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
an exaggeration, as the context proves that the women referred to did
not actually come into the assembly, and the speaker intimates that
custom disapproved of their doing so. From the time of the Gracchi they
occasionally spoke in public. Dio Cassius[829] states that Tiberius
Gracchus brought his mother and children into a contio to join their
entreaties with his; and according to Valerius Maximus[830] a tribune of
the plebs required Sempronia, sister of the Gracchi, to come forward in a
similar meeting and give her opinion on the subject under consideration.
In the year 43 some ladies attended a contio to protest against being
taxed by the triumvirs. Hortensia spoke for the complainants.[831]
It was an accepted custom that no tribune should intercede against a
measure till an opportunity had been afforded private persons to speak
for or against it.[832] When after the victory of Pydna a tribune of the
plebs had introduced a motion to grant a triumph to Aemilius Paulus,
and the debate had been thrown open to the assembly, all for a time
remained silent, for no doubt was entertained as to its passing; but
finally Servius Galba, who as a military tribune had served under Paulus
and was his enemy, came forward and obstructed the measure by a long
harangue.[833] Although the president could, and perhaps often did, throw
the debate open to the citizens in this way, he was not compelled to
do so. The tribunician assembly was more deliberative than any other—a
circumstance which accounts for its designation as a concilium.[834]
Those invited to speak, if citizens, had to be of good standing and not
under disqualification through a special law or usage. The rex sacrorum
was prohibited not only from holding any other office but also from
addressing an assembly.[835] The spendthrift[836] and the man condemned
for extortion[837] were likewise forbidden. When the right was granted
as a special distinction, the receiver was probably placed thereby on a
footing of equal dignity with the magistrates.[838]
The president could also compel a citizen to speak. The holder of the
imperium had a right to summon any man into a public meeting, and order
him to answer any question put to him.[839] Tribunes of the plebs,
however, who lacked the power of summoning, exercised this coercive
function against citizens and even consuls, not through a direct right
but by a usurpation, probably based on their power to arrest and
imprison.[840]
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