Catiline and the "Concordia Ordinum" - Historia Antigua

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CATILINE AND THE CONCORDIA ORDINUM E. D. EAGLE ANYONE who attempts to investigate political life in ancient Rome is faced with a thorny problem at the very outset. Were there or were there not in ancient Rome political parties of the modern national type? Scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth century assumed without question that there were. But the recent trend has been to affirm that Roman politics amounted to nothing more than "a nexus of personal obligations" and many scholars adhere to this position.' It is the purpose of this investigation to consider the year 63 B.C., the year in which Cicero scored his greatest political triumphs, with this problem in mind. The period has been examined before, and with most success by John and Hardy.2 But the currents and cross-currents of political strife are so numerous and intermingled that no account has as yet succeeded in giving a definitive interpretation of the events of the year. Two of the most interesting phenomena are the conspiracy of Catiline and the creation of unity between the financial interests and the governing oligarchy (the concordia ordinum). The major concern of this study is to determine the relationship of these phenomena to each other and to the political situation. It is advisable at the outset to understand clearly what constitutes a modern national political party. Such parties may be regarded from several points of view. If attention is fastened on their organization, they appear as elaborate machines, with a hierarchy of officers, with conventions and caucuses, with a programme and a slate of candidates for election. In modern states, where there is manhood suffrage and representative government, some such organization is needed to reduce the multifarious interests of individuals and groups to a manageable number. The size of modern states makes it impossible for them to operate on the town hall principle. If the membership of a modern political party is examined, however, it will be found to consist mainly of a number of groups that consider their major interests to be identical. These groups usually have an economic or socio-economic basis, although regionalism, race, and religion play important roles.3 Moreover, usually 'Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939), 10, n. 3. This conception originated with M. Gelzer in his monumental work Die Nobilitat der romischen Republik (Berlin, 1912). See also Hermann Strasburger, Concordia Ordinum (Leipzig, 1931) and J. M. Cobban, Senate and Provinces, 78-49 B.C. (Cambridge, 1935). 2Constantin John, Die Entstehungsgeschichte der Catilinarischen Verschworung (Leipzig, 1876); E. G. Hardy, The Catilinarian Conspiracy in its Context: A Restudy of the Evidence (Oxford, 1924). 3T. W. Cousens, Politics and Political Organizations in America (New York, 1942), 19-22; A. L. Lowell, The Government of England (New York, 1912), vol. 2, 123 ff. 15
16 THE PHOENIX one or two groups control the policy and action of the party, while the subordinate groups render support, believing that their best interests are served by serving the best interest of the controlling group or groups. Mutual self-interest is the guiding principle throughout. Both these aspects of the modern political parties, structure and membership, need to be kept in mind in evaluating the nature of ancient political life. The two political parties assumed to be operating in the last century of the Roman Republic (133-27 B.c.) were the populares (the people's party) and the optimates (the party of the gentry). Gelzer, however, in his study of Roman political life, demonstrated that during the period of the republic the election of officials depended entirely on the personal ties between the candidate and his supporters.4 To begin with, the candidate had to be a member of the richest propertied class. And within that class, preference was always given to those whose ancestors had held the consulship or its equivalent. In fact, the highest offices were regarded as the special preserve of the nobiles, those whose ancestors had held the highest offices. Not only were all citizens below the required property qualification ineligible for office, but they were also circumscribed in the candidates they could support: they had to vote for those aristocrats to whom they were bound by obligations of various kinds or for candidates whom their aristocratic patrons preferred. Even within the aristocracy, preference was dictated by ties of blood, marriage, friendship, gratitude, and the like. Here Mfiinzer supplemented the work of Gelzer by examining the ties of kinship between members of the aristocracy.5 He discovered factions within the ruling class, but their struggles with each other, in his view, were simply the result of one or other of the kinship groups striving for dominance. On the basis of the findings of Gelzer and Miinzer, Strasburger flatly asserted that political parties of the modern national kind did not exist in ancient Rome, and that terms such as populares and optimates were merely political catchwords, employed with little real significance by political opponents.6 The work of Gelzer and Mtinzer is unquestionably of fundamental importance, and one must agree with Strasburger, too, up to a point. Rome did not have national political machines with officers, conventions, party programmes, and slates of candidates. A Roman election was really a city election and the better modern parallel would be the local political machines found in some modern cities.7 But that still leaves unsettled the matter of personnel. Were Roman political combinations mere aggregations of individuals or did groups work together for a 4Gelzer, Die Nobilitdt d. r. R.; see especially the summaries on pages 42 and 115f. 5Friedrich Miinzer, Romische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart, 1920). 6Strasburger, Concordia Ordinum, Iv. Cf. Syme, The Roman Revolution, 16, n. 2 and Cobban, Senate and Provinces, 8f. 7See F. B. Marsh, History of the Roman World 146-30 B.C. (London, 1935), 21 ff.; 370-77.
Page 1: Classical Association of Canada Cat
Page 5 and 6: 18 THE PHOENIX united and led the o
Page 7 and 8: 20 THE PHOENIX his banner.25 This C
Page 9 and 10: 22 THE PHOENIX from the other arist
Page 11 and 12: 24 THE PHOENIX might disrupt the co
Page 13 and 14: 26 THE PHOENIX one acceptable to cr
Page 15 and 16: 28 THE PHOENIX nothing about it. Me
Page 17: 30 THE PHOENIX The events of 63 B.C

Catiline and the "Concordia Ordinum" - Historia Antigua

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?