VI, 39, 1.

48 Agitation for a distribution of land and relief of debt is recorded under many years during the period, cf. Livy IV, 36, 1–2; 43, 6; 44, 7; 49, 6; 52, 2; V, 12, 3; VI, 5, 1–5.

49 Livy IV, 25, 12; 56, 3; 57. 11; V, 14, 2; 30, 7.

50 Livy V, 18–24; 26, 1; VI, 30, 3; 38, 4; 40, 17.

51 Livy III, 64–5; IV, 55, 6; V, 10, 11; 25, 13.

52 Livy IV, 30, 3; 47, 7; 51, 5; 59, 11; V, 24, 4; 30, 8; VI, 16, 6; 21, 4.

53 The Licinii Calvi, for example, were probably connected with patrician families (Livy V, 12, 12; VI, 39, 4). A Pomponius, too, is said to have acted in the patrician interest in 395 B.C. (Livy V, 29, 6).

54 Livy IV, 41, 10.

65 Livyv, 11, 4–16.