Optimates and Populares

[M. Porcius Cato]

This is how the historian Sallust (mid-first century BCE) described the two political factions during his lifetime:

After the restoration of the power of the tribunes in the consulship of Pompey and Crassus, this very important office was obtained by certain men whose youth intensified their natural aggressiveness. These tribunes began to rouse the mob by inveighing against the Senate, and then inflamed popular passion still further by handing out bribes and promises, whereby they won renown and influence for themselves.

 

OK--who were these young, aggressive tribunes? Did they form anything like a real faction? Did they support one another's legislation--or veto it? When they stepped down from the tribunate, did they continue to work together (if they ever did)--or did they go their separate ways, competing with another sometimes and cooperating at other times? In my view, Sallust's sweeping generalizations are terribly unreliable and almost invariably marked by the kind of bitter cynicism that comes from the dashed hopes of naive utopians.

[M. Porcius Cato]

For me it is simple and obvious. Until the code of 12 Tables was enacted the words of priests and magistrates of patrician origin was the law and what's more, it was arbitrary law used against plebeians. It was first great victory of plebeians and was followed soon by the next victories. It was important and Claudius decemvir was the one who made it possible and who conducted the whole process of making this law. All the senate and patrician class was against him while he had full support of plebs! It wasnt important what was on the tables, important was that patrician could no longer use the law against plebeians in arbitrary ways.

 

Simply stunning: wrong in almost every possible detail.

 

Prior to the Twelve Tables, written laws certainly existed (see here for one surviving example; see the Leges Regiae for still earlier exempla). These laws were not arbitrary ones used exclusively against plebeians. In fact, none of these early laws even mention plebs.

 

Second, the first great victory of the plebeians must have been the expulsion of the Tarquins, and--following that--the reforms of Publicola. Moreover, as important as the Twelve Tables were for private law (and they almost all deal exclusively with private law, not constitutional matters), they enacted no Solonian-style seisictheia. The attempt to recast the Twelve Tables within the late republican mold is simply an ahistorical fantasy.

 

Third, Claudius was not the only one who made it possible. The codification of the laws were proposed by a tribune, Terentilius Harsa. The men who sat on the board that was charged with the codification were largely--like Claudius--from the new clans that immigrated to Rome: Romilius, Tarpeius, Aternius, Quinctilius, Curiatius, Sestius, and Genucius. Moreover, according to Strabo and Pliny, the codification itself had a Greek source--Hermodorus, an Ephesian who was residing in Rome at the time--and some of the language on the tables have a clear Greek source (e.g., poena used to refer to a penalty). Thus, Claudius was really only a bit player in the whole drama, and he was certainly not "the one who made it possible and who conducted the whole process of making this law".

 

Fourth, the claim "All the senate and patrician class was against him while he had full support of plebs!" is logically impossible. Claudius himself was a patrician. Moreover, given the harsh punishments stipulated by the Tables for debtors, it seems scarcely credible that they had the "full support of plebs!". Quite the contrary, the best explanation for the resolution of the conflict of the orders is that the harsh penalties for debt (e.g., debt bondage and slavery) were abolished.

 

Finally, the content of the Twelve Tables matters enormously. This wholly absurd interpretation of the Tables as a great constitutional victory for the plebs gains absolutely no credence from even a cursory reading of the Tables, which concern themselves with utterly ordinary private law and no position that anyone could regard as popularis.

[Pantagathus]

Lets keep this debate civil and refrain from resorting to personal attacks.

[Pertinax]

Lets keep this debate civil and refrain from resorting to personal attacks.

Pan Ive deleted the offending item.It adds nothing to the thread.

[Mosquito]

I saw nothing offending in my post. I didnt attack MPC as the person, only conclusions he made. Its a difference.

 

Now back to the topic.

And why would you put Claudius in the populare category? Claudius, a patrician, forbade intermarriage between patricians and plebeians and suppressed plebeian civil rights. He was a Tarquin or Sulla in the making. How is this populare?

 

MPC - according to you history looked completelly different than it really was - here is what you suggest and somtimes even claim:

 

Plebeians didnt demand to make codification of law. In your opinion it were patricians who wanted to make the code of Twelve Tables to worsen the situation of plebs. It wasnt an existing law gathered together in one act but - in your opinion - quite a new law made against the plebs and against its will. Claudius decemvir - the person who according to existing roman sources played main role in decemvirate was a patrician (thank you for that notice MPC - how strange that Claudius was patrician) but really he was against the plebs and cooperated together with his class to persecuate poor plebeians. The fact that he was main player of decemvirate (the body which become Roman goverment and in fact a dictatorship held together by 10 people) means for you that his role was minimal.

 

Simply stunning: wrong in almost every possible detail. Prior to the Twelve Tables, written laws certainly existed (see here for one surviving example; see the Leges Regiae for still earlier exempla). These laws were not arbitrary ones used exclusively against plebeians. In fact, none of these early laws even mention plebs.

 

Wow - so you know those laws. They exist and you can even quote them? Please go on! I belive that the fact that there are some "letters" doesnt mean at all that it are "laws".

Considering the fact that we dont even know those laws it isint strange that: "none of these early laws even mention plebs". Not to mention the fact that in the early Rome plebs didnt even exist as social class. Under Etruscan rules were only two classes - patricians and their clients - like in the etruscan model.

 

the codification itself had a Greek source

 

 

No, it was only influenced by Greek laws but its source was local Roman spoken law and traditions - in other words - mos maiorum itself.

 

Finally, the content of the Twelve Tables matters enormously. This wholly absurd interpretation of the Tables as a great constitutional victory for the plebs gains absolutely no credence from even a cursory reading of the Tables, which concern themselves with utterly ordinary private law and no position that anyone could regard as popularis.

 

 

You really dont understand, dont you? In all the conflicts, law suits - the deciding role had patrician magistrates and priests (especially priests). The law belonged to category "divine" not to category "well known". The knowledge of law was reserved for patricians who were raping it, favouring its own clients, not to mention the fact that in the legal conflict between patrician and plebeian - the second had no chance because the law was used in completelly arbitraty ways. The fact that 12 Tables dont mention plebs is a great victory of plebs, it simply means that it is the one and only law for ALL THE ROMANS! It means that everyone can go and read it and learn it .... and know if he is right or not. The few exceptions didnt matter much and even mixed patrician/plebeian marriages were soon allowed.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Mosquito

[Nephele]

I saw nothing offending in my post. I didnt attack MPC as the person...

 

Yes you did. I saved what you posted, but I'm not going to repeat it here. Both Pantagathus and Pertinax were absolutely right to delete it. (And you Mods may want to delete this, too, and that's okay with me. But justice demanded that I speak up.)

 

-- Nephele

[Mosquito]

I saw nothing offending in my post. I didnt attack MPC as the person...

 

Yes you did. I saved what you posted, but I'm not going to repeat it here. Both Pantagathus and Pertinax were absolutely right to delete it. (And you Mods may want to delete this, too, and that's okay with me. But justice demanded that I speak up.)

 

-- Nephele

 

 

I can only notice that your share in this debate is as fruitful as usually. My compliements.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Mosquito

[M. Porcius Cato]

here is what you suggest and somtimes even claim:Plebeians didnt demand to make codification of law. In your opinion it were patricians who wanted to make the code of Twelve Tables to worsen the situation of plebs. It wasnt an existing law gathered together in one act but - in your opinion - quite a new law made against the plebs and against its will.

It's striking that you've not gone to the trouble of defending your original claim that Claudius was a populare. Instead, you've decided to misrepresent my position entirely. First, against the claim that Claudius originated the idea of the Twelve Tables, I pointed out that the idea originated with a tribune, whom I named precisely to show his plebeian origins. Thus, far from suggesting that plebeians were against the formulation of new laws, I gave precise information about WHICH plebeian exactly was in favor of it. Second, I never claimed that patricians in general crafted the Ten Tables with the goal of oppressing the plebs--I claimed that the laws did not benefit the plebs. There is a vast difference between intended oppression and failure to help, and it's impossible to know which best describes Claudius' legislation.

 

Wow - so you know those laws. They exist and you can even quote them? Please go on!

Here you go. Funny you bothered to cite how populare they were without ever having read them--even stranger for a person with your (self-described) background in Roman law.

 

Not to mention the fact that in the early Rome plebs didnt even exist as social class. Under Etruscan rules were only two classes - patricians and their clients - like in the etruscan model.

Given the dating of the Twelve Tables, this is totally irrelevant--and probably totally false as well. What's the source of your claim? Cicero claims that the plebs and patricians go back to Romulus. Presumably, Cicero is relying on legend, but if Cicero didn't know the origin of the classes, how do you?

 

the codification itself had a Greek source

No, it was only influenced by Greek laws but its source was local Roman spoken law and traditions - in other words - mos maiorum itself.

You're making this up entirely (again). I've given citations in Pliny, Strabo, and the etymology of the language from the Tables themselves. What's your source? None, I'll bet.

 

In all the conflicts, law suits - the deciding role had patrician magistrates and priests (especially priests). The law belonged to category "divine" not to category "well known". The knowledge of law was reserved for patricians who were raping it, favouring its own clients, not to mention the fact that in the legal conflict between patrician and plebeian - the second had no chance because the law was used in completelly arbitraty ways.

As far as I'm concerned, you've lost all benefit of the doubt regarding Roman historical facts. Unless you provide a source for this claim, I'll presume you're manufacturing this from your imagination, like the claim that Claudius--the man whose behavior legendarily instigated the secession of the plebs--was populare.

[Mosquito]

Simply stunning: wrong in almost every possible detail. Prior to the Twelve Tables, written laws certainly existed (see here for one surviving example; see the Leges Regiae for still earlier exempla). These laws were not arbitrary ones used exclusively against plebeians. In fact, none of these early laws even mention plebs.

Wow - so you know those laws. They exist and you can even quote them? Please go on!

Here you go. Funny you bothered to cite how populare they were without ever having read them--even stranger for a person with your (self-described) background in Roman law.

 

 

Leges Regiae - not the 12 Tables. I was expecting from you quotes of Leges Regiae. 12 tables i was quoting myself but you dont read.

 

For the rest I will reply when I come back home.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Mosquito

[Ursus]

This thread is getting on my nerves. I am locking it.

 

I saw nothing offending in my post.

Well, here's the deal, you annoying little bloodsucking insect: it's not what you think. It's what the mods think.

 

While MPC goes out of his way to be an extremely confrontational polemicist, and does not seem to get the point that this place is a learning experience and not a debating club, you are just downright annoying and offensive. I'm tired of your antics. I'm tired of you arguing with the mods when you do something wrong and we take action. I'm putting you on mod status just because I can.

 

So there.