The Roman
public was very politically aware on all levels of society. This awareness
however did not translate into a share in the political franchise. The
Plebeians saw a part of their problems with the Patricians being that they had
no say in the governance of Rome, and things would never really change in their
favor until there was a change in who was involved in the running of the
government. While the virtual monoply on the consulship in Rome by the
patricians did exist until the early 4th cen tury BC, there were
indeed occassions of plebeians being elected to the office. The instances were
wide spread and had very little impact on Roman politics or society, so the
plebeians continued in their efforts to create a more open and even form of
governemnt.
In 376 BC
tribunes Licinius and Setius brought three proposals before the plebes. The
first two dealt with land use, limiting the amount of public lands any one
family could use, and debt relief for the poor. The third of their rogations
dealt directly to the issue of distribution of political power. This last
proposal created a great conflict and stalemate in the government which
according to Livy lasted for 10 years, during which Licinius and Sextius were
repeatedly elected. Senators and the tribunes used their voting power and vetos
to block legistation and the elction of magistrates, resulting in a period of
chaos lasting between 4-5 years with no magistrates at all being elected.
Finally in 367 BC the conflict ended with the passing of all three rogations.
The consulship was restored and made open to the plebeians. The patricians did
create new offices as a reaction, taking power from the consul, but even these
opffices would be open to the plebes eventually.[i]
The
Licinian and Sextian rogations made it a requirement that one of the two
consulships be open to the plebeians, and even this was not strictly enforced
until 342 BC with the passing of Lex Genucia. This creates a bit of a
historical dilema in which there are two views as to what really happened
depending on which accounting you read. In one version, the laws of 367BC made
one of the consul positions plebeian and in 342 BC it was possible for plebes
to hold both, while Lex Genucia said the 367 BC law made it possible for one
consul position to be plebeian while the 342 BC law made it mandatory by
gaurenteeing one spot to the plebes and nothing to the patricians.[ii]
Cornell
contends that the plebeian leaders were most likely the clients of wealthy
patrons and had very little in common with the actual plebes they are thought
to repesent. LeGlay refers to these leaders as the new nobility. They were
upper plebeians and lower patricians who took up the cause of the plebes to
advance themselve politically and socially.[iii] Their
victories were more for themselves than the plebes as a whole. The poorer
plebes did gain temporary relief from debt and land use was better established,
but they lost control of their political machine. Before long the new leaders
were found to be guilty of the very things they had fought against, with
Licinius himself being fined for over-use of agers publicus.[iv]
I
personally feel that Cornell’s theories on the impact of the Licinian-Sextian
Rogations is fairly accurate. There was a change for the better for the
plebeian class, but thet change came at a cost, that being the loss of the very
political power the people had won. What these laws in combination with Lex
Genucia did was in truth create a new social and politcal class as LeGlay
outlined. A class of wealthy, upwardly mobile plebeians and lower ranking
patricians who did not have the power to grow within their own class. I
disagree with the belief that Licinian-Sextian definitely created and afirmed
the two class system of Roman society, instead it gave birth to an new and
growing middle class, creating a society very much like we see around us today.
No comments:
Post a Comment