Optimates and Populares

[M. Porcius Cato]

Since the the aristocrats monopolized the power and wealth, any effort to spread it to populace would require strong and bold politician and attract people dissatisfied with status quo. This would include both people who are genuinely committed to reform and people who pursue selfish agenda.

I don't agree that the "aristocrats" monopolized power. All political power in the republic was shared among the various magistracies. If you mean that the magistrates collectively monopolized power, that's true by definition: the only power to be had was had by magistrates that were elected by the people. But if you're following this line, then your definition implies that everyone was an optimate.

 

It would be hard for any populare to support an open revolt or conspiracy.

You're quite right that it would be inconsistent to pose as a champion of the people and oppose their legal rights. However, my counter-examples of Clodius and Gabinius turning on Caesar occurred prior to his revolt. Also, I drew the line at 49 precisely so we didn't have to get into the issue of Caesar's putsch.

[Julius Ratus]

Keep in mind that even today, people do not always toe the party line. Here in Nebraska, we have two senators, Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel. Nelson is a Democrat and Hagel is a Republican. Nelson often votes with the pro-Bush crowd, and is very conservative, and Hagel is often in the anti-war party. In Roman times. politicians probably went with against their allies when it was profitable.

[Mosquito]

At the outset, it seems to me that the longer your definition, the harder it's going to be to find 12 figures who fit it even on an ad hoc basis. Dropping some of these characteristics would help.

 

Because in the time period you have described there were no 12 leaders of populares. After the Gracchi it were only: Marius, Cinna, Catiline, Caesar. The rest were just crowd around them.

Crassus dont fit to this definition - he was a different type of politician. He represented only the rich. But most of the earlier leaders of populares fits well, for example Flaminius or 2 first Claudians from my list. Claudius decemvir was even more like a king than republican politician. He was acting like someone who belived that his power has no limits. I think that we should look at it in wide spectrum, not just last decades of the Republic.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Mosquito

[Publius Nonius Severus]

I do apologize for not being more attentive in this thread, work and home have been quite busy lately.

 

I have been reading snippets of Party Politics in the Age of Caesar by Lily Ross Taylor which looks to be an excellent book I have on order, but have not received, so I have been previewing it in Google Books. Even though I have only read small parts, it has already given me great insight when combining it with a lot of the things discussed in this thread.

 

So, combining ideas from Taylor and this thread, here is my new quick breakdown which I think supports the idea that the optimates and populares were not parties per se, but really were more labels describing the general political characteristics of the prominent political players of the age.

 

1. Until the first triumvirate, the optimates were more or less the old Sullans who were trying to mantain the power of the Senate that Sulla gave it. They didn't work as a party, but they did stick up for each other to maintain their collective power. They did not campaign as a party, but they did band together to obstruct the populares throughout the 60's in order to maintain as much of their power as possible

 

2. The populares were not really a party or even a coaltion, they were merely a group of men who used the tribal assemblies and other "popular" means to gain power for themselves and erode the power of the Senate. Taylor has no hesitation calling Pompey, Crassus, Caesar, and Catiline popular leaders (Taylor p. 120). They weren't necessarily working together, but individually they were definitely working against the Senate and the Senate was working against them.

 

4. When the triumvirate was formed, specifically during Caesar's consulship, the above blurry lines got even blurrier. The reason is that triumvirs or their supporters were finally able to take power away from the Senate yet work through the Senate at the same time. Taylor starts using the termn "Dynasts" to describe those who were before considered populares. These individuals were basically Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey and their minions.

 

5. After Caesar goes to Gaul, Here is the definition of the optimates given to us by Cicero in Pro Sestio, Chap. 45:

 

"Omnes optimates sunt qui neque nocentes sunt nec natura improbi nec furiosi nec malis domesticis impediti."

 

This is my rough translation:

 

"The optimates are all those who are neither criminal nor of morally unsound character nor wild nor living adulterously."

Basically, Cicero is saying that is that anyone who works through the constiution and opposed violent change is an optimate, if you work through violent change you are a popularis (Taylor p. 140). This definition seems to be more of an attempt by Cicero to make himself look cleaner than a clear division though. Really at this point, the optimates are the ones who begin playing Crassus and Pompey off each other while Caesar is away. They work with Pompey to get Cicero recalled but work with Crassus to curtail Pompey's ambition for more extraordinary commands (Talyor p. 141). This group is basically Cato and his closest family and friends: Cato, Bilbulus, Domitiius, Favonius, and for a time Philippus.

 

6. Lastly, after the triumvirate breaks up and it's Caesar vs. Pompey, the lines get even blurrier and it is almost pointless to try to label them IMO.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Publius Nonius Severus

[M. Porcius Cato]

Claudius decemvir was even more like a king than republican politician. He was acting like someone who belived that his power has no limits.

 

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? Your definition of populare seems to be anyone who would be king. This may well be a coherent category, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the label 'populare'.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I have been reading snippets of Party Politics in the Age of Caesar by Lily Ross Taylor which looks to be an excellent book... So, combining ideas from Taylor and this thread, here is my new quick breakdown which I think supports the idea that the optimates and populares were not parties per se, but really were more labels describing the general political characteristics of the prominent political players of the age.

Glad to bring Lily Ross Taylor's book into the mix. Taylor's book turned me on to Roman history more than any other, even if it's thesis is one that I have been gradually moving away from for some time. That said, your historical narrative seems approximately correct.

 

5. After Caesar goes to Gaul, Here is the definition of the optimates given to us by Cicero in Pro Sestio, Chap. 45: "The optimates are all those who are neither criminal nor of morally unsound character nor wild nor living adulterously."

 

OK, in the interest of this experiment, let's take Cicero's definition seriously. Who would be optimate given his definition (and the timeframe we're talking about)? I'm guessing he would exclude these 12: Vetteius, Vatinius, Gabinius, Clodius, Antonius, Sallustius, Lepidus, Milo, Caesar, Verres, Catalina, and Curio. And he could include these 12: Lucullus, Hortensius, Cicero, Cato, Bibulus, Domitius Ahenobarbus, Favonius, Lentulus Spinther, Varro, Memmius, Calvinus, Manlius Torquatus, and Scipio Nasica. It's an awfully partisan definition, to be sure, but at least it has the virtues of being clear-cut and generating an open-ended list. Not bad.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Very clear-cut and interesting indeed! I hadn't really thought of actually applying Cicero's definition but actually does work well. But, where do we put two of the most significant figures of that time period who are absent from your lists: Pompey and Crassus?

 

I think Pompey can easily be included in the list of non-optimates using the violence litmus test--if even for the only the threat of violence in support of political aims.

 

Crassus is a little more dificult however. If he was actually involved in the Catiline business then clearly he is a non-optimate. He did stand on th rostra with Caesar and Pompey while Pompey said he would use force to support Caesar's legislation so that too could define him as a non-optimate. Any other thoughts along this line?

[Primus Pilus]

Crassus is a little more dificult however. If he was actually involved in the Catiline business then clearly he is a non-optimate. He did stand on th rostra with Caesar and Pompey while Pompey said he would use force to support Caesar's legislation so that too could define him as a non-optimate. Any other thoughts along this line?

 

Crassus can be seen on either side of the debate depending on how the circumstances applied to him directly. He appears to have been less motivated by political ideology and more so by personal social standing. Had Crassus found that it would have been more beneficial to him personally, I have no doubt that he would have stood against Caesar and Pompey. In fairness, I suppose a case can be made for many politicians that they were towing the 'party line' in order to benefit their own careers rather than truly support a certain ideology, so I don't mean to suggest that others were far more righteous in ideology than Crassus. However, he simply stands out as one who cared little for how he got there, as long as he got there.

 

Yes, he and Pompey reversed Sulla's anti-Plebeian laws, but was this because he supported a populares position, or because he stood to gain by it? A fine line I know, and it's difficult to truly assess such motivations after 2,000 years, but I truly think Crassus is an oddity that should be left off either side of the list.

[Julius Ratus]

If the threat of violence is our criteria for populares, then I would put Crassus with the populares. Suetonius mentions that early in Caesar's career the two planned to start a revolution and kill their enemies Sulla-style (ch 9).

[Mosquito]

Claudius decemvir was even more like a king than republican politician. He was acting like someone who belived that his power has no limits.

 

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? Your definition of populare seems to be anyone who would be king. This may well be a coherent category, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the label 'populare'.

 

 

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.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Mosquito

[Mosquito]

Such rules like those few here, in the country ruled by aristocracy, made the law of 12 Tables a great victory of plebs and it wasnt an coincidence that almost all patricians were against enacting those laws. More than anything else - they were protecting plebeians from patricians and patrician priests and judges had to obey those laws:

 

 

"If someone is called to go to court, he is to go. If he doesn't go, a witness should be called. Only then should he be captured."

 

 

"A person who admits to owing money or has been adjudged to owe money must be given 30 days to pay."

 

 

"Against an enemy, the right of property is valid forever."

 

"If a patron defrauds his client, let him be outlawed"

 

"Putting to death of any man, whosoever he might be unconvicted, is forbidden."

[Mosquito]

Livy on Appius Claudius decemvir - who is probably the first well known leader of populares:

 

The direction of the entire government rested with Appius

through the favour of the commons, and he had assumed a demeanour

so different that, from being a severe and harsh persecutor of the

people, he became suddenly a courter of the commons, and strove to

catch every breath of popular favour.

 

 

The fact of their dignity being now laid aside in a contest, at their time of life, and

after they had filled such high official positions, stimulated the

exertions of Appius Claudius. You would not have known whether to

reckon him among the decemvirs or the candidates; he resembled at

times more closely one canvassing for office than one invested with

it; he aspersed the nobles, extolled all the most unimportant and

insignificant candidates; surrounded by the Duellii and Icilii who had

been tribunes, he himself bustled about the forum, through their means

he recommended himself to the commons; until even his colleagues, who

till then had been devoted to him heart and soul, turned their eyes on

him, wondering what he was about. It was evident to them that there

was no sincerity in it; that such affability amid such pride would

surely prove not disinterested. That this excessive lowering of

himself, and condescending to familiarity with private citizens, was

characteristic not so much of one eager to retire from office, as of

one seeking the means of continuing that office.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Mosquito

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

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. They were strenuously opposed by most of the nobility, who posed as defenders of the Senate but were really concerned to maintain their own privileged position. The whole truth

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Isn't it kind of interesting that during the struggle of the orders the patricians were trying to maintain the status quo and the plebeians were trying to break new ground. But, in the optimates vs. populares there were quite a few patricians who were turning to "ground breaking" measures as populares to gain power: Caesar, Cataline, Clodius. Ok, so Clodius was plebeian but he did renounce his patrician status so he could be tribune. Obviously there were a lot of plebeian populares also but nevertheless interesting.

[Kosmo]

Most high profile romans were upper class and often of noble origin regardless of political affiliaton. The struggle was within the elite all the time. The populares thought plebeian support in their aristocratic competition, not plebeian rule.

 

This competitors used "ideolgies" as propaganda tools and not as political programs. If the goal of the optimates it's easier to define: to mantain the status quo, the goal of the populares it's vague. Only self promotion it's constant. Neither in the political debates or after conflicts did they propose or accomplish programs deeper then mere capture of the popular good will. Setting up colonies, corn dole, games, limited land reforms, clearing of debts are tools used by populares, and sometimes by their competitors to get public support, not as a project for a change of roman society.

 

Something similar was common long before this struglle in the internal life of many greek cities. Aristocratic demagogs used popular support to defeat the aristocracy and the oligarhic insitutions in order to get absolute power as tyrants.

 

So, the populares were less a party and more the clients/followers of a strong leader who tried to topple the Senate while the optimates were the defenders of staus quo. But to drow the line between the two sides it's difficult because positions shifted constantly as every politician thought a better position.