Plebeians and Consular Elections

[Hanno]

So at some some point(Lex Licinia Sextia? Lex Genucia?) it was established that at least one Consul has to be a Plebeian.

 

But, if I understand correctly, Consuls were running for office separately. So what happened if the two who came in first were both Patricians? Was the second "disqualified" in favor of the best polling Plebeian? Or were two Patricians allowed to hold the Consulship despite the law?

Edited December 15, 2006 by Hanno

[Primus Pilus]

So at some some point(Lex Licinia Sextia? Lex Genucia?) it was established that at least one Consul has to be a Plebeian.

 

But, if I understand correctly, Consuls were running for office separately. So what happened if the two who came in first were both Patricians? Was the second "disqualified" in favor of the best polling Plebeian? Or were two Patricians allowed to hold the Consulship despite the law?

 

The Lex Licinia Sextia did not guarantee that at least one Consul must be Plebeian, but rather that a Consul could be a Plebeian. In fact, the main purpose of this law was to abolish the Consular Tribunate. Other than the fact that Licinius Sextius was elected as a Plebeian consul there is no evidence that the law mandated the election of at least one Plebeian Consul (there were several years afterwards with two Patricians).

 

There were actually 3 "Lex Licinia Sextia" passed in this 2 years period. The Lex Licinia Sextia de modo agrorum limited the amount of public land that could be owned by an individual. The third limited the indebtedness of the Plebes.

 

Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic... page 18 provides the basics.

 

As for the Lex Genucia, it's main purpose was to introduce the 10 year gap between individual election to a magistracy. It did allow for two Plebeian Consuls to be elected Consul but did not mandate that 1 or both had to be Plebeian.

 

From Livy book 7.42

In addition to these measures I find the following recorded by various authorities. L. Genucius, a tribune of the plebs, brought before them a measure declaring usury illegal, whilst other resolutions were adopted forbidding any one to accept re-election to the same office in less than ten years or fill two offices in the same year, and also that both consuls might legally be elected from the plebs.

[Hanno]

Weird. The nearest Roman History book claims that the Lex Licinia Sextia did guarantee a Plebeian Consul. Although it also admits that there were a few Patrician only years and that only after the Lex Genucia was this law always upheld.

 

What's the final verdict then? Was there or was there not a requirement for at least one Consul to be a Plebeian? And if there was, what happened when the polls leaders were both Patricians?

 

Edit: According to the Cambridge Companion the Lex Genucia "seems" to have instituted this requirement.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Hanno

[Primus Pilus]

I'll take a look at Lintott's "Constitution of the Roman Republic" when I get home this evening.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

The Leges Sextia-licinia allowed non-Patricians (you can say "Plebeians") to be Consuls (the proof is in the Fasti) .

The Leges Gnucia ensured that one of the 2 Consuls must be a Plebeian (again , the proof is in the Fasti) .

From var. 343 BCE (Genucia) the system was that the Patricians stood for their place in the Consulate and the Plebeians stood for their place , so there was no option for 2 Patricians to win . You can see this system in work for the eletion at the end of 192 where Livius is saying thet there were 3 candidates for the Patrician place and 3 for the Plebeian place .

[Hanno]

You can see this system in work for the eletion at the end of 192 where Livius is saying thet there were 3 candidates for the Patrician place and 3 for the Plebeian place .

 

So that's how it worked...

 

But doesn't this mean that there couldn't be two Plebeian Consuls?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

You can see this system in work for the eletion at the end of 192 where Livius is saying thet there were 3 candidates for the Patrician place and 3 for the Plebeian place .

 

So that's how it worked...

 

But doesn't this mean that there couldn't be two Plebeian Consuls?

 

 

Good question , if I may

 

The answer is no .

The normal situation was that the Consulate was non plebeian as the Tribunate was non patrician . In Var. 367 BCE Plebeians could stand for the consulship and some of them won . In the fasti after 367 you can see that in some years the voters choose to have this normal situation again - 2 patricians . So now (343) the Plebeians ensured one place . The Patricians did not had to ensure anything ! It was theirs .

The amazing thing is that the Patricians (less than 1 % of the citizens) ensured for themselve 1 place in the Consulate for some 170 years ! (until 172) .

[Primus Pilus]

You can see this system in work for the eletion at the end of 192 where Livius is saying thet there were 3 candidates for the Patrician place and 3 for the Plebeian place .

 

So that's how it worked...

 

But doesn't this mean that there couldn't be two Plebeian Consuls?

 

No this is after there were already 2 Plebeian consuls elected in 215 BC. From Livy book 23, 31:

Marcellus was elected by a quite unanimous vote in order that he might take up his magistracy at once. Whilst he was assuming the duties of the consulship thunder was heard; the augurs were summoned and gave it as their opinion that there was some informality in his election. The patricians spread a report that as that was the first time that two plebeian consuls were elected together, the gods were showing their displeasure. Marcellus resigned his office and Q. Fabius Maximus was appointed in his place; this was his third consulship. This year the sea appeared to be on fire; at Sinuessa a cow brought forth a colt; the statues in the temple of Juno Sospita at Lanuvium sweated blood and a shower of stones fell round the temple. For this portent there were the usual nine days' religious observances; the other portents were duly expiated.

 

Note that Livy does not indicate it was illegal for 2 Plebes to be consul but that the augurs were displeased by the omens.

 

Additionally the election of 192 referred to in a post above does not mean that the Lex Genucia was definitely responsible for the idea of split class candidate elections

 

From Livy 35, 10:

The year was now drawing to a close and the canvassing for the consular elections was keener than had ever been known before. There were many strong candidates, both patrician and plebeian, in the field. The patrician candidates were P. Cornelius, the son of Cneius Scipio, who had lately returned from his province in Spain with a brilliant record; L. Quinctius Flamininus, who had commanded the fleet off Greece, and Cn. Manlius Volso. The plebeian candidates were C. Laelius, Cn. Domitius, C. Livius Salinator and Manius Acilius. But all men's eyes were turned to Quinctius and Cornelius, for as they were both patricians they were competing for the same place and they each possessed strong recommendations, for each had covered himself with military glory. But it was the brothers of the two candidates who most of all made the contest such an exciting one, for they were the two most brilliant commanders of their day. Scipio had the more splendid reputation, but its very splendour exposed him all the more to jealousy; Quinctius' reputation was of more recent growth, as his triumph had been celebrated during the year. Moreover, the former had been continually before the public eye for nearly ten years, a circumstance which tends to diminish the reverence felt for great men as people become surfeited with their praises. He had been made consul for the second time after his final defeat of Hannibal, and also censor. In the case of Quinctius, all his claims to popular favour were founded upon his recent successes; since his triumph he had not sought for nor received anything from the people. He said that he was canvassing for his own brother, not for a step-brother; for one who had as lieutenant shared with him the management of the war; whilst he commanded on land his brother commanded at sea. By these arguments he succeeded in beating his competitor, though his competitor was supported by his brother Africanus, by the house of the Cornelii - it was a Cornelius who was conducting the election - and by the splendid testimonial which the senate gave when they pronounced Africanus to be the best man among all the citizens and most worthy to receive the Mater Idaea on her arrival from Pessinus. L. Quinctius and Cneius Domitius Ahenobarbus were the two elected, so that even in the case of the plebeian candidate C. Laelius, Scipio, who had been working for him, was unable to secure his return. The next day the praetors were elected. The successful candidates were L. Scribonius Libo, M. Fulvius Centumalus, A. Atilius Serranus, M. Baebius Tamphilus, L. Valerius Tappo and Q. Salonius Sarra. M. Aemilius Lepidus and L. Aemilius Paulus distinguished themselves as aediles this year. They inflicted fines on a large number of graziers, and out of the proceeds they had gold-plated shields made, which they placed on the pediment of the temple of Jupiter. They also built an arcade outside the Porta Trigemina, and in connection with it a wharf on the Tiber, and a second arcade leading from the Porta Fontinalis to the altar of Mars in the Campus Martius.

 

If the notion that Patrician and Plebeian candidates consistently ran for office on a "split ticket" so to speak, how then do 2 Plebes get elected in 172 BC (C. Popilius Laenas and P. Aelius Ligus.. Livy book 42.9). After this, two Plebeian consuls is a somewhat common occurrence. If the election law provided that Patrician and Plebeian candidates should be split for each consular position, it was a very short term circumstance, and despite the clear circumstantial evidence, I am not entirely convinced that the Lex Genucia provided for this. Of course, Livy was writing his description of the Genucia some 300 years after its passing, so clearly some details could've been lost over time.

[Hanno]

Now I'm thoroughly confused.

 

I'm trying to figure out how the election process worked in more historic times, say, after 200BCE. The so called Conflict of the Orders is long over (almost a century after the Lex Hortensia).

 

So the Comitia Centuriata assembles on election day and there are, say, 3 Patrician and 3 Plebeian candidates for the Consulship. How does the voting process go?

The Centuries vote one after the other, but how are the votes tallied? Do we get one name per one Century, so that the candidates that got the most Centuries get elected? And if that's the case, what happens if both leading candidates are Patricians? (there are no problems if both are Plebeians, right?)

[Caesar CXXXVII]

You can see this system in work for the eletion at the end of 192 where Livius is saying thet there were 3 candidates for the Patrician place and 3 for the Plebeian place .

 

So that's how it worked...

 

But doesn't this mean that there couldn't be two Plebeian Consuls?

 

No this is after there were already 2 Plebeian consuls elected in 215 BC. From Livy book 23, 31:

Marcellus was elected by a quite unanimous vote in order that he might take up his magistracy at once. Whilst he was assuming the duties of the consulship thunder was heard; the augurs were summoned and gave it as their opinion that there was some informality in his election. The patricians spread a report that as that was the first time that two plebeian consuls were elected together, the gods were showing their displeasure. Marcellus resigned his office and Q. Fabius Maximus was appointed in his place; this was his third consulship. This year the sea appeared to be on fire; at Sinuessa a cow brought forth a colt; the statues in the temple of Juno Sospita at Lanuvium sweated blood and a shower of stones fell round the temple. For this portent there were the usual nine days' religious observances; the other portents were duly expiated.

 

Note that Livy does not indicate it was illegal for 2 Plebes to be consul but that the augurs were displeased by the omens.

 

Additionally the election of 192 referred to in a post above does not mean that the Lex Genucia was definitely responsible for the idea of split class candidate elections

 

From Livy 35, 10:

The year was now drawing to a close and the canvassing for the consular elections was keener than had ever been known before. There were many strong candidates, both patrician and plebeian, in the field. The patrician candidates were P. Cornelius, the son of Cneius Scipio, who had lately returned from his province in Spain with a brilliant record; L. Quinctius Flamininus, who had commanded the fleet off Greece, and Cn. Manlius Volso. The plebeian candidates were C. Laelius, Cn. Domitius, C. Livius Salinator and Manius Acilius. But all men's eyes were turned to Quinctius and Cornelius, for as they were both patricians they were competing for the same place and they each possessed strong recommendations, for each had covered himself with military glory. But it was the brothers of the two candidates who most of all made the contest such an exciting one, for they were the two most brilliant commanders of their day. Scipio had the more splendid reputation, but its very splendour exposed him all the more to jealousy; Quinctius' reputation was of more recent growth, as his triumph had been celebrated during the year. Moreover, the former had been continually before the public eye for nearly ten years, a circumstance which tends to diminish the reverence felt for great men as people become surfeited with their praises. He had been made consul for the second time after his final defeat of Hannibal, and also censor. In the case of Quinctius, all his claims to popular favour were founded upon his recent successes; since his triumph he had not sought for nor received anything from the people. He said that he was canvassing for his own brother, not for a step-brother; for one who had as lieutenant shared with him the management of the war; whilst he commanded on land his brother commanded at sea. By these arguments he succeeded in beating his competitor, though his competitor was supported by his brother Africanus, by the house of the Cornelii - it was a Cornelius who was conducting the election - and by the splendid testimonial which the senate gave when they pronounced Africanus to be the best man among all the citizens and most worthy to receive the Mater Idaea on her arrival from Pessinus. L. Quinctius and Cneius Domitius Ahenobarbus were the two elected, so that even in the case of the plebeian candidate C. Laelius, Scipio, who had been working for him, was unable to secure his return. The next day the praetors were elected. The successful candidates were L. Scribonius Libo, M. Fulvius Centumalus, A. Atilius Serranus, M. Baebius Tamphilus, L. Valerius Tappo and Q. Salonius Sarra. M. Aemilius Lepidus and L. Aemilius Paulus distinguished themselves as aediles this year. They inflicted fines on a large number of graziers, and out of the proceeds they had gold-plated shields made, which they placed on the pediment of the temple of Jupiter. They also built an arcade outside the Porta Trigemina, and in connection with it a wharf on the Tiber, and a second arcade leading from the Porta Fontinalis to the altar of Mars in the Campus Martius.

 

If the notion that Patrician and Plebeian candidates consistently ran for office on a "split ticket" so to speak, how then do 2 Plebes get elected in 172 BC (C. Popilius Laenas and P. Aelius Ligus.. Livy book 42.9). After this, two Plebeian consuls is a somewhat common occurrence. If the election law provided that Patrician and Plebeian candidates should be split for each consular position, it was a very short term circumstance, and despite the clear circumstantial evidence, I am not entirely convinced that the Lex Genucia provided for this. Of course, Livy was writing his description of the Genucia some 300 years after its passing, so clearly some details could've been lost over time.

 

 

1. Where did I say that the Patrician place was confirmed by low ?

2. I have mentioned 172 BCE as the end of the system , didn't I ?

3. The outcome of the eletions of 215 BCE is another proof for the sysrem to work until 172 ! Marcellus abdicated , didn't he ? More important - Livy said the the political rules were ignored in times of emergency , and the eletions that you refer to were after Canae .

4. As I said , the system worked for some 170 years and not for a short term .

Edited December 16, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Primus Pilus]

2. I have mentioned 172 BCE as the end of the system , didn't I ?

 

I was in the middle of posting my reply with appropriate reference material when you apparently posted this and didn't notice your mention of it. Regardless, are only you allowed to offer evidence on the matter?

 

3. The outcome of the eletions of 215 BCE is another proof for the sysrem to work until 172 ! Marcellus abdicated , didn't he ?

 

yes he did, because of the intervention of the augurs (Clearly inspired by Patrician resistance).

 

More important - Livy said the the political rules were ignored in times of emergency , and the eletions that you refer to were after Canae .

 

I agree, but it's still a wrench in the system.

 

4. As I said , the system worked for some 170 years and not for a short term .

 

I'm not disputing the way the system worked in various time frames, but only that there are inconsistencies. What I am saying is that the exact laws in question are indeterminable, despite our reasonable ability to access the systematic processes. Though regardless of how long it may have functioned in general principal, there seems to be no law on record indicating the change in 172. Simply, two plebes were elected without incident. This would tell me that there was no law in the first place needing to be repealed or altered. Livy narrates this important piece of history as if it were no different than any other election.

 

[42.9]The same ungovernable temper which the consul had displayed towards the Ligurians he now showed in refusing to obey the senate. He at once sent the legions into winter quarters at Pisae and returned to Rome angry with the senate and furious with the praetors. Immediately on his arrival he convened the senate in the temple of Bellona, where he delivered a long an bitter harangue against the praetor. He ought, he said, to have asked the senate to decree honours to the immortal gods for the successes he had won, instead of which he had induced the senate to pass a resolution in favour of the enemy by which he transferred his (the speaker's) victory to the Ligurians and practically ordered the consul to surrender to them. He therefore imposed a fine on him and asked the senators to make an order rescinding the resolution against him and also to do, now that he was in Rome, what they ought to have done when he was away, immediately they received his despatch, namely, to decree a solemn thanksgiving, first as honouring the gods and then as showing at least some regard for him. Some of the senators attacked him to his face quite as severely as they had done in his absence, and he returned to his province without either of his demands being conceded. The other consul, Postumius, spent the summer in surveying the fields and returned to Rome for the elections without even having seen his province. The new consuls were C. Popilius Laenas and P. Aelius Ligus. The new praetors were C. Licinius Crassus, M. Junius Pennus, Sp. Lucretius, Sp. Cluvius, Cn. Sicinius, and C. Memmius for the second time.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Regardless, are only you allowed to offer evidence on the matter?

 

 

What ? Me don't understand , me confused , how...I...when...

 

1. Where did I said that ?

2. You did offer evidence , didn't you ?

3. I am Just kidding here

4. Peace

Edited December 16, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Primus Pilus]

Regardless, are only you allowed to offer evidence on the matter?

 

 

What ? Me don't understand , me confused , how...I...when...

 

1. Where did I said that ?

2. You did offer evidence , didn't you ?

3. I am Just kidding here

4. Peace

 

No worries mate.

 

But still I am quite at a loss for the legality of this particular piece of the system. There must be some evidence somewhere that we are simply overlooking.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

There must be some evidence somewhere that we are simply overlooking.

 

 

 

I see .

IMHO (after reading CAH 7.2 and cornell) only the Plebeians places were confimed by law . The 172 case is a proof for that "fact" cause Livius took it as a normal step since Var. 343 did not ban a 2nd place for the Plebeians . So why did the Patricians succeded to get one place for 170 years - Tradition , religion , agreements etc' (that is another big story but off topic) .

 

About the Plebeian candidates running for their place and the Patrician candidates running for theirs - It is the simple solution and I think , the best . As you said , there is no direct evidence except Livius narrativs about the elections . IMHO no other solution can stand against the Fasti , it is impossible (statisticly) to get 170 Consular pairs with Plebeians and Patricians just like that .

 

There are other solutions .

Edited December 17, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII