Magistrates of the Roman Republic

[M. Porcius Cato]

A major question about the Roman republic concerns the extent to which the magistrates of the state were dominated by a small number of families. The motivation for this concern is that a state that is dominated by the few is an oligarchy, a term which Polybius (among others) used to describe many constitutions in the ancient world--but not Rome's.

 

There are a number of important factual matters to establish in assessing whether Rome was an oligarchy. First, what is a magistrate? Second, who were the magistrates? Third, to what extent were the magistracies dominated by a few families? And, last, does family dominance support that the claim that Rome "was a pure oligarchy, the poeple had no shrare in the government [sic]"?

 

First, a 'magistrate' (or magistratus) had a precise legal meaning in ancient Rome (discussed here). A magistrate is one who holds the legal right to direct the business of the state. Initially, only the kings were magistratus, and immediately after they were expelled, only the two consuls were magistratus. Over time, this list expanded to 10 tribunes of the plebs, 2 consuls, 18 praetors, 6 aediles, as well as various propraetors and proconsuls. In the age of Sulla, it included 2 censors, 2 consuls, 8-10 praetors, 2 curule aediles, 10 tribunes of the plebs, 2 plebeian aediles, and 20 quaestors (see here for Prof. Kondratieff's useful page, or Lintott's Constitution of the Roman Republic).

 

Second, who were these magistrates? A partial but magnificent answer to this question is provided by Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic, a 2 volume work that is impossible to reproduce here. (A more complete source is currently being produced by Drs. Benness and Hillard.). For our purposes, I would suggest limiting the period under consideration simply to 78-49, since that's the period that's really under dispute and also since we have a full list of magistrates for this period reproduced in Gruen's widely available "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic".

 

Third, if we confine ourselves to this period, it becomes clear that the proportion of magistracies that went to the top families depends very much on the rank of the magistracy held. At one extreme, 54 of the 61 known consuls (88.5%) came from consular families. At the other extreme, only 33 of the 113 known tribunes (29%) came from consular families. Overall, of 600 known magistrates from 78-49, only 241 (40%) came from consular families. Thus, the majority of the magistrates of the late republic were men who came from families that had risen no further than praeteor.

 

Fourth, not only were the majority of the magistracies going to non-consular families, even if the proportion were reversed, it would not support the claim that the people had no share in government. Quite the contrary, it was the people in their assemblies that

• elected all the magistrates who formed the cursus honorum--from censor to quaestor--in addition to electing all the minor magistracies, including the tresviri capitales and monetales
  
• had the power to alter the constitution (e.g., by introducing new magistracies or expanding their numbers)
  
• pass civil laws, found colonies, and distribute public land; and
  
• control admission to Roman citizenship itself.
  

.

So far from the people having no share in the government, the very government itself was engraved on the ballots that were held in the palms of the people.

 

In my view, the claim that Roman republic was an actual oligarchy is an insidious falsehood that only serves the purpose of whitewashing the crimes of Caesar and his heirs. It's one thing to read this sort of nonsense from their apologists; we needn't go on repeating their propaganda from the luxury of our own republics.

[Gaius Octavius]

Well said, MPC. Yet the word 'oligarchy' encompasses not only political control but also economic control. Insofar as voting is concerned, were the 'better' families' clients not told how to vote? Were not the voters bribed? I am foggy here, but wasn't there an order of priority in which the tribes voted and this had a lot to do with the outcome of elections?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Well said, MPC. Yet the word 'oligarchy' encompasses not only political control but also economic control. Insofar as voting is concerned, were the 'better' families' clients not told how to vote? Were not the voters bribed? I am foggy here, but wasn't there an order of priority in which the tribes voted and this had a lot to do with the outcome of elections?

 

I'm strictly speaking of oligarchy in the sense Polybius used it: rule of the few. Whether came from money, military success, good looks, brains, whatever doesn't matter. To put it differently, if there were a small number of wealthy citizens who had no political ambitions for themselves or others and the magistrates were chosen by lottery, it wouldn't be an oligarchy--it would be rule by the many. If everyone were equally rich, but only 10 hereditary families controlled all the offices of the state--it would be an oligarchy. Thus, the definition of oligarchy is independent of economic control.

 

Were voters sometimes bribed? Our sources certainly say so. But I think one has to question what's really going on with these bribes. The fact is that the ballot was secret. Thus, a voter might be paid to vote for Bibulus, yet vote for Caesar, or vice-versa, and no one would know or get their money back. Moreover, there were laws against bribery, courts devoted to prosecuting it, and elections entirely annulled because of the scandal of bribery. Finally, and I think this is a critical question to ask: if votes did not matter, why did anyone want to buy them? If Rome were a hereditary monarchy, votes would be worthless and no one would care to buy them. Doesn't this suggest that the votes of the people really did count for a whole lot??

 

Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not claiming that the Roman republic was a democracy, nor that it was a utopia, nor that the civil rights of the people were never violated during the long history of the Republic. My claim is that Rome had real democratic elements and that it's incorrect to call Rome an oligarchy. In contrast, a system of hereditary rule by a single extended family through their appointed magistrates--that IS an oligarchic system, and it was the one that was in place during the principate.

[Gaius Octavius]

Well said, MPC. Yet the word 'oligarchy' encompasses not only political control but also economic control. Insofar as voting is concerned, were the 'better' families' clients not told how to vote? Were not the voters bribed? I am foggy here, but wasn't there an order of priority in which the tribes voted and this had a lot to do with the outcome of elections?

 

I'm strictly speaking of oligarchy in the sense Polybius used it: rule of the few. Whether came from money, military success, good looks, brains, whatever doesn't matter. To put it differently, if there were a small number of wealthy citizens who had no political ambitions for themselves or others and the magistrates were chosen by lottery, it wouldn't be an oligarchy--1. it would be rule by the many. If everyone were equally rich, but only 10 hereditary families controlled all the offices of the state--it would be an oligarchy. 2. Thus, the definition of oligarchy is independent of economic control.

 

1. No, it would be rule by lottery. 2. Economic control is the essence of oligarchy.

 

Were voters sometimes bribed? Our sources certainly say so. But I think one has to question what's really going on with these bribes. The fact is that the ballot was secret. Thus, a voter might be paid to vote for Bibulus, yet vote for Caesar, or vice-versa, and no one would know or get their money back. Moreover, there were laws against bribery, courts devoted to prosecuting it, and elections entirely annulled because of the scandal of bribery. Finally, and I think this is a critical question to ask: if votes did not matter, 1. why did anyone want to buy them? If Rome were a hereditary monarchy, votes would be worthless and no one would care to buy them. Doesn't this suggest that the votes of the people really did count for a whole lot??

 

Then, why did they?

 

Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not claiming that the Roman republic was a democracy, nor that it was a utopia, nor that the civil rights of the people were never violated during the long history of the Republic. My claim is that Rome had real democratic elements and that it's incorrect to call Rome an oligarchy. In contrast, a system of hereditary rule by a single extended family through their appointed magistrates--that IS an oligarchic system, and it was the one that was in place during the principate.

 

What would you call the Republic?

 

You have an excellent thread going here, and we all shall learn much from your erudition. I feel that its applications to today are very important.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Mosquito]

A major question about the Roman republic concerns the extent to which the magistrates of the state were dominated by a small number of families. The motivation for this concern is that a state that is dominated by the few is an oligarchy, a term which Polybius (among others) used to describe many constitutions in the ancient world--but not Rome's.

 

There are a number of important factual matters to establish in assessing whether Rome was an oligarchy. First, what is a magistrate? Second, who were the magistrates? Third, to what extent were the magistracies dominated by a few families? And, last, does family dominance support that the claim that Rome "was a pure oligarchy, the poeple had no shrare in the government [sic]"?

 

First, a 'magistrate' (or magistratus) had a precise legal meaning in ancient Rome (discussed here). A magistrate is one who holds the legal right to direct the business of the state. Initially, only the kings were magistratus, and immediately after they were expelled, only the two consuls were magistratus. Over time, this list expanded to 10 tribunes of the plebs, 2 consuls, 18 praetors, 6 aediles, as well as various propraetors and proconsuls. In the age of Sulla, it included 2 censors, 2 consuls, 8-10 praetors, 2 curule aediles, 10 tribunes of the plebs, 2 plebeian aediles, and 20 quaestors (see here for Prof. Kondratieff's useful page, or Lintott's Constitution of the Roman Republic).

 

Second, who were these magistrates? A partial but magnificent answer to this question is provided by Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic, a 2 volume work that is impossible to reproduce here. (A more complete source is currently being produced by Drs. Benness and Hillard.). For our purposes, I would suggest limiting the period under consideration simply to 78-49, since that's the period that's really under dispute and also since we have a full list of magistrates for this period reproduced in Gruen's widely available "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic".

 

Third, if we confine ourselves to this period, it becomes clear that the proportion of magistracies that went to the top families depends very much on the rank of the magistracy held. At one extreme, 54 of the 61 known consuls (88.5%) came from consular families. At the other extreme, only 33 of the 113 known tribunes (29%) came from consular families. Overall, of 600 known magistrates from 78-49, only 241 (40%) came from consular families. Thus, the majority of the magistrates of the late republic were men who came from families that had risen no further than praeteor.

 

Fourth, not only were the majority of the magistracies going to non-consular families, even if the proportion were reversed, it would not support the claim that the people had no share in government. Quite the contrary, it was the people in their assemblies that

• elected all the magistrates who formed the cursus honorum--from censor to quaestor--in addition to electing all the minor magistracies, including the tresviri capitales and monetales
  
• had the power to alter the constitution (e.g., by introducing new magistracies or expanding their numbers)
  
• pass civil laws, found colonies, and distribute public land; and
  
• control admission to Roman citizenship itself.
  

.

So far from the people having no share in the government, the very government itself was engraved on the ballots that were held in the palms of the people.

 

In my view, the claim that Roman republic was an actual oligarchy is an insidious falsehood that only serves the purpose of whitewashing the crimes of Caesar and his heirs. It's one thing to read this sort of nonsense from their apologists; we needn't go on repeating their propaganda from the luxury of our own republics.

 

 

Its a second time when i correct your mistake. Tribunes of plebs were not magistrates. They were representants of plebs but not magistrates.

The numbers of magistrates you gave are valid only for the end of republic. In times of Sulla were only 8 praetors and 4 aediles. Sulla raised the number of questors to 20.

Taking for consideration period 78-49 BC doesnt have any sence. Republic lasted for over 400 years, discussing only the period when it was falling down and didnt work as it use to work in the past wont give us any contructive conclusions.

 

So far i see M.Porcius Cato you dont understand how really political system of Roman Republic was working. The leading role belonged to SENATE which was influecing both magistrates and assemblies. In fact it were senatorial famillies that ruled Rome. Most of the senators didnt even had right to speak in senate. The few who could and who were responsible for Rome's politic's were ex consuls ex censors and somtimes ex praetors.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Mosquito

[Caesar CXXXVII]

elected all the magistrates who formed the cursus honorum--from censor to quaestor--in addition to electing all the minor magistracies, including the tresviri capitales and monetales

 

Unbelievable ,

 

One of 2 -

That's what happened when you want to manipulate an argument

Or when you are sincere but sticks to formalities without seeing the whole picture .

 

since the 4th century BCE the Comitia Centuriata had 193 (some say 195) centuries , without entering to too much detailes (and to the Fabian reform of c. 241 BCE) - Less than 1 % ot Rome's population had 98 of the 193 , that is a majority . I say again , IT IS COMMON KNOWLEGE , less than 1% had the majority in the Comitia Centuriata , there is nothing to do about it . The 1% represented the Equites (1,800 men) and the first class (no more than 2,000 to 3,000 men) . The Proletarii (some 95 to 98 %) had one seat in the Comitia !!!

As Mos' said , the senate manipulated the election as they wish , the ex-consuls held the election and they were senators .

So , yes the people elected the Magistrates..............By the same way of argumentation we can say that Iran is a democracy

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

 

 

 

Its a second time when i correct your mistake. Tribunes of plebs were not magistrates. They were representants of plebs but not magistrates.

 

o.k. maybe a slight oversight on MPC's behalf, no need for the all out attack at the start of your post.

 

The numbers of magistrates you gave are valid only for the end of republic. In times of Sulla were only 8 praetors and 4 aediles. Sulla raised the number of questors to 20.

Taking for consideration period 78-49 BC doesnt have any sence. Republic lasted for over 400 years, discussing only the period when it was falling down and didnt work as it use to work in the past wont give us any contructive conclusions.

 

MPC only suggests the period 78-49BC because of the full list of magistrates for the period available. If you would like to expand the period under consideration to over 400yrs well be our guest.....and good luck!

 

So far i see M.Porcius Cato you dont understand how really political system of Roman Republic was working. The leading role belonged to SENATE which was influecing both magistrates and assemblies. In fact it were senatorial famillies that ruled Rome. Most of the senators didnt even had right to speak in senate. The few who could and who were responsible for Rome's politic's were ex consuls ex censors and somtimes ex praetors.

 

From what I've read and what I know I'd say that MPC does have a good understanding of how the political system of the Republic worked as I'm sure do you, I just think that you need to tone down the confrontational and agressive nature to your posts,because this is a fascinating topic and it would be a shame if it just turned into a slagging match.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[Pompieus]

This argument goes to your definition of "oligarchy".

 

Was access to Roman magistracies and the senate closed like the senate of Venice? No, it is clear that new blood was regularly introduced to the back benches. Using the same data as Cato, you find that a third of the known tribunes, 29% of the known aediles and 22.5% of the known praetors were novi homines that is, from families that do not appear to have had senatorial ancestors. Half of the 200 known senators who had held no magistracy pedarii were new men.

 

Sulla had added many of these men to the Senate, and later Caesar added more; both Roman [/i]equites and the upper classes from the municipalities and the towns of Italy. In earlier times, many of the most aristocratic Roman clans sponsored the entry of aristocrats from the towns of Italy into the Roman political scene, the Porcii, Perpernae, Otacilii, Metelii and Pompeii are examples. Munzer's "Roman Aristocratic Parties and Families" elucidates this. It had been going on since the Claudii arrived from the Sabine country.

 

However, does this really mean that there was no "oligarchy"? Note how closely the consulship was guarded - only one novus reached the consulship in the whole period. In the senate, tradition demanded, and procedure saw to it, that the consulars and ex-censors exerted the greatest influence. Unless he had special qualities (like Cato), a back bencher was rarely heard from in debate. The actual business of the state was undoubtedly dominated by 20 or 30 men from 10 or 15 families. Sometimes it could be dominated by a mere faction within this group (again like Cato). Even in the elections it is questionable that anyone could be succesful without support from some section of the Roman aristocracy and could not succeed in the face of their opposition. Even Marius got his start as a protoge of the Metelii.

 

So was Rome an oligarchy? Not legally - there was no blood or even wealth requirement for candidacy or entry to the senate. And, wisely, the ruling group was willing to broaden the base of the state by periodically co-opting individuals from the same social and economic classes in other parts of Italy. But would anyone contend that the government was not dominated by the few? Or that the real problem with the Republic wasn't the fierce competition between these aristocrats for wealth, influence and power?

 

By the way, it would be incredible if/when those guys in Australia com up with an english language version of the Realencyclopaedie der Alterumswissenschaft!(?) Not only is it tough to find, but my German is poor and there is nowhere else that has all those biographies (and you alway see those notes against a guys name like RE(27)!)

Edited January 28, 2007 by Pompieus

[M. Porcius Cato]

Its a second time when i correct your mistake. Tribunes of plebs were not magistrates. They were representants of plebs but not magistrates.

The mistake is not mine, but yours. Tribunes of the plebs were magistrates; they were listed as 'magistratus' by the ancient jurists, and I've included a reference so anyone can double-check my sources.

 

The numbers of magistrates you gave are valid only for the end of republic. In times of Sulla were only 8 praetors and 4 aediles. Sulla raised the number of questors to 20.

Taking for consideration period 78-49 BC doesnt have any sence. Republic lasted for over 400 years, discussing only the period when it was falling down and didnt work as it use to work in the past wont give us any contructive conclusions.

I've analyzed 600 magistrates from the post-Sullan period since that was the period that gave rise to the claim that Caesar invaded an oligarchy--that is, rule by the few--rather than a republic. I think I've shown conclusively that this is a falsehood.

 

If you want to maintain that an earlier period of the Republic was oligarchical, then put up the evidence on as comprehensive a range of magistracies (consuls, praetors, aediles, tribunes, and quaestors) from an earlier period. I'd love to see it. Perhaps the post-Sullan era was becoming more open to non-consular families; perhaps it was becoming less so. But you can't appeal to a vacuum of evidence to support your claim that my period was non-representative of the republic in general.

 

In fact it were senatorial famillies that ruled Rome. Most of the senators didnt even had right to speak in senate.

 

These facts support neither the claim that Rome was an oligarchy nor the claim that upwards of 80% of magistracies were held by some 20 or 30 leading families.

 

Moreover, it isn't true that most senators had no right to speak in the senate; rather, there was simply an order of precedence, which was absolutely necessary. No large body of people can adequately discuss matters without rules of order. If you would think about this mathematically, the number of speakers has to be limited in order to have a meaningful exchange of opinion: if two people present competing ideas, you have four arguments (argument A, argument B, counter to B, counter to A); if three, then you have nine arguments (A and anti-B and anti-C vs B and anti-A and anti-C vs C and anti-A and anti-; and so on, exponentially, with the value of the exponent determined by whether one allow rebuttals to counter-arguments. Had the Senate allowed everyone to present their own unique views, a generation of Romans would have died of old age before deciding whether to build the road to Capua. In short, the notion that every Senator should have the inalienable right to speak on every issue flies in the face of simple math.

[Mosquito]

The mistake is not mine, but yours. Tribunes of the plebs were magistrates; they were listed as 'magistratus' by the ancient jurists, and I've included a reference so anyone can double-check my sources.

 

No, i repeat that tribunes were not magistrates of any kind. They were elected by plebeian assembly, they were leading plebeian assembly, they were protecting the interests of plebs against patricians. Thats all, they were not magistrates of any kind and no Roman would call a tribune - magistratus.

[M. Porcius Cato]

So was Rome an oligarchy? Not legally - there was no blood or even wealth requirement for candidacy or entry to the senate. And, wisely, the ruling group was willing to broaden the base of the state by periodically co-opting individuals from the same social and economic classes in other parts of Italy. But would anyone contend that the government was not dominated by the few? Or that the real problem with the Republic wasn't the fierce competition between these aristocrats for wealth, influence and power?

 

First, thank you for your thoughtful response. I thought the contrast between the republics of Rome and Venice was quite apt, and I was happy to see your analysis of the number of novi homines.

 

Second, you raise an important question: if the Roman republic was not an oligarchy de jure, was there some sense in which the republic was an oligarchy de facto?

 

With respect to family ties, I think the evidence I cited suggests No, and I think we're in agreement on this.

 

With respect to auctoritas, however, Rome was far more oligarchical, with the views of some statesmen having vastly more weight than those of others due to all kinds of political stagecraft (on this, see especially, Marx-Morstein's interesting book "Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Republic"; a review here).

 

Though even with respect to what we might call an "oligarchy of influence", I think we need to be careful. It's very tempting, for example, to see whole eras in terms of a titanic struggle between two major competitors (e.g., Licinius vs. Claudius, Cato vs Scipio, Marius vs. Sulla, Pompey vs Caesar, etc). Partly, however, I think the simplicity of these struggles simply reflects the paucity of our sources. When our sources are more voluminous (e.g., in the era of Cicero), the number of major players increases dramatically. As much as I like L R Taylor's "party of Caesar" vs "party of Cato" idea, most of Caesar's and Cato's allies were merely friends of convenience, with political goals that were short-term and with political alliances that were consequently short-lived (e.g., look at the shifting alliances of the enormously influential Metelli in the late republic, or contrast the goals of Nasica and Ahenobarbus with that of their nominal ally Cato).

 

Finally--and this is a perennial bone of contention in modern politics--there is a vast and important difference between equal opportunity and equal outcomes. In a society of equal opportunity, free competition, and natural differences in ability, one would expect inequality of outcomes--and the same must be true of political influence as well. Those who cannot speak well or fear to do so will never attain the same political influence as a Cato, Cicero, or Caesar. Thus, at least in my opinion, the most important thing is that the laws of the republic were not oligarchical, that there is ample evidence of participation from a broad range of families, and that the participation and influence of plebeian families in particular grew over time with no need for radical, Soviet-style purges of the patrician families.

[M. Porcius Cato]

no Roman would call a tribune - magistratus.

 

The following Romans called the tribunes magistratus: Pomponius, De Origine Juris; Titus Livius, Bk 23; and M Messala, quoted by Gellius.

[Gaius Octavius]

What were the qualifications for becoming a Senator? They certainly weren't elected.

 

Aren't the Roman 'rules of order' part of the modern rules?

 

MPC, I think that you have overstated the 'argument' bit. Because one supports another in an 'argument', it does not necessarily follow that another argument has been introduced.

[M. Porcius Cato]

As far as our conclusions go, nothing really hinges on whether tribunes count as magistrates. Out of curiosity, I looked at the praetors alone to see whether the lion's share of praetorships were going to the top 20 or so families. Quite the opposite, the 178 known praetors were divided among 117 different gentes, with just 40% of the praetors belonging to the top 20 families.

 

Here are the unique gentes listed in Gruen (number of individuals in parentheses for consular families).

 

Praetors of consular families (34 gentes)

Acilius, Aemilius (4), Antonius (2), Aufidius, Aurelius Cotta (4), Caecilius Metellus (6), Calpurnius (4), Cassius (2), Claudius (6), Coelius (2), Cornelius (9), Domitius (2), Fannius, Hortensius, Julius (2), Junius Silanus (2), Juventius (2), Licinius (5), Manlius (5), Marcius (3), Minucius Thermus (2), Octavius, Papirius, Plautius, Pompeius (2), Porcius, Publicius, Pupius, Rutilius, Sergius, Servilius, Sulpicius (4), Terentius (2), Valerius (3)

 

Praetors of praetorian families (22 gentes)

Aelius, Ancharius, Aquillius, Aufidius, Bellienus, Caecilius, Calidius, Claudius Glaber, Cornelius Sisenna, Cosconius, Fonteius, Gabinius, Licinius Murena, Memmius, Nigidius, Nonius, Quinctilius, Rubrius, Scribonius,

Sextilius, Tremellius, Villius

 

Praetors of senatorial family (26 gentes):

Afranius, Antistius, Appuleius, Autronius, Caecilius Rufus, Caesius, Considius Nonianus, Cornificius, Curtius,

Fabius, Fufius, Junius, Licinius Sacerdos, Lucceius, Peducaeus, Plaetorius, Plautius, Servilius, Sestius, Silius, Titius, Valerius, Vergilius, Verres, Voconius, Volcacius

 

Novi homines (35 gentes):

Alfius, Allienus, Ampius, Annius, Arrius, Atius, Attius, Caesonius, Considius, Coponius, Cossinius, Culleolous,

Favonius, Flavius, Gallius, Gutta, Juncus, Labienus, Lollius, Megabocchus, Mummius, Octavius, Orbius, Orchivius, Petreius, Pomptinus, Quinctius, Roscius, Septimius, Sosius, Tullius, Turius, Valerius, Varinius, Vettius

[M. Porcius Cato]

What were the qualifications for becoming a Senator? They certainly weren't elected.

Where does your certainty come from GO? Elected magistrates (including tribunes since the lex Atinia, and quaestors since at least Sulla) were eligible to sit in the senate, and these were elected posts (the quaestorship, for example, since at least 443 BCE). Since Sulla, anyone elected to the quaestorship could serve in the senate (e.g., having been elected quaestor for 75, Cicero serves on the senate sub-committee examining the dispute between Oropos and the tax collectors in 73).

 

EDIT: I'm assuming you don't have Andrew Lintott's "Constitution of the Roman Republic", so check out this interview with Lintott: he gives a better answer to your question than I did.

Edited January 28, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato