The Governing Elite and the Roman State

1. The Problem: Roman law acknowledged the principle that the 'people' were sovereign (Table XII of 451BC, lex Hortensia of 287BC =RC pp. 116; 132). Nevertheless, the state was openly controlled and manipulated by the nobility. This elite consisted primarily of senators and eventually some members of the equestrian order. The Issue: How did this elite control the state?
2. Basic concepts
1. Familia: birth determined one's place in society...
2. Status:. Some were "natural" leaders. Status consciousness, coupled with familia, made social mobility more difficult (tho not impossible, see table below!). For newcomers, military success the key to entry into elite. So too for the established families like the Scipios (epitaphs §184)
3. Patronage: political success depended upon ability of a candidate to organize support. Note RC§187 (refers to oratory but may be generalized).
1. Patronage represented a continuous moral commitment over generations.
2. Though there were traditional (i.e., inherited) lines of support. The relationship was voluntary: one could find another patron, should the inherited one prove to be unsatisfactory. The element of choice is critical to understanding the phenomenon.
3. Patronage not exclusive. Variations:
1. Clientela: a dependency relationship between parties of different order (between a senator and a commoner, for example)
2. Amicitia (political friendship): exercised between members of the same order, but also with the connotation of inequality. It means the performance of mutual favors.
4. Consider: §173 on the benefits of aristocratic government.
3. The control of the assemblies...in general see §155, a guide to getting elected.
   1. Block voting (RC §27)
1. There were 193 blocks in the comitia centuriata (which declared war and elected the consuls:
2. The blocks themselves were not of equal size, but the citizens were so distributed through the centuries and tribes so as to favor wealth and age (that is to favor the more conservative elements in society). True whether by century or by tribe (note esp. the quotation p100, n9).
3. As voting could only take place at Rome, it was difficult for the rural poor to exercise their right to vote.
1. Use of bribery; the function of the gift ==> do ut des also in §155 above .
2. Religious obstruction (RC p141). Used to dissolve assemblies until the proper mix was present, that is until the rural voters had returned home. Note: §178: ...but with an eye to the opinions of the masses, the rites...and laws of augury and the authority of the college of augurs have been maintained for the great political usefulness, Cic. de div; what they do believe is that the state religion is the source of their power and status; and so for the common folk out there they must appear to believe. Clancy, Rote Hase
3. Clientage: Clients voted to achieve success for their patrons.
4. Because the assemblies became unwieldy as Rome grew, all-important issues were debated in the Senate, rather than before the people.
5. The leaders of the plebeians were absorbed into the Senate. Appius Claudius and his daughters.
4. How the members of the Senate were controlled by the elite of the senate.
1. The cursus: Roman politicians began their careers young, when the only thing that they could claim was descent.
2. Wealth: Political office was held without pay, but was costly for the office holder. Public benefactions were expected.
3. The Senate tried its members in legal disputes §158 (referring to a later period). Political trials were common. Intruders and radical reformers could be removed from politics before they became too dangerous.
5. The Senate itself was controlled from within by a small elite that was able to dominate policymaking.
1. Descent conferred dignity and, thereby, status especially on those who were descendants of consuls. Those who had reached the consulate were the most powerful men in the state by virtue of the dignity they had won and the clients whose loyalty they commanded.
2. The few families that dominated the consulate formed and re-formed alliances with one another, alliances that were frequently cemented by marriage. The result is that the leading families were all related to one another and worked together to exclude new-comers.
3. It is true that these men (consulars and nobles) did not have any specific legal power beyond the office each severally held, but ruled instead by authority. Authority based on the principles of proven family capability, an accepted status (dignity, prestige; often reinforced by a fluent command of Greek as a sign of superior culture), and the control of numerous dependents.

The Control of the Assemblies: those who fight, vote.

New Men/famlies in the Roman Senate