Polybius, Histories

Translation

Book 6 - Chapter 6

<w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29nanti%2Fwn">ἐναντίων</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftois">τούτοις</w>. <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tro%2Fpos">τρόπος</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="a%29rxh%3Ds">ἀρχῆς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="gene%2Fsews">γενέσεως</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="ei%29rhme%2Fnwn">εἰρημένων</w> <w lemma="toio%2Fsde">τοιόσδε</w>.

<w lemma="pa%2Fntwn">πάντων</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="sunousi%2Fas">συνουσίας</w> <w lemma="o%28rmw%2Fntwn">ὁρμώντων</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="fu%2Fsin">φύσιν</w>, <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="paidopoii%2Fas">παιδοποιίας</w> <w lemma="a%29poteloume%2Fnhs">ἀποτελουμένης</w>, <w lemma="o%28po%2Fte">ὁπότε</w> <w lemma="tis">τις</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29ktrafe%2Fntwn">ἐκτραφέντων</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="h%28liki%2Fan">ἡλικίαν</w> <w lemma="i%28ko%2Fmenos">ἱκόμενος</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="ne%2Fmoi">νέμοι</w> <w lemma="xa%2Frin">χάριν</w> <w lemma="mhd%27">μηδ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29mu%2Fnai">ἀμύναι</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftois">τούτοις</w> <w lemma="oi%28%3Ds">οἷς</w> <w lemma="e%29ktre%2Ffoit%27">ἐκτρέφοιτ᾽</w>, <w lemma="a%29lla%2F">ἀλλά</w> <w lemma="pou">που</w> <w lemma="ta%29nanti%2Fa">τἀναντία</w> <w lemma="kakw%3Ds">κακῶς</w> <w lemma="le%2Fgein">λέγειν</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="dra%3Dn">δρᾶν</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftous">τούτους</w> <w lemma="e%29gxeiroi%2Fh">ἐγχειροίη</w>,

<w lemma="dh%3Dlon">δῆλον</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="dusarestei%3Dn">δυσαρεστεῖν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="prosko%2Fptein">προσκόπτειν</w> <w lemma="ei%29ko%5Cs">εἰκὸς</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="suno%2Fntas">συνόντας</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="sunido%2Fntas">συνιδόντας</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="gegenhme%2Fnhn">γεγενημένην</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="gennhsa%2Fntwn">γεννησάντων</w> <w lemma="e%29pime%2Fleian">ἐπιμέλειαν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="kakopa%2Fqeian">κακοπάθειαν</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="te%2Fkna">τέκνα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="qerapei%2Fan">θεραπείαν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="trofh%2Fn">τροφήν</w>.

<w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="ge%2Fnous">γένους</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29nqrw%2Fpwn">ἀνθρώπων</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fth%7C">ταύτῃ</w> <w lemma="diafe%2Frontos">διαφέροντος</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fllwn">ἄλλων</w> <w lemma="zw%2F%7Cwn">ζῴων</w>, <w lemma="h%28%3D%7C">ᾗ</w> <w lemma="mo%2Fnois">μόνοις</w> <w lemma="au%29toi%3Ds">αὐτοῖς</w> <w lemma="me%2Ftesti">μέτεστι</w> <w lemma="nou%3D">νοῦ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="logismou%3D">λογισμοῦ</w>, <w lemma="fanero%5Cn">φανερὸν</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="ei%29ko%5Cs">εἰκὸς</w> <w lemma="paratre%2Fxein">παρατρέχειν</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%5Cs">αὐτοὺς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="proeirhme%2Fnhn">προειρημένην</w> <w lemma="diafora%2Fn">διαφοράν</w>, <w lemma="kaqa%2Fper">καθάπερ</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fllwn">ἄλλων</w> <w lemma="zw%2F%7Cwn">ζῴων</w>,

<w lemma="a%29ll%27">ἀλλ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29pishmai%2Fnesqai">ἐπισημαίνεσθαι</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="gino%2Fmenon">γινόμενον</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="dusarestei%3Dsqai">δυσαρεστεῖσθαι</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="parou%3Dsi">παροῦσι</w>, <w lemma="proorwme%2Fnous">προορωμένους</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="me%2Fllon">μέλλον</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="sullogizome%2Fnous">συλλογιζομένους</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="paraplh%2Fsion">παραπλήσιον</w> <w lemma="e%28ka%2Fstois">ἑκάστοις</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3Dn">αὐτῶν</w> <w lemma="sugkurh%2Fsei">συγκυρήσει</w>.

<w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="mh%5Cn">μὴν</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Ftan">ὅταν</w> <w lemma="pou">που</w> <w lemma="pa%2Flin">πάλιν</w> <w lemma="a%28%2Fteros">ἅτερος</w> <w lemma="u%28po%5C">ὑπὸ</w> <w lemma="qate%2Frou">θατέρου</w> <w lemma="tuxw%5Cn">τυχὼν</w> <w lemma="e%29pikouri%2Fas">ἐπικουρίας</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="bohqei%2Fas">βοηθείας</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="deinoi%3Ds">δεινοῖς</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="ne%2Fmh%7C">νέμῃ</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="sw%2Fsanti">σώσαντι</w> <w lemma="xa%2Frin">χάριν</w>, <w lemma="a%29lla%2F">ἀλλά</w> <w lemma="pote">ποτε</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="bla%2Fptein">βλάπτειν</w> <w lemma="e%29gxeirh%3D%7C">ἐγχειρῇ</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dton">τοῦτον</w>, <w lemma="fanero%5Cn">φανερὸν</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="ei%29ko%5Cs">εἰκὸς</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="toiou%2Ftw%7C">τοιούτῳ</w> <w lemma="dusarestei%3Dsqai">δυσαρεστεῖσθαι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="prosko%2Fptein">προσκόπτειν</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="ei%29do%2Ftas">εἰδότας</w>, <w lemma="sunaganaktou%3Dntas">συναγανακτοῦντας</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="pe%2Flas">πέλας</w>, <w lemma="a%29nafe%2Frontas">ἀναφέροντας</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29f%27">ἐφ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%28tou%5Cs">αὑτοὺς</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="paraplh%2Fsion">παραπλήσιον</w>.

<w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="w%28%3Dn">ὧν</w> <w lemma="u%28pogi%2Fnetai%2F">ὑπογίνεταί</w> <w lemma="tis">τις</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fnnoia">ἔννοια</w> <w lemma="par%27">παρ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%28ka%2Fstw%7C">ἑκάστῳ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="kaqh%2Fkontos">καθήκοντος</w> <w lemma="duna%2Fmews">δυνάμεως</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="qewri%2Fas:">θεωρίας·</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fper">ὅπερ</w> <w lemma="e%29sti%5Cn">ἐστὶν</w> <w lemma="a%29rxh%5C">ἀρχὴ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="te%2Flos">τέλος</w> <w lemma="dikaiosu%2Fnhs">δικαιοσύνης</w>.

<w lemma="o%28moi%2Fws">ὁμοίως</w> <w lemma="pa%2Flin">πάλιν</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Ftan">ὅταν</w> <w lemma="a%29mu%2Fnh%7C">ἀμύνῃ</w> <w lemma="me%2Fn">μέν</w> <w lemma="tis">τις</w> <w lemma="pro%5C">πρὸ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntwn">πάντων</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="deinoi%3Ds">δεινοῖς</w>, <w lemma="u%28fi%2Fsthtai">ὑφίστηται</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="me%2Fnh%7C">μένῃ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="e%29pifora%5Cs">ἐπιφορὰς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29lkimwta%2Ftwn">ἀλκιμωτάτων</w> <w lemma="zw%2F%7Cwn">ζῴων</w>, <w lemma="ei%29ko%5Cs">εἰκὸς</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="toiou%3Dton">τοιοῦτον</w> <w lemma="u%28po%5C">ὑπὸ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="plh%2Fqous">πλήθους</w> <w lemma="e%29pishmasi%2Fas">ἐπισημασίας</w> <w lemma="tugxa%2Fnein">τυγχάνειν</w> <w lemma="eu%29noi+kh%3Ds">εὐνοϊκῆς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="prostatikh%3Ds">προστατικῆς</w>, <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="ta%29nanti%2Fa">τἀναντία</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftw%7C">τούτῳ</w> <w lemma="pra%2Fttonta">πράττοντα</w> <w lemma="katagnw%2Fsews">καταγνώσεως</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="proskoph%3Ds">προσκοπῆς</w>.

<w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="ou%28%3D">οὗ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Flin">πάλιν</w> <w lemma="eu%29%2Flogon">εὔλογον</w> <w lemma="u%28pogi%2Fnesqai%2F">ὑπογίνεσθαί</w> <w lemma="tina">τινα</w> <w lemma="qewri%2Fan">θεωρίαν</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="polloi%3Ds">πολλοῖς</w> <w lemma="ai%29sxrou%3D">αἰσχροῦ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="kalou%3D">καλοῦ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fllhla">ἄλληλα</w> <w lemma="diafora%3Ds">διαφορᾶς</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="zh%2Flou">ζήλου</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="mimh%2Fsews">μιμήσεως</w> <w lemma="tugxa%2Fnein">τυγχάνειν</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="sumfe%2Fron">συμφέρον</w>, <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="fugh%3Ds">φυγῆς</w>.

<w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="oi%28%3Ds">οἷς</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Ftan">ὅταν</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="proestw%5Cs">προεστὼς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="megi%2Fsthn">μεγίστην</w> <w lemma="du%2Fnamin">δύναμιν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxwn">ἔχων</w> <w lemma="a%29ei%5C">ἀεὶ</w> <w lemma="sunepisxu%2Fh%7C">συνεπισχύῃ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="proeirhme%2Fnois">προειρημένοις</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="pollw%3Dn">πολλῶν</w> <w lemma="dialh%2Fyeis">διαλήψεις</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="do%2Fch%7C">δόξῃ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="u%28potattome%2Fnois">ὑποταττομένοις</w> <w lemma="dianemhtiko%5Cs">διανεμητικὸς</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="kat%27">κατ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29ci%2Fan">ἀξίαν</w> <w lemma="e%28ka%2Fstois">ἑκάστοις</w>,

<w lemma="ou%29ke%2Fti">οὐκέτι</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="bi%2Fan">βίαν</w> <w lemma="dedio%2Ftes">δεδιότες</w>, <w lemma="th%3D%7C">τῇ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="gnw%2Fmh%7C">γνώμῃ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="plei%3Don">πλεῖον</w> <w lemma="eu%29dokou%3Dntes">εὐδοκοῦντες</w>, <w lemma="u%28pota%2Fttontai">ὑποτάττονται</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="sussw%2F%7Czousi">συσσῴζουσι</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29rxh%5Cn">ἀρχὴν</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%3D">αὐτοῦ</w>, <w lemma="ka%29%5Cn">κἂν</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Flws">ὅλως</w> <w lemma="h%29%3D%7C">ᾖ</w> <w lemma="ghraio%2Fs">γηραιός</w>, <w lemma="o%28moqumado%5Cn">ὁμοθυμαδὸν</w> <w lemma="e%29pamu%2Fnontes">ἐπαμύνοντες</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="diagwnizo%2Fmenoi">διαγωνιζόμενοι</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="e%29pibouleu%2Fontas">ἐπιβουλεύοντας</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%3D">αὐτοῦ</w> <w lemma="th%3D%7C">τῇ</w> <w lemma="dunastei%2Fa%7C">δυναστείᾳ</w>.

<w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="dh%5C">δὴ</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="toiou%2Ftw%7C">τοιούτῳ</w> <w lemma="tro%2Fpw%7C">τρόπῳ</w> <w lemma="basileu%5Cs">βασιλεὺς</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="mona%2Frxou">μονάρχου</w> <w lemma="lanqa%2Fnei">λανθάνει</w> <w lemma="geno%2Fmenos">γενόμενος</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Ftan">ὅταν</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="qumou%3D">θυμοῦ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="i%29sxu%2Fos">ἰσχύος</w> <w lemma="metala%2Fbh%7C">μεταλάβῃ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="h%28ge">ἡγε</w>

The manner in which these notions come into being is as follows.

Men being all naturally inclined to sexual intercourse, and the consequence of this being the birth of children, whenever one of those who have been reared does not on growing up show gratitude to those who reared him or defend them, but on the contrary takes to speaking ill of them or ill treating them, it is evident that he will displease and offend those who have been familiar with his parents and have witnessed the care and pains they spent on attending to and feeding their children.

For seeing that men are distinguished from the other animals by possessing the faculty of reason, it is obviously improbable that such a difference of conduct should escape them, as it escapes the other animals:

they will notice the thing and be displeased at what is going on, looking to the future and reflecting that they may all meet with the same treatment.

Again when a man who has been helped or succoured when in danger by another does not show gratitude to his preserver, but even goes to the length of attempting to do him injury, it is clear that those who become aware of it will naturally be displeased and offended by such conduct, sharing the resentment of their injured neighbour and imagining themselves in the same situation.

From all this there arises in everyone a notion of the meaning and theory of duty, which is the beginning and end of justice.

Similarly, again, when any man is foremost in defending his fellows from danger, and braves and awaits the onslaught of the most powerful beasts, it is natural that he should receive marks of favour and honour from the people, while the man who acts in the opposite manner will meet with reprobation and dislike.

From this again some idea of what is base and what is noble and of what constitutes the difference is likely to arise among the people; and noble conduct will be admired and imitated because it is advantageous, while base conduct will be avoided.

Now when the leading and most powerful man among the people always throws the weight of his authority on the side of the notions on such matters which generally prevail, and when in the opinion of his subjects he apportions rewards and penalties according to desert, they yield obedience to him no longer because they fear his force, but rather because their judgement approves him; and they join in maintaining his rule even if he is quite enfeebled by age, defending him with one consent and battling against those who conspire to overthrow his rule.

Thus by insensible degrees the monarch becomes a king, ferocity and force having yielded the supremacy to reason.

Walbank Commentary

Overview

6.4.7 - 6.9.14

(a) The Anacyclosis. In this section P. outlines a schematic sequence of political development, by which the various constitutional forms follow each other in a cyclical succession through a process which P. analyses in detail from 5. 4 onwards. The theory of this is specifically not claimed as original (5. 1 ff.). Recently Ryffel (189 ff.) has traced two separate traditions culminating in P.'s anacyclosis, (a) a theory about the origins of culture which goes back to the sophists and especially to Protagoras, (b) a theory about the causes of corruption in states, which are in general the same for each successive constitutional form (see 7–9 nn.). The details of Ryffel's analysis are given in the separate notes. The concept of metabole in states is old; its germs exist in Solon's theory that anomia leads to tyranny, and it was to counteract such a metabole that the idea of a mixed constitution first arose. But the first man to set out an 'order of states' was Plato. In the Republic (viii. 544 C) the 'best form' (aristocracy or basileia, iv. 445 D) is followed by the Cretan or Laconian state (= timocracy), oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny, with the implication that they develop one into another; cf. Rep. v. 449 A, <w lang="el-GR">ἐγὼ μὲν ᾖα τὰς ἐφεξῆς ἐρῶν, ὥς μοι ἐφαίνοντο ἕκασται ἐξ ἀλλή?λων μεταβαίνειν</w>. In the course of a long critique of this passage (Pol. vii (v). 12. 1316 a 1 ff.) Aristotle complains that Plato has failed to explain how the changes come about, and that he has asserted one path of development, whereas in reality almost any change of any constitution into any other is possible (a criticism equally applicable to Aristotle's own succession of constitutions, basileia–aristocracy (politeia)–oligarchy–tyranny–democracy, in Pol. iii. 15. 1286 b 8 ff.; cf. Barker, op. cit., 143 n. 2). But in addition Aristotle points to the absence of any indication of what happens after tyranny, observing (as a reductio ad absurdum) that the logic of Plato's argument would require tyranny to change back into the first, ideal constitution; <w lang="el-GR">οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἐγίγνετο ουνεχὲς καὶ κύκλος</w> . Plato does not in fact close the circle, either here or in his further development of the theory of constitutional change in Laws, iii. 677 A ff., iv. 709 A ff.; Ep. vii. 326 B ff.; and Polit. 291 D, E (for though in Laws, iv. 710 D the development of the best state from tyranny is envisaged, the order of thought is somewhat different); but clearly his theories come very close to this step. Similarly, the discussion of constitutional forms by Aristotle in Eth. Nic. viii. 1160 b 10 ff. (basileia–tyranny; aristocracy–oligarchy; timocracy–democracy), though also not yet a 'cycle', comes close to one. It has been suggested that this passage in the Ethics may have been a close forerunner of the Polybian anacyclosis (cf. Ryffel, 172–3; and already Shute apud Newman, ii, introduction xiv); but it is doubtful whether (despite iii. 4. 11) P. was acquainted with the Ethics, and any influence is likely to be indirect. It is indeed only with the combination of the two theories of cultural <milestone unit="page" n="643">[643]</milestone> ascent and constitutional corruption that the full circle is possible; and this is found in no surviving work before P. In the form in which he presents it, the cycle has so many traditional elements that the immediate source is probably past recovery. As to this many suggestions have been made. It has been widely assumed that P. followed Panaetius of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhodes&groupId=931&placeId=1665">Rhodes</a> (for references see CQ, 1943, 85); and the two men are known to have been fellow-members of the Scipionic circle (Cic. de re pub. i. 34; Vell. Pat. i. 13. 3; Plut. Mor. 814 C–D; Suidas, s.v. <w lang="el-GR">Πολύβιος)</w>. There are, however, chronological difficulties; it is not known whether Panaetius had come to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> before P. returned to Greece (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 103 n. 3). Furthermore, it is an equally arguable hypothesis that if there was any influence it was in the other direction, with the experienced statesman inspiring the young philosopher (cf. Reitzenstein, Gött. Nachr., 1917. 406 ff.; Pohlenz, RE, 'Panaitios (5)', col. 423). P.'s account of the anacyclosis reveals traces of Stoic terminology (see notes), but this would not be very conclusive at a period of considerable eclecticism; <note type="footnote" id="note1">Mioni (62) draws attention to the presence in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> in 155 of Diogenes of Seleuceia, Panaetius' teacher and author of a work of a political character (Ath. xii. 526 D; Cic. de leg. iii. 13). P. certainly heard him lecture (xxxiii. 2. 10); but he did not need to wait until then to become acquainted with Stoic doctrines.</note> and in one important particular, the origin of social life, P. adopts a different explanation from the Stoics (5. 7 n.). Another possible milieu with which the anacyclosis may have links is that represented by the second-century works of Hippodamus and 'Ocellus Lucanus' (cf. Ryffel, 203 ff.; von Scala, 237 ff.). 'Ocellus Lucanus' was the author of a schematizing work in which the principles of <w lang="el-GR">γένεσις, ἀκμή</w>, and <w lang="el-GR">τελευτή</w> were developed on various levels to comprise a picture of the universe. The background of this work is disputed. R. Harder (Neue philolog. Untersuchungen, i (Berlin, 1926), Ocellus Lucanus, Text und Kommentar, 30) regards it 'als popularphilosophischen hellenistischen Traktat'. But W. Theiler (Gnomon, 1925, 151; 1926, 151–3, 590 ff.; Hermes, 1953, 300) argues that 'Ocellus' represents a 'ziemlich geschlossenes System'; and he would link the biological cycle in 'Ocellus' with the circle of Critolaus, in view of parallels between 'Ocellus' (14–16) and Philo (aet. mund. 108–12, cf. 57 ff.ultimately from Critolaus). This connexion was already noted by von Scala (243), but Theiler has reinforced it with new passages. Now, according to 'Ocellus', things 'at the highest level' move <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ τόπον</w> only; everything else is subjected to the biological law of <w lang="el-GR">γένεσις ἀκμή</w>, and <w lang="el-GR">τελευτή</w>. Thus at the second level the four elements move <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ μεταβολήν</w> in a Heracleitean flux, described as <w lang="el-GR">ἀντιπερίστασις</w>; at the third level plants move in a cycle of seed, fruit, seed, called <w lang="el-GR">ἐπανάκαμψις</w>; and at the fourth level men and other living creatures <milestone unit="page" n="644">[644]</milestone> pass through a succession of ages. Each of these levels thus reveals a special application of the primary biological law in a form appropriate to its context. The theory of the anacyclosis, Ryffel suggests, may well have arisen in such a milieu; if so, it would represent the specific form in which the biological law expresses itself at the level of political institutions. This milieu, according to Harder, was that of the second-century Peripatos, with a Pythagorean admixture (cf. Ps.-Hippodamus in Stobaeus, iv. 34. 71 = W–H, v. 846); the extent to which it also contained Stoic elements is a matter of dispute between Harder and Theiler. Now, in fact, there is no definite proof that 'Ocellus' and his milieu are directly related to P. at all; and the importance of 'Ocellus' lies in the fact that it provides evidence for a contemporary example, probably of popular philosophizing, which, like P., tries with only partial success to combine the two schemes of growth–acme–decline and of cyclical movementschemes which are to be found united in nature, where the succession of birth, growth, decay, and death in the individual secures the permanence of the species. But to define P.'s source for the anacyclosis more closely seems at present impossible; and no agreement has been reached among recent writers. To Ryffel (201 n. 360) P.'s source is 'mainly Platonizing, but also open to Peripatetic influences'; he does not risk a name; Mioni (66 ff.) derives the doctrine primarily, though not exclusively, from Plato (cf. 5. 1); Regenbogen, RE, Suppl.-B. vii, col. 1519, suggests Theophrastus; and Erbse (Rh. Mus., 1951, 160 n. 1) thinks that Dicaearchus may have been P.'s source for both anacyclosis and mixed constitution. Wilamowitz (Lesebuch, ii. 1. 119), described the anacyclosis as 'eine rationalistische Verwsserung der Platonischen Darstellung, die er gar nicht unmittelbar vor Augen hat'; with its suggestion of Platonic origins and the dilution through a popular intermediary this statement still goes as far as one can go with safety. (b) The anacyclosis and the biological theory. Reference has already been made to the biological theory that all things have their birth, acme, and decline. In its general form this can be traced back to Anaximander (Diels, FVS, i. 12, B 1): <w lang="el-GR">ἐξ ὧν δὲ ἡ γένεσίς ἐστι τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ τὴν φθορὰν εἰς ταῦτα γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὸ χρεών</w> . By Thucydides' time it was a commonplace (cf. Thuc. ii. 64. 3, <w lang="el-GR">πάντα γὰρ πέφυκε καὶ ἐλασσοῦσθαι)</w>; and by the Hellenistic period it was identified with the Stoic <w lang="el-GR">εἱμαρμένη</w> (cf. Phot. Bibl. cod. 249, 1584 B. (perhaps Agatharchides), <w lang="el-GR">τὸ? ἐκ παιδὸς εἰς μειράκιον ἐλθεῖν καὶ τὰς καθ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἑξῆς ἡλικίας οἰκείως διελθεῖν</w>an example of <w lang="el-GR">εἱμαρμένη)</w>. In several passages (4. 11–13. 9. 11–14, 43. 2, 51. 4–8, 57) P. applies such 'organic' or 'biological' terms to his discussion of the development of the state, e.g. <w lang="el-GR">ἀρχή</w> or <w lang="el-GR">σύστασις, αὔξησις, ἀκμή, φθορά, μεταβολή</w>. This sequence implies that all states (even the mikte) must eventually decline <milestone unit="page" n="645">[645]</milestone> <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>(cf. 9. 12–14). What is the connexion of ideas between this biological theory and that of the anacyclosis with which it appears in close conjunction? Whether this conjunction was already in existence before P. is uncertain. Theiler (Hermes, 1953, 298; Gnomon, 1926, 590 ff.) argues that it was in Critolaus (cf. Philo, aet. mund. 58 ff., 71); but Critolaus' acquaintance with the anacyclosis has yet to be proved. In any case the relationship between the two concepts in P. requires close analysis. The problem was first raised by Cuntz (40–41) and De Sanctis (iii. 1. 206); and Zancan (Rend. Ist. Lomb., 1936, 508) provided a partial answer by pointing to the concept of <w lang="el-GR">φύσις</w> which P. insists is proper to both the biological development and the anacyclosis (cf. 4. 7 <w lang="el-GR">φυσικῶς</w>, 4. 9 <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>, 4. 11, 4. 13, 5. 8 <w lang="el-GR">φύσεως ἔργον</w>, and 9. 10 <w lang="el-GR">φύσεως οἰκονομία</w> (both of the anacyclosis), 9. 13, 9. 14, 51. 4 <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>, 57. 1 <w lang="el-GR">ἡ τῆς φύσεως ἀνάγκη)</w>. Particularly in 4. 11–13 the two concepts are brought into the closest relationship; yet they cannot be made wholly to coincide, since the biological theory requires an <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w>, and it is only at the cost of some violence that this can be introduced into the anacyclosis. The difficulty is discussed by Ryffel (216 ff.; see also Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 110 ff., 113–15). There are, he observes, three forms which such an <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> might take. (a) If one considers the whole curve of the anacyclosis, it might well be argued that the <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> is <w lang="el-GR">βασιλεία</w>, since clearly the <w lang="el-GR">ἀρχή</w> lies in primitive society (cf. 5. 4), and the development through the <w lang="el-GR">μοναρχία</w> to the <w lang="el-GR">βασιλεία</w> is a form of <w lang="el-GR">αὔξησις</w>, and the decline into <w lang="el-GR">τυραννίς</w> represents a <w lang="el-GR">μεταβολή</w>. But, despite the fact that P. devotes all 5–7 to this stage of the cycle, such an identification neglects the further stages, and is therefore unsatisfactory. (b) Inside the single state (e.g. of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>) P. tends to treat aristocracy as the <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> (e.g. in 51. 5–6, 57. 8), thus indulging his personal prejudices (cf. 56. 11). But when he is describing the detailed working of the mikte (11–18), he seems rather to exaggerate the real power of the people by putting to their credit the role of the tribunes (16. 4) and the economic activity of the equites (17. 3 ff.), in the interest of his schematic balance. This is against our assuming that the mikte is to be regarded as in some sense weighted towards aristocracy; and in fact 51. 6 merely states that in a mixed constitution at its prime deliberation is part of the function of the aristocratic element (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 117–18). (c) One may apply the biological concept to a single constitutional form; and Ryffel (217) sees some evidence that P. intends this in his use of the doctrine of the <w lang="el-GR">σύμφυτον κακόν</w> inherent in each good form (cf. 4. 8 n., 10. 1 f.). Up to a point this is sound, and is partly supported by such passages as 7. 1 and 8. 1, where it is clear that each phase of the anacyclosis has its own <w lang="el-GR">ἀρχὴ καὶ γένεσις</w> and in turn <milestone unit="page" n="646">[646]</milestone> its destruction. If this is pressed, the problem of an <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> disappears, each phase having its own <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w>; but if P. meant this, surely he would have said so more clearly. Indeed, the problem of the <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> is not fully solved until the idea of the mixed constitution has been combined with that of the anacyclosis. It is to this combination that we now turn. (c) The anacyclosis and the mixed constitution. In four passages (10. 7, 10. 11, 10. 14, 11. 1) P. speaks of the mixed constitution in terms implying that it will not last for ever; eventually it must decline <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ? φύσιν</w>, like other states including the ideal state of Plato: cf. Plato, Rep. viii. 546 A, <w lang="el-GR">χαλεπὸν μὲν κινηθῆναι πόλιν οὕτω συστᾶσαν. ἀλλ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἐπεὶ γενομένῳ πάντι φθορά ἐστιν, οὐδ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἡ τοιαύτη σύστασις τὸν ἅπαντα μενεῖ χρόνον ἀλλὰ λυθήσεται</w>. Consequently there is no fundamental contradiction between the theory of the mixed constitution and that of the organic series, birth, growth, acme, decline (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 107, 112). Indeed, historically the theory of the mixed state arose as the answer to the problem of constitutional change and decay (cf. 3. 7 n., 4. 6 n.); and the ultimate lack of permanence in the mikte made it possible to combine it with the anacyclosis in this book. The existence of any mixed constitution at an historical period ('Lycurgan' <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a>, third- and second-century <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>) explicitly raised the question of its growth, and by implication at least that of its decay. P. wrote book vi as part of his general didactic purpose. His specific reasons are repeatedly stated (iii. 2. 6, 118. 9 f., v. 111. 10, vi. 2. 3, cf. xxxix. 8. 7); they are, briefly, to account for Roman success and world-empire by analysing the form of constitution under which she achieved it. Zancan (Rend. Ist. Lomb., 1936, 499 f.) assumed that P. was also concerned to explain certain contemporary signs of decadence; but this is an object he never mentions, and can only have been incidental. To explain Roman success P. had to analyse the mixed constitution; this meant analysing its growth; and here he found the theory of the anacyclosis invaluable, since the early course of Roman history corresponded to the demands of that theory (cf. 11 a n.). But the anacyclosis also implied eventual decay; and it is this fact which has led to the view (cf. CQ, 1943, 73–89) that its acceptance by P. must be part of the revised plan of his history, adopted after 146 (cf. iii. 1–5 n.), and that this revision sounded a critical note, and put <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> up at the bar of justice to answer for her method of exercising her rulewith an end to it all in <w lang="el-GR">ταραχὴ καὶ κίνησις</w> (iii. 4. 12 n.). But in fact P. must have been confronted with the issue of Roman decay before 150–146 (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 105–7). Already in i. 64 he had criticized the inability of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> as mistress of the world to put to sea such fleets as she had marshalled during the First Punic War; and he must have <milestone unit="page" n="647">[647]</milestone> been familiar with the statue set up to Cato after his censorship of 184 and have read the inscription which Plutarch (Cat. mai. 19. 3) translates: <w lang="el-GR">τὴν Ῥωμαίων πολιτείαν ἐγκεκλιμένην καὶ ῥέπουσαν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον . . . εἰς ὀρθὸν αὖθις ἀποκατέστησε</w>. Nor was Cato alone. Already in 166 the young Scipio Aemilianus was a contrast to the rest of the Roman youths, who had been corrupted by the great wealth and power of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> since the fall of Macedon (xxxi. 25–29; the <w lang="el-GR">ἀδήριτος ἐξουσία</w> of xxxi. 25. 6 recalls the <w lang="el-GR">δυναστεία ἀδήριτος</w> of vi. 57. 5); on this see Pöschl, 64–65. Hence the theory of the anacyclosis, which P. saw illustrated in the rise of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, and which he probably regarded as the specific form of the general theory of biological change (above § (b)), could perhaps already find a further justification (if an incidental one) in the signs that even as early as P.'s arrival in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> 'things were not what they had been'. It is therefore unnecessary (and misleading) to postulate that (as was argued in CQ, 1943, 82–84) the anacyclosis was part of the revised scheme; indeed the difficulties of such a view render it untenable (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 109 ff.). The mikte is therefore to be regarded as the constitution to which the Romans worked by way of the early stages of the anacyclosis; and in so far as she achieved the mikte <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> succeeded in temporarily placing herself outside the influence of the forces normally making for change. To that extent the Roman constitution is a breach of the anacyclosis pattern, which was <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>. Yet from another point of view the achievement of the mikte gave <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> something which, as we saw, was lacking to the anacyclosis as it normally operated an acme; and this brought it (despite the zigzags in its pattern) into relation with the biological concept of origin, growth, acme, and decline. Hence it could (from that point of view) be said to have had a growth that was essentially <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w> (cf. 9. 13–14). This is the explanation of the apparent paradox that P. describes as having had, <w lang="el-GR">εἰ . . . τινα καὶ ἑτέραν πολιτείαν</w> (9. 13), a development <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>, the one state which has evidently succeeded in making a breach in the 'natural' development of the anacyclosis. There is a contradiction herebut one which lies within P.'s rather complicated theorizing in a realm in which he was not a real master; and it is this contradiction which enables him to treat the anacyclosis as the specific form in which the biological law finds expression within the realm of political theory.

6.5.4 - 6.9.9

Detailed exposition of the anacyclosis.

6.6.0 - 6.6.0

Judicial competence of the People in cases brought against exmagistrates, involving a serious fine or the death penalty. Though he does not mention the tribunes specifically, P. is clearly thinking of their role as 'public prosecutors' of ex-magistrates; cf. 12. 2 n.; Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 318 n. 3. Procedure in these cases is controversial. According to Mommsen (St.-R. iii. 1. 351 ff.), cases involving a possible fine greater than the so-called multa suprema (fixed by the Lex Iulia Papiria of 430 at 3,020 libral asses: cf. St.-R. i. 158) came before a iudicium populi (in this case the Tribal Assembly) as a result of the defendant's invoking his right of prouocatio against the sentence pronounced in a magisterial anquisitio (cf. Hardy, JRS, 1913, 34); likewise for cases involving a capital charge, except that such a case was reserved for the comitia centuriata (the comitiatus maximus of the XII Tabulae) (St.-R. iii. 357), with the consequence that the tribune, who lacked the ius agendi cum populo, had to ask a praetor to summon the assembly on his behalf (Livy, xliii. 16. 11: 169 B.C.). Recently, however, it has been forcibly argued by C. H. Brecht (Perduellio (Mnch. Beitrge, 29, 1938) passim; Z. Sav.-Stift. (Röm. Abt.), 1939, 261 ff.) that the theory of a 'universal right of prouocatio' was a legal construction of Cicero's time, and that the anquisitio before a contio (a procedure to be sharply distinguished from the magisterial quaestio) and the hearing before the iudicium populi are part of the same legal action, throughout the whole of which the tribune acts as prosecutor. Genuine prouocatio can be invoked only against a fully operative sentence, viz. one pronounced after a quaestio by a magistrate possessing full imperium (i.e. dictator, consul, and with certain qualifications pontifex maximus and duumuiri perduellionis); it is never mentioned in connexion with a tribunician prosecution. It is probably to this single procedure of anquisitio and iudicium populi, without prouocatio, that P. here refers.

6.6.7 - 6.6.8

Forestalling of the capital sentence by voluntary exsilium. From the earliest times a Roman citizen had the right to go into exsilium in order to avoid condemnation. Of this exsilium Cicero (pro A. Caec. 100) writes: 'exsilium enim non supplicium est, sed perfugium portusque supplicii . . . confugiunt quasi ad aram in exsilium . . . <milestone unit="page" n="682">[682]</milestone> non adimitur eis ciuitas, sed ab eis relinquitur atque deponitur'. In Livy, xlii. 16. 15, exile is taken for granted, in the case of an adverse decision. In effect the exile took up the citizenship of his new abode, lost that of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, and so was removed from her jurisdiction. A decree of aquae et ignis interdictio would then be passed, not as a punishment, but to ensure that the exile remained permanently outside Roman territory (Cic. dom. 78; Livy, xxv. 4. 9). The modified procedure of the first century and later, by which exsilium followed a decree of aquae et ignis interdictio, and itself developed into a penalty, is not relevant here (cf. M. I. Henderson, JRS, 1951, 71 ff.). Place of exsilium. Originally the exile would choose some near-by place in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a> such as Tibur, Praeneste, Lanuvium, Lavinium, or <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ardea&groupId=357&placeId=683">Ardea</a> (cf. Livy, ii. 2. 10, iii. 29. 6, 58. 10, v. 43. 6, xliii. 2. 10), with which there existed an alliance and mutual right of exsilium (cf. Cic. de or. i. 177). Later we hear of this right at Nuceria (Cic. Balb. 28), Neapolis (here and Livy, xxix. 21. 1), and Tarquinii (Livy, xxvi. 3. 12, which seems to establish the time at which Tarquinii received this ius: cf. Sherwin-White, 119; Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 49 n. 3). Since there is no point in specifying <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Naples&groupId=785&placeId=1422">Naples</a>, Praeneste, and Tibur if the ius exsilii is common to all cities possessing a foedus, evidently the phrase <w lang="el-GR">ταῖς ἄλλαις, πρὸς, ἃς ἔχουσιν ὅρκια</w> means, not 'the other ciuitates foederatae', but, with Schweighaeuser (cf. Sherwin-White, 118 n. 5), 'aliis urbibus quibus hoc iure foedus intercedit cum Romanis'.

6.6.9 - 6.6.11

Popular control of elections, approval and rejection of laws, decisions concerning war and peace, alliances, termination of war, and treaties. Popular control of the elections scarcely needs illustration. Consuls, praetors, and censors were elected in the comitia centuriata, presided over by a consul, praetor, or dictator, plebeian aediles and tribunes in the concilium plebis under the presidency of a tribune. In practice the system gave wide scope to the influential noble families to 'pull strings', and at the time P. was writing it was almost unprecedented for a nouus homo to make progress in the struggle for office. See further Scullard, Pol. 18–25 and passim. That the people is the sole source of law is axiomatic (cf. Dion. Hal. ii. 14); but its power is limited by the fact that in each instance the initiative must proceed from the rogatio of a magistrate, on which the people takes a decision (Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 1. 303–4). P. here ignores the lex data, which depended on the authority of the magistrate who issued it; but leges datae mainly concerned matters outside <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, provincial administration and municipal statutes, and will hardly have come within his ken. Together with the administration of justice and the holding of elections, legislation makes up the whole of the popular activities distinguished by Roman constitutional theory; cf. Cic. de leg. iii. 33,'uersabor in re difficili ac multum et saepe quaesita, suffragia in magistratu mandando ac de reo iudicando <sciscenda> que in lege aut rogatione clam an palam ferri melius esset'(cf. Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 1. 326). Any decision of the people, which is neither a verdict nor an election-result, is counted as a lex. To be valid a lex rogata must be promulgated by a magistrate, passed in one of the comitia (or, after the lex Hortensia of 287, which gave plebiscita the validity of laws, in the concilium plebis), and published. In the middle republic the comitia curiata had no longer important legislative duties apart from formally conferring imperium on the appropriate magistrates by a lex de imperio. The comitia centuriata was the main legislative assembly, and remained so; but both the comitia tributa and the concilium plebis were also increasingly employed to enact laws. The first three of these assemblies had to obtain the patrum auctoritas before a law was valid; but in P.'s time this was a pure formality, transacted in advance, and P. therefore ignores it. Decisions on war and peace lay with the populus (Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 1. 343; Tubler, i. 31); war could not begin, nor terms be accepted for its ending, without a decision of the sovereign people. This decision was taken in the comitia centuriata after discussion in a contio <w lang="el-GR">(βουλεύεται)</w>; but P. hardly indicates the limitations on <milestone unit="page" n="687">[687]</milestone> discussion at a meeting where no one might speak except by permission of the presiding magistrate (Mommsen, St.-R. i. 200–1). In the third and second centuries the normal procedure was for a resolution of the senate to be submitted to the comitia centuriata, and upon its acceptance for senatorial legati to be dispatched ad res repetendas, with authority to deliver the denuntiatio belli in default of a satisfactory reply (cf. 13. 6 n.). In 200 the comitia centuriata rejected the motion for war with Philip V (Livy, xxxi. 6. 3–4); for the events preceding the First Punic War see i. 11. 1–3 nn. In making peace the Senate's resolution was similarly submitted to the people (cf. xviii. 42. 3–4), in this case the Tribal Assembly (Livy, xxix. 12. 16, xxx. 43. 2, xxxiii. 25. 6), and upon its acceptance the Senate dispatched a commission of ten legati to help the general settle the details of the peace (Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 692 n. 8 for further examples). On the special case of the Commission sent out to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> after the First Punic War see i. 63. 1 n. For a sceptical view concerning the lex data as a recognized legislative category see M. W. Frederiksen, JRS, 1965, 189–92.

6.6.15 - 6.6.15

Dependence of the Consul on Senate and People.

6.6.4 - 6.6.5

Senate's control over supplies.Once the consul has left <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, he can no longer draw on the treasury (12. 8) without the Senate's authority (13. 2); cf. Livy, xliv. 16. 1–4: the consul Q. Marcius asks for uestimenta militibus and Numidian horses: 'senatus consultum, ut ea omnia ex litteris consulis fierent, factum est'. See Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 133 n. 1; full references, iii. 2. 1097–9 and especially 1098. For an example of such a request refused (in this case from two propraetors) cf. Livy, xxiii. 21. 1–4. Senate's power of prorogatio. As the word prorogatio makes clear, the extension of a command beyond the period laid down by law was originally effected by a popular resolution. The first recorded example, the extension of the command of Q. Publilius Philo, consul for 327, pro consule against <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Naples&groupId=785&placeId=1422">Naples</a>, is attributed to popular action; Livy, viii. 23. 11–12, 'actum cum tribunis est ad populum ferrent ut, cum Q. Publilius Philo consulatu abisset, pro consule rem gereret quoad debellatum cum Graecis esset'. Subsequently prorogatio, either for a year or until some definite action has been completed (as in the example quoted), is voted either by the Senate (Livy, ix. 42. 2) <milestone unit="page" n="688">[688]</milestone> or by the Senate and people together (e.g. Livy, x. 22. 9, 'ex senatus consulto et scito plebis'). But by the time of the Hannibalic War the Senate had ceased to obtain popular ratification in cases of prorogatio for a single year, repeated if necessary (cf. Livy, xxiv. 10. 3, xxx. 1. 7, 1. 10, 2. 3 ff., 41. 3, xxxi. 8. 10, xxxv. 20. 11, xl. 18. 6, xli. 21. 2, etc.), and prorogatio remained in senatorial hands until the end of the Republic. See Mommsen, St.-R. i. 641–4; iii. 2. 1089–92; G. H. Stevenson, Rom. Prov. Ad. 55 ff.

6.6.7 - 6.6.8

Senate's power to accord and finance triumphs. The right to triumph sprang originally, not from the Senate, but from a general's own imperium, and the triumphs held on the Capitol in defiance of the Senate by L. Postumius Megellus in 294 (Livy, x. 37. 1–12; Zon. viii. 1), by C. Flaminius and P. Furius Philus in 223 (Plut. Marc. 4; Zon. viii. 20), and by Ap. Claudius Pulcher in 143 (Oros. v. 4. 7; Dio, xxii, fg. 74; Suet. Tib. 2; Cic. Cael. 34; etc.), were all duly recorded in the Fasti (cf. Broughton, i. 179, 232, 471). After 231 it became a practice of generals refused a triumph by the Senate to hold one on the Alban Hill (Livy, xxxiii. 23. 3, iure consularis potestatis, Livy, xlii. 21. 7, sine publica auctoritate) and such triumphs were listed in the triumphal Fasti. In the middle republic, however, an application to triumph was normally submitted to the Senate; and indeed in all cases (and these increased with the practice of prorogatio) in which a general held his imperium pro consule, the Senate's collaboration and a senatus consultum were necessary to obtain the favour of an extension of imperium, since whenever this depended on prorogatio it automatically lapsed with the crossing of the pomerium (Mommsen, St.-R. i. 128–9). The request for a triumph and for the necessary funds are, however, quite separate matters; thus in 143 Ap. Claudius applied for the funds while taking the triumph for granted (Dio, xxii, fg. 74. 2). In view of the booty which a triumphing general would normally control, it seems strange that the withholding of funds should be mentioned as an important weapon in the Senate's armoury (though failure to have funds granted certainly brought a loss of prestige; cf. Livy, xxxiii. 23. 8, 'is triumphus (an Alban triumph) . . . quod sumptum non erogatum ex aerario omnes sciebant, inhonoratior fuit'). P.'s account recognizes that the Senate had no absolute power to refuse a triumph. See Mommsen, St.-R. i. 126–36, iii. 2. 1108; Ehlers, RE, 'triumphus', col. 499.

6.6.9 - 6.6.10

The People's power of ratifying peace-terms and treaties; Consuls answerable to the People on laying down office. On the people's power to ratify peace-terms and treaties see 14. 9–11 n. A consul was not financially answerable to the people in the strict sense of having to produce accounts; and though he was under an obligation to use moneys assigned to him for the proper purpose, and certainly <milestone unit="page" n="689">[689]</milestone> not to turn them to his own profit, there was no automatic sanction if he failed to observe this rule. Since his dealings with the aerarium were through his quaestor (cf. 12. 8 n.), who had to present his accounts (Mommsen, St.-R. i. 700), such moneys as he disposed of would thus be known. But moneys obtained as war-loot (manubiae) were wholly at his disposal, and the consul need neither pay these into the aerarium nor render accounts for them (cf. xxiii. 14. 7 ff.). Hence P. can here have in mind only the tribunes' role in prosecuting ex-consuls, and the fact that such cases will be heard before a iudicium populi (cf. 12. 2 n., 14. 6 n.). The first examples of such prosecutions for misuse of public moneys are that of M'. Acilius Glabrio (189), which was withdrawn (Livy, xxxvii. 57. 12), and that of L. Scipio (probably 187: cf. Scullard, Pol. 290–303), which Gellius (vi. 19. 5) records as being nullo exemplo, i.e. without earlier precedent (though within the tribune's competence). See Mommsen, St.-R. i. 700–4, ii. 1. 322 n. 2.

6.6.16 - 6.6.16

Dependence of the Senate on the People.

6.6.2 - 6.6.2

Inquiries into, and sentences in, cases punishable by death, subject to the consent of the People. The Senate had no powers to act as a court of law for capital offences; but in the middle republic a procedure developed by which situations involving an urgent threat to the state were dealt with by the setting up of special commissions, authorized by the Senate, presided over by a consul or praetor, and free from prouocatio. In such cases senatorial action was supported by a recommendation of the plebs, to whom the matter was referred (Livy, xlii. 21–22 (172); Cic. fin. ii. 54 (141)). Examples of such quaestiones are those set up to deal with mass poisoning, brigandage in Apulia (involving ager Romanus), and the suppression of the Bacchic cult in 186 (references 13. 4–5 n.). In all these instances the Senate took action in Roman territory and Italian territory alike, alleging a state of emergency, which was held to justify the suspension of prouocatio where it existed. Prior to the Second Punic War such emergencies were met by the appointing of a dictator; but once the People had successfully asserted its control of the dictatorship, it was allowed to fall into abeyance. The special magisterial commissions, free from prouocatio and appointed by the Senate, which take its place (cf. O'Brien-Moore, RE, Suppl.-B. vi, 'Senatus', cols. 749, 755–7; McDonald, JRS, 1944, 16–17), were based constitutionally on the Senate's claim to take emergency action in cases of 'conspiracy'a claim which was later to lead to the controversial senatus consultum ultimum (cf. O'Brien-Moore, op. cit. 749, 755 f.). Here P. asserts the traditional principle that the Senate was not competent to appoint such quaestiones (<w lang="el-GR">(ζητήσεις)</w>) without a decision of the people. <milestone unit="page" n="690">[690]</milestone>

6.6.3 - 6.6.3

Legislation detrimental to the Senate can be passed only by the People. There is no trace of popular legislation directed against the Senate between the early years of the Hannibalic War and the tribunate of Ti. Gracchus. In view of ii. 21. 7–8 it seems clear that P. is thinking of the career of C. Flaminius, whose law of 232 on the distribution of the ager Gallicus directly challenged the Senate's authority <w lang="el-GR">(τῆς ἐξουσίας . . . τῆς ὑπαρχούσῆς . . . κατὰ τοὺς ἐθισμούς)</w>, and who supported the lex Claudia of 218 'ne quis senator cuiue senator pater fuisset maritimam nauem quae plus quam trecentarum amphorarum esset haberet: id satis habitum ad fructus ex agris uectandos' (Livy, xxi. 63. 3). Both these measures, passed through the tribal assembly, may have been regarded as <w lang="el-GR">ἐλαττώματα περὶ τοὺς βίους</w>, for senators will have profited from both 'the lucrative leaseholds on these public lands' (Frank, CAH, vii. 807) and the beginnings of trade with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sardinia&groupId=947&placeId=1685">Sardinia</a>. For Mommsen's view that Flaminius was also behind the reform of the comitia centuriata see 14. 7 n.

6.6.4 - 6.6.5

The tribunes' potestas impediendi et intercedendi; their obligation to carry out the People's will. Like any other magistrate enjoying par maiorue potestas than the person introducing a resolution in the Senate, the tribune could annul it by interposing his veto during the voting, with the result that the resolution was registered, not as a senatus consultum, but merely as a senatus auctoritas (Mommsen, St.-R. i. 281–3). The possibility of such intercessio was often envisaged in the resolution; cf. Caelius ap. Cic. fam. viii. 8. 6, 'si quis huic s. c. intercesserit, senatui placere auctoritatem perscribi et de ea re ad senatum p. q. t. referri'. The earliest reference to the exercising of this right against the magistrate carrying out the acts leading to the passing of a senatus consultum dates to 445 (Livy, iv. 6. 6). Here, however, P. also refers to the tribune's wider power to prevent a meeting of the Senate (or any other body) altogether; and this power he exercised as being possessed of maior potestas than the consul, and of the power to enforce his veto by his right of coercitiothough the latter was liable in its turn to a colleague's intercessio (Mommsen, St.-R. i. 258–66, 288–91). These two powers are not clearly separated by P.; cf. Mommsen, op. cit. 281 n. 1: 'dabei sind, wie auch nicht anders erwartet werden kann, die impedimenta impedientia und dirimentia nicht von einander geschieden'. P.'s picture of the tribune's powers is correct, as regards both their exercising and the theory behind them; but his account of the tribune's role as the obedient servant of the people has little relevance to the real situation in the first half of the second century. Since the plebeians had acquired political equality, the tribunes had become increasingly the tools of the nobiles (cf. Livy, x. 37. 11, mancipia nobilium), who were, numerically, mostly plebeians; and as they <milestone unit="page" n="691">[691]</milestone> gained access to the Senate, they were treated more and more, de facto (though never de iure), as magistrates. Moreover, as the tribunate became a stage in the cursus honorum, held between quaestorship and praetorship by young men early in their careers, it could carry little independent weight. Consequently, between the time of C. Flaminius and Ti. Gracchus there is no recorded case of a tribune occupying the role outlined here by P. Nevertheless, it need not be assumed that 16. 3–5 is a late insertion dating from the Gracchan period (cf. Last, CAH, ix. 27 (non-committal)). ii. 21. 8, which probably stands with it, can be otherwise explained, and probably here too P. is giving a view of the tribunate based partly on Flaminius' career, as he found it in Fabius (cf. ii. 21. 8 n.), and partly on the traditional picture of the office as the weapon of the plebs (cf. von Fritz, Constitution, 332–3). In this, however, he exaggerates not only the theory of the tribunate, but even more what it had become in practice. Never, even in their origins, were the tribunes the executive organ of the plebs, acting 'without a discretion of their own' (cf. Last, op. cit. 28). P. both falsifies the tribune's role and exaggerates his powers (cf. iii. 87. 8 n.). It was, however, perhaps to be expected that the character of this unique Roman institution, with its curious history and repeated modification of function, should have eluded P.'s Greek schematism. D. C. Earl, Tiberius Gracchus (Brussels, 1963), 87–89, links this passage with the deposition of Octavius by Ti. Gracchus; but it may well reflect not only the career of C. Flaminius, but also the tribunician activity concerned with the enrolment of troops just before 151, on which see L. R. Taylor, JRS, 1962, 19–27; above, addenda to ii. 21. 8.

6.6.17 - 6.6.17

Dependence of the People on the Senate (§§ 1–8) and Consuls (§ 9). In this chapter P. identifies the 'people' with the publicani, and the urban middle-class involved in their financial enterprises (cf. Livy, xxiv. 18. 13, where the phrase 'haec inclinatio animorum plebis ad sustinendam inopiam aerarii' refers to an offer of contractors to do work on credit). His picture of a large-scale system of public contracts, administered by the Senate (through the censors; cf. 13. 3 n.), and taken up by equestrian societates publicanorum, is only true of the period just before 150, and P. has written back these conditions into his account of the Roman state at the time of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cannae&groupId=430&placeId=797">Cannae</a>. See in general De Sanctis, iv. 1. 515 ff., 552–5; Frank, ES, i. 148–57; Warde Fowler, Social Life, 60–96; Scullard, Pol. 14–15; Hill, 45 ff. On the publicani and their contracts see P. A. Brunt, Conference Econ. Hist. Aix, i. 138–41; Badian, Publicans, 45–47; C. Nicolet, The Irish Jurist, 1971, 163–76.

6.6.2 - 6.6.2

Building contracts throughout <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a>. During the Hannibalic War building was reduced to a minimum, and that minimum appears to have been done on credit (Livy, xxiv. 18. 13). For the next few decades Livy records the work contracted out in various censorships, e.g. xxxii. 7. 3, xxxiv. 44. 5, xxxix. 44. 5–7, xl. 51. 2–7, xli. 27. 5–12, xliv. 16. 10. But not until the censorship of Fulvius and Postumius <milestone unit="page" n="692">[692]</milestone> (174) did the censors organize contracting for building operations outside <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (Livy, xli. 27. 5–12), i.e. in citizen-colonies and municipia; work was contracted out cum magna gratia colonorum at Pisaurum, Fundi, Potentia, and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sinuessa&groupId=979&placeId=1731">Sinuessa</a>, but Postumius questioned its propriety, and 'there is little evidence that the procedure continued for long' (Frank, ES, i. 152). After 174 'there is . . . some indication that the Senate began to distrust the knights' companies. It is quite possible that the quarrels between censors, Senate and knights over contractsreported by Livy in xliii. 16. 2, xliv. 16. 8 resulted at times in the magistrates' taking direct charge of public improvements' (ibid.). For an earlier example of this cf. Livy, xxxv. 10. 12: the aediles of 193 undertook the building of an emporium on the Tiber and two porticos. On the financing of these contracts out of uectigal see Frank, op. cit. 152–4; and for a list of buildings put up at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> between 196 and 159, op. cit. 183–7. Farming of uectigalia. On the juridical aspect see Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 434–43. The right to exact harbour dues, tolls, etc., was derived by the Romans from the ownership of the soil, and was therefore parallel to the exaction of scriptura for pasturage; and in general these rentals were collected by the publicani, who bought the right at the censorial locationes. They collected tithes and scriptura on ager publicus in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a> <w lang="el-GR">(χώρας)</w>; Frank (ES, i. 150) calculates that their profits on this would be small (it excluded the rich ager Campanus). Gardens <w lang="el-GR">(κηπίων)</w> form part of this cultivated land which remains under state control; it was liable to a tax of 20 per cent. on crops other than corn (App. B.C. i. 7). Cf. Varro, Rust. ii. 1. 16–17; Festus, 'scripturarius', p. 446 Lindsay. Similarly the fishing rights in the rivers <w lang="el-GR">(ποταμῶν)</w> were leased out to publicani; cf. Digest, i. 8. 4 § 1, 'flumina paene omnia et portus publica sunt'. Though P. omits them here, the fishing rights in such lakes as Avernus and the Lucrine lake came under the same category; cf. Serv. ad Georg. ii. 161. See Val. Max. ix. 1. 1. The port dues at Italian harbours were 2 per cent.; Livy (xxxii. 7. 3) records the letting of the portoria at Capua, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Puteoli&groupId=538&placeId=1011">Puteoli</a>, and Scolacium (199): cf. Livy, xl. 51. 8. They were scarcely very lucrative at this time (Frank, op. cit. 151). More important were the mines <w lang="el-GR">(μετάλλων)</w>, especially those in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a>, which were perhaps first let out on contract to the publicani in 179 (Livy, xl. 51. 8; Frank, op. cit. 154); hitherto they seem to have been directly controlled by the provincial governor (Livy, xxxiv. 21. 7; cf. Livy, xxxix. 44. 8). On the financial returns from the Spanish mines see xxxiv. 9. 8–11. In 167 the Senate closed the Macedonian mines rather than strengthen the equites by putting them up for contract; cf. Livy, xlv. 18. 4, 'neque sine publicano exerceri posse et, ubi publicanus esset, ibi aut ius publicum uanum aut libertatem sociis nullam esse'; cf. ibid. 29. 11 (Frank (op. cit. 156) thinks this <milestone unit="page" n="693">[693]</milestone> may be an anachronism). The Macedonian mines were reopened in 158 (Cassiod. Chron. ad 158). There is evidence of mining in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Etruria&groupId=582&placeId=1089">Etruria</a> for this period (Frank, op. cit. 179–80), but Pliny (Nat. hist. iii. 138, xxxiii. 78, xxxvii. 202) speaks of restrictions on the Italian mines either by a senatus consultum or a lex censoria; these restrictions may have been imposed in the interests of the publicani who contracted to work the Spanish mines. However, there is no evidence whether this restriction was already in force in P.'s time. a further important field, omitted by P., was that of the salt monopoly (cf. Livy, xxix. 37. 3–4), the modification of which gave M. Livius, one of the censors of 204, his cognomen of Salinator. See Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 2. 1115 n. 2. Against the view that P. is here referring to the Spanish mines see J. S. Richardson, JRS, 1976, 141 (cf. xxxiv. 9. 8 n.); Richardson, ibid. 143–4, also discusses the Macedonian mines.

6.6.3 - 6.6.4

Numbers involved in the contracts. From the number of slaves employed in the Spanish mines (xxxiv. 9. 8–11) Frank calculates (ES, i. 155–6) a capital outlay of 26 million denarii, which implies a large number of shareholders in the companies. But allowing for all the managers, experts, overseers, and clerks, it is clear that the words <w lang="el-GR">σχεδὸν . . . πάντας ἑνδεδέσθαι ταῖς ὠναῖς</w> is an exaggeration springing from the identification of 'the people' with one part of it. The categories enumerated in § 4 are: (a) mancipes, entrepreneurs who negotiate directly with the censors to secure the contracts <w lang="el-GR">(ἀγοράζειν</w> = emere); (b) socii, partners whose support would be already assured by the manceps before he bid for the contract; but there is evidence that the censors exercised some control over their acceptance into the company (Livy, xliii. 16. 2); (c) praedes, who guaranteed the contractor; this was a business undertaking, in which the guarantors pledged certain properties on oath as surety for the manceps, and in the anticipated success of the enterprise shared in the gains. Later, the manceps (and socii) are themselves to be found standing surety with the formula idem praes; cf. Riccobono, Fontes, i, no. 24 § lxv, 1. 68, praedes socii; (d) this fourth category is probably that of the equivalent of the Greek <w lang="el-GR">βεβαιωταί</w>, who act in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> as secondary guarantors of the praedes. Thus in P. Paris (62. ii. 7 f.) the guarantors state in their <w lang="el-GR">σύμβολα</w> (i.e. guarantees) <w lang="el-GR">τίνες ο[ἱ] βεβαιωτ[αὶ καὶ ὅσας ἕ?κασ]τοι εἰς τὴν βεβαίωσιν ὑποθήκας [. . .] δεδώκασιν</w>. Translate, 'those who give their property as security to the state on their behalf'. This is more likely than the view of J. A. Deloume (Les manieurs d'argent <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> <emph rend="superscript">2</emph> (Paris, 1893), 119 ff.) that they were participes, sleeping partners. On the whole passage see U. Wilcken, Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien, i (Leipzig-Berlin, 1899), 548–55; M. Rostovtzeff, Staatspacht, 372 n. 77.

6.5.0 - 6.6.0

Senate's control of the equestrian contracts. Modifications of the terms of public contracts came within the general scope of equity, and were originally in the censors' competence; but by the second century applications were normally brought before the Senate. Livy <milestone unit="page" n="694">[694]</milestone> (xxxix. 44. 8; cf. Plut. Cat. mai. 19; Flam. 19) records an example from Cato's censorship (184), when the Senate were induced to instruct the censors to re-auction the contracts. A perhaps betterknown case is that of the publicani who asked for the remission of their Asiatic contracts in 61/0 (Cic. ad Att. i. 17; schol. Bob. p. 157 Stangl); the basis of their claim was a change in circumstances due to enemy action and, as P. asserts here and Cicero (de prou. cons. 12) confirms, 'si qui frui publico non potuit per hostem, hic tegitur ipsa lege censoria', i.e. he can claim an automatic release from his contract. Furthermore, much of the business in question is continuous and goes on from one lustrum to another, whereas the censor is in office for only eighteen months. Between censorships similar matters are dealt with by the consuls, and the jurisdiction which the Senate exercises in connexion with this work is usually transmitted by them to the consuls, who act with the aid of a consilium drawn from the Senate (Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 108–9). Despite P.'s account, it is true that even in the second century the comitia occasionally intervened in the matter of contracts; cf. Livy, xliii. 16. 6–7, for the tribunician rogatio 'quae publica uectigalia aut ultro tributa C. Claudius et Ti. Sempronius locassent, ea rata locatio ne esset: ab integro locarentur' (in the stormy censorship of 169, after a vain appeal to the Senate). See Mommsen, op. cit. ii. 1. 455–6, and (for the Senate's general control over public finances and their administration) iii. 2. 1112–23.

Specifics

6.6.7 - 6.6.7

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐπὰν καταδικάζωνται</w>:</emph> 'when they are in process of being condemned', i.e. when the case is going against them, or even (P. stresses this) when the result of the vote is being read out (not, with Paton, 'when found guilty': exsilium can only be used to forestall sentence). This <w lang="el-GR">ἔθος</w> was made possible by the growing custom of dispensing with arrest prior to and during the hearing; cf. E. Levy, S.-B. Heidelberg, 1930–1, 5. 18 f. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κἂν ἔτι υία λείπηται φυλὴ. . . ἀψηφοφόρητος</w>:</emph> the reference is to the comitia centuriata sitting as a iudicium populi. At some date after the introduction of the last two tribes in 241 the organization of the comitia centuriata was reformed. The evidence is in Livy, i. 43. 12 and Cicero, de re pub. ii. 39 (Dion. Hal. iv. 21. 3, <w lang="el-GR">μεταβέβληκεν εἰς τὸ δημοτικώτερον</w>, probably does not refer to the same event). Details are uncertain; but the change clearly involved some degree of coordination between centuries and tribes. Several passages, including the present one (cf. Cic. leg. agr. ii. 4; Sest. 109; Planc. 49; Livy, xxix. 37. 13; ep. 49; perhaps Lucan, v. 391–4), imply that the voting units in the revised comitia centuriata were called tribes. Thus Cicero contrasts his own unanimous election to the consulate with that of a man who only just gets home by the vote of extrema tribus <milestone unit="page" n="683">[683]</milestone> suffragiorum. Normally the announcing of the result of voting (renuntiatio) ceased once the required number of candidates had obtained a majority of the possible votes (De Sanctis, iii. 1. 365). This renuntiatio took place for each class separately after it had voted (see below, p. 686 n. 1); and in the hypothetical instance to which Cicero refers, voting continues to the last voting unit (extrema tribus suffragiorum), which is regarded as being in the fifth class (for rhetorical reasons Cicero ignores the capite censi: cf. Tibiletti, Athen., 1949, 238). Cicero's phraseology implies that the correlation of tribes and centuries necessary, if tribal units were to vote in a centuriate assembly, continued throughout all classes down to the fifth, and was not confined to the first class (so Rosenberg, Untersuchungen zur römischen Zenturienverfassung (Berlin, 1911); cf. Fraccaro, Studi in onore di P. Bonfante, i (Milan, 1929), 105 ff.) or to classes one and two (so Staveley, AJP, 1953, 1–33); but how this correlation was effected is not clear. According to Livy (i. 43. 12), the reformed organization 'qui nunc est post expletas quinque et triginta tribus, duplicato earum numero centuriis iuniorum seniorumque, ad institutam ab Ser. Tullio summam non conuenire'. Written for readers familiar with the later organization, this passage is somewhat obscure; thus it would seem to suggest that the division into seniores and iuniores was a new feature of the reformed assembly, whereas in fact it went back to Servius Tullius in some form or other (Tibiletti, Athen., 1949, 228). Certainly Livy's statement does not necessarily imply that there were seventy centuries (of seniores and iuniores together) in each class, making 350 in all. The monk Pantagathus (1494–1561) proposed a theory on those lines, involving seventy tribus suffragiorum in each class. With minor adjustments to comply with the new information provided in Cicero's de re publica, ii. 39 (which was of course unknown to Pantagathus), his system would involve one century of iuniores and one of seniores for each tribe within each class, viz. 35 X 2 X 5 = 350, to which must be added 18 centuries for the equites and sex suffragia, and 5 supernumerary centuries for the unarmed, making 373 in all (cf. De Sanctis, iii. 1. 363 ff.). This scheme is still widely accepted. But it seems clear from Cicero, de re pub. ii. 39, that the reorganized assembly contained the same number of centuries as the Servian. In this passage Cicero is allegedly describing the comitia set up by Servius Tullius. <note type="footnote" id="note1">Tibiletti (Athen., 1949, 226–7) thinks he is describing the revised assembly; but when Cicero writes 'quae discriptio si esset ignota uobis, explicaretur a me; nunc rationem uidetis esse talem, ut' etc., clearly nunc means 'as it is, i.e. since the organization is not unknown to you' (see Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 1. 274 n. 4), and not 'at the time when I, Scipio, am speaking', as Tibiletti apparently interprets it.</note> But since he allots 70, and not 80 (the original Servian <milestone unit="page" n="684">[684]</milestone> figure: Livy, i. 43. 1), centuries to the first class, it seems clear that he is in fact giving the first class the number of centuries it had under the reformed system, and that the difference was not a significant one from his point of view; and this is more likely if Mommsen (St.-R. iii. 1. 275 nn. 1–2) is right in his assumption that the Servian and reformed comitia contained the same total number of centuries. As we saw, Livy (i. 43. 12) stated that the new body 'ad institutam ab Ser. Tullio summam non conuenire'; but this discrepancy between the two would exist if there was an increase in the number of voting units without there necessarily being an increase in the number of centuries too. Attempts to satisfy these conditions were made by Cavaignac (Journ. Sav., 1911, 255) and Arangio-Ruiz (Scritti C. Arn (Pubblicaz. Facolt Giurisprud. Modena, 30, 1928), 3 ff.; Storia dir. rom. 86 ff.), who both propound schemes, which fail, the former because of the very few centuries (10 each) allotted to classes three, four, and five, the latter because it involves a fusion of voting between classes two, three, and four (all the seniores, for example, of one tribe in classes two, three, and four, voting in a single century) and an equally improbable fusion in the fifth class, where both seniores and iuniores of a tribe would vote in one century. But already Mommsen (St.-R. iii. 1. 270 ff.; cf. Momigliano, Stud. et doc. hist. et iur., 1938, 519) had suggested that, whereas in the first class the 70 voting units were allotted one century each, in the remaining 4 classes only 100 centuries were available for 280 (viz. 4x70) voting units, and therefore that several units must have voted in a single century (the equites and capite censi etc. would continue to vote in their 18 and 5 centuries as before the reform); unlike his successors, however, Mommsen saw no necessity for a scheme involving a simple ratio between voting units and centuries, but envisaged centuries containing unequal numbers of voting units within a single class. Until recently this hypothesis was generally dismissed as improbable. But the discovery in 1947 of the now famous Tabula Hebana (E. and J., 94a) has given it a new plausibility. This inscription records a system of voting for the destinatio of consuls and praetors under Augustus and Tiberius, in which the senators and equites from 33 tribes vote in 10 (later 15) centuriae, which are ad hoc creations, representing a group of voters from two (or three) tribes chosen by lot to vote in a single urn on a single occasion. Such a device would render it easy to correlate tribes and centuries in all five classes, and if (as seems likely) the total remained at 193 (see above), it was probably used. For example, if an equal number of centuries was assigned to each of classes two, three, four, and five, giving 25 each, co-ordination could be achieved by letting 60 of the 70 voting units in each class vote three to a century, and the remaining 10 two to a century <milestone unit="page" n="685">[685]</milestone> (603+102 = 25); but other distributions are equally possible. <note type="footnote" id="note1">Recently E. Schönbauer has argued (Historia, 1953/4, 21–49) that the reformed comitia contained only 89 centuries (viz. 70+18+1); but this view is based on a violent distortion of Cicero, de re pub. ii. 39, and is in other respects unacceptable. A single example will suffice. In Phil. ii. 82 Cicero is describing election procedure. 'Ecce Dolabellae comitiorum dies. sortitio praerogatiuae; quiescit. renuntiatur: tacet. prima classis uocatur, renuntiatur; deinde ita ut adsolet suffragia; tum secunda classis, quae omnia sunt citius facta quam dixi.' All this Schönbauer would apply to the praerogatiua; but suffragia must refer to the sex suffragia and the equestrian centuries, and cannot mean merely 'the voting (then took place)', for in that case the words tum secunda classis have no force. Clearly Cicero is describing, first the voting of the praerogatiua and the announcing of its decision, then that of the first class, the equestrian centuries, and the second class in turn, with results announced after each century; there are no grounds for deleting the second renuntiatur with Madvig (and Schönbauer).</note> The purpose of the reform has been much debated. Its effect was evidently to give a preponderant influence to the first class from the thirty-one country tribes, and, by substituting a praerogatiua tribus taken by lot from the first class (cf. Livy, xxiv. 7. 12, 9. 3, xxvi. 22. 4, xxvii. 6. 3; Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 1. 274) for the equestrian centuries and the sex suffragia, to reduce the possibility of equites and senate (who voted in the sex suffragia; Cic. de re pub. iv. 2) influencing the vote. Mommsen (St.-R. iii. 1. 281) suggested that C. Flaminius was the man behind the reform; and Schönbauer (Historia, 1953/4, 31 ff.) develops this theory, making Flaminius the representative of an agrarian-democratic movement. The Fasti, however, show no trace of any break in the noble monopoly of office at this time; and if it was on account of his electoral measures that Flaminius was especially hated by the nobiles, it is odd that P. never mentions this among his criticisms of the popular leader (ii. 21, 32, 33, iii. 80, 84). In the present passage P. is thinking of the comitia acting as a judicial body. In this case the voting was undoubtedly carried out successively (cf. Livy, xliii. 16. 14, 'cum ex duodecim centuriis equitum octo censorem condemnassent multaeque aliae primae classis . . .'); and P.'s point is that right up to the moment when only a single tribus suffragiorum has to register its vote (not necessarily in an urn reserved exclusively to it; cf. Tibiletti, Athen., 1949, 238) in order to make a majority of the centuries for condemnation, the accused may still avoid sentence by going into exile. Normally this <w lang="el-GR">φυλή</w> would be likely to be one of the voting units in the second class. The problems of the centuriate assembly have been widely discussed; many of them are not directly relevant here. See Mommsen, St.-R, iii. 1. 270 ff.; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 353–81 (with bibliography up to 1916); G. Tibiletti, Athen., 1949, 223–40; F. Gallo, Stud. et doc. hist. et iur., 1952, 127–57 (cf. G. Vitucci, Riv. fil., 1953, 56 n. 2); <milestone unit="page" n="686">[686]</milestone> E. S. Staveley, AJP, 1953, 1–33; Historia, 1956/7, 112–22; E. Schön-bauer, Historia, 1953/4, 21–49. There has been renewed discussion of the reform of the centuriate assembly: cf. Meier, RE, Suppl.-B. viii, 'praerogatiua centuria', col. 577; J. J. Nicholls, AJP, 1956, 235 f.; CP, 1964, 102–5 (discussing the text of Cic. rep. ii. 39–40); L. R. Taylor, AJP, 1957, 337 f. (reform in 241); G. V. Sumner, AJP, 1960, 136–56; P. A. Brunt, JRS, 1961, 81–82; Cassola, 110–18. On p. 685, l. 27 for 'capite censi' read 'capite censi etc.'.

6.6.11 - 6.6.11

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">περὶ συμμαχίας καὶ διαλύσεως καὶ συνθηκῶν</w>:</emph> 'in the case of an alliance, the termination of hostilities, and a treaty'; cf. Livy, xxxii. 23. 2: the Achaeans seek societas with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>; but 'quia iniussu populi non poterat rata esse, in id tempus, quo Romam mitti legati possent, dilata est'; cf. Sall. Iug. 39. 3; Livy, xxxvii. 19. 2; Cic. Balb. 35; Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 1. 343 n. 5. The people claimed competence in thse whole field of international relations, in the sense that no decisions were valid until ratified in the appropriate popular assembly.

6.6.2 - 6.6.2

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῆς προειρημένης ἐξουσίας</w>:</emph> i.e.their imperium(cf.12.5 ff.).

6.6.5 - 6.6.5

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">δέδιε τοὺς πολλούς</w>:</emph> an exaggeration of the position before the Gracchi; but this view suits not merely the Fabian picture, based on Flaminius' career (see last note) but also P.'s own formal picture of the mixed constitution and its working.

6.6.3 - 6.6.3

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ταῖς ἐργασίαις ταῖς ἐκ τούτων</w>:</emph> 'the profits from them'; cf. iv. 50. 3. <emph rend="bold">:</emph> Badian, Publicans, 46–47, translates 'the business arising out of the public contracts', thus giving a broader meaning (cf. addendum to iv. 50. 3).

Polybius, Histories

Bibliography

Archaeology

Places

Walbank Commentary

Commentary