The Roman assemblies from their origin to the end of the RepublicBotsford, George Willis
History
The Roman assemblies from their origin to the end of the Republic
Botsford, George Willis
Constitutional law -- Rome; Rome -- Politics and government
It was accepted by Mommsen in his _Römische Tribus_ (1844) and in the
first seven editions of his _History of Rome_; but in his _Römisches
Staatsrecht_[1311] he has offered a radical modification: while holding
to the 373 centuries, he maintains that they were so combined as to cast
in all 193 votes. According to this theory the first class comprised 35
× 2 = 70 centuries, each with one vote, whereas the remaining classes
together, made up of 4 × 35 × 2 = 280 centuries, cast but 100 votes.
How the centuries were combined Mommsen does not presume to say. He
considers it possible, however, that for instance sixty of the seventy
centuries of the second class were grouped by threes and ten by twos,
making twenty-five voting groups in all. Had he attempted to follow out
in detail the practical working of the theory, he would hardly have
offered it to the public. The votes could not have been determined by a
majority of component centuries, for according to the theory some groups
comprised but two. Or if the group voted by individuals without regard to
the component centuries, the four lower classes were practically composed
not of centuries but of larger, nameless voting divisions.
His main support is the account of the centuriate organization given in
Cicero’s _Republic_,[1312] which speaks of a hundred and ninety-three
centuries, and which Mommsen[1313] believes to be a description of the
reformed organization. Cicero’s[1314] assumption that the essential
facts were known to the friends of the younger Scipio—the leader in
the dialogue—and the discrepancy in the number of centuries of the
first class between the Servian system as given by the annalists (Livy
and Dionysius) and the organization which Cicero describes[1315] are
the chief points in Mommsen’s favor. Against his interpretation it
may be urged (1) that the passage is exceedingly uncertain;[1316]
(2) that Cicero makes Servius Tullius the author of the organization
which he describes; (3) that though the reform affected the details of
the comitial organization, the principle—a distribution of the people
according to ordines, census, aetates—remained the same from the time
of Servius to the time of Cicero, so that he could assume that it was
known to the hearers of Scipio; (4) that as to the discrepancy in the
number of centuries in the first class, on the assumption that the text
is correct, (_a_) Cicero, who was by no means infallible, may have made a
mistake,[1317] being in this case especially liable to error because in
the reformed organization the first class comprised seventy centuries,
or (_b_) in case Cicero is right, either (_m_) the annalists may be in
error in assigning eighty centuries to the first class, or (_n_) in an
early stage of transition from the old to the new organization the number
of centuries in the first class may have been cut down to seventy with
a corresponding increase of ten in some other part of the system; (5)
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account