(1) Olga Tellegen-Couperus, “A short history of Roman Law”, Routledge 1993; “Many people support the view expressed by the famous German legal historian Theodor Mommsen, namely that in 509 BC the absolute power of the king was transferred to two highranking magistrates and that the senate retained its advisory function.2 However, this view is being challenged increasingly, and with good reason. It is unlikely that after overthrowing the king the leading Roman families would have wished to become dependent again on the whims of one or two persons. It is much more likely that the leading citizens, coming together in the senate, took power into their own hands and charged one or more of their fellowsenators with a specific task whenever the need arose. In the first 150 years of the republic all kinds of constructions must have been used to define these tasks; in the sources one comes across various names for magistrates, e.g. praetor, consul, decemviri legibus “
—————————–
(2) Fustel de Coulanges, “A classic study of the religious and civil institutions of ancient Greece and Rome”, Double Day 1956; “In Italy affairs were in much the same condition as in Greece. The cities of Latium, of the Sabines, and of Etruria were distracted by the same revolution and the same struggles, and love of the city disappeared. As in Greece, every man was ready to join a foreign city, in order to make his opinions and interests prevail in his own. / These dispositions of mind made the fortune of the Romans / they everywhere supported the aristocracy; everywhere too, the aristocracy were their allies. Let us take a few examples. . The Claudian gens left the Sabines because Roman institutions pleased them better than those of their own country. At the same epoch many Latin families immigrated to Rome, because they did not like the democratic government of Latium, and the Romans had just established the reign of the patricians. At Ardea, the aristocracy and the plebs begin at enmity, the plebs called the Volscians to their aid, and the aristocracy delivered the city to the Romans. Etruria was full of dissentions; Veii had overthrown her aristocratic government; the Romans attacked this city, and the other Etruscan cities, wher the sacerdotal aristocracy still held sway, refused to aid the Ventines. The legend adds that in this war the Romans carried away a Veientine haruspex, and made him deliver them an oracle that assured them the victory. Dos not this legend signify that the Etruscan priests delivered the city to the Romans? / Later, when Capua revolted against Rome, it was remarked that the knights – that is to say, the aristocratic body – took no part in that insurrection. In 313, the cities of Ausona, Sora, Minturnae, and Vescia were delivered to the Romans by the aristocratic party. When the Etruscans were seen to form a coalition against Rome, it was because popular governments had been established among them. A single city – that of the aristocracy still prevailed in Arretium – refused to enter this coalition; and this was because the aristocracy still prevailed in Arretium. When Hannibal was in Italy, all the cities were agitated; but it was not a question of independence. In every city the aristocracy were for Rome and the plebs for the Carthaginians.
(3) Passim: The manner in which Rome was governed will explain this constant preference which the aristocracy entertained for it. The series of revolutions continued as in other cities but more slowly. In 509, when the Latin cities already had tyrants, a patrician reaction has succeeded at Rome the democracy soon afterwards, but gradually and with much moderation and self-restraint. The Roman government was, therefore, for a longer time aristocratic than any other, and was long the hope of the aristocratic party. / The democracy, it is true, finally carried the day in Rome; but even then the proceedings and what on might call the artifices, the government remained aristocratic. In the comitia centuriata the votes were distributed according to property. It was not altogether different with the comitia tribuata: legally no distinction of wealth was admitted there; in fact, the poor class, being including the four city tribes, had but four votes to oppose the thirty-one of the class of proprietors. Besides, nothing was more quit, ordinary, than these assemblies; no one spoke there, except the president, or someone who m he called upon. Orators were little heard there, and there was little discussion. More generally there was simple a vote of yes or no, and a count of the votes. This last operation, being very complicated, demanded much time and patience. Add to this that the senate was not renewed annually, as in the democratic cities of Greece; it sat for life, and very nearly recruited itself. It was really an oligarchic body.
(4) Passim; The manner of the Romans were still more aristocratic than their institutions. The senators had seats reserved at the theatre. The rich alone served in the cavalry; the grades of the army were in great part reserved for the young men of the great families. Scipio was not sixteen years old when he already commanded a squadron. /The rule of the rich class was kept up longer at Rome than in any other city. This was due to two causes. One was, that Rome made great conquests, and the profits of these went to the class that was already rich; all land taken from the conquered were possessed by them; they seized upon the commerce of the conquered countries, and joined with it the benefits derived from the collection of duties and the administration of the provinces. These families, thus in creating the wealth with every generation, became immeasurably opulent, and each one of them was a power, compared with the people. The other cause was that the Roman, even the poorest had an innate respect for wealth. Long after real clientship had disappeared, it was, in certain sense, resuscitated under the form of a homage paid to great fortunes; and it became a custom for the poor to go every morning to salute the rich. / it does not follow from this that the struggle between rich and poor was not seen at Rome, as well as in other cities; but it commenced only the time of the Gracchi, – that is to say, after the conquest was almost achieved. Besides, this struggle never had at Rome the character of violence which it assumed everywhere else. The lower orders of Rome never ardently coveted riches. They aided the Gracchi in a lukewarm manner; they refused to believe that these reformers were working for them, and abandoned them at the decisive moment. The agrarian laws, so often presented to the rich as a menace, always left the people indifferent, and agitated them only on the surface.
(5) Passim: It is clear that they were not very eager to posses lands; for , if they were offered a share in the public lands,- this is to say, in the domain of the state, – there at least never had a thought of despoiling the rich of their property. Partly from inveterate respect, and partly from a habit of doing nothing, they loved to live by the side of the rich, and as it were in their shadow. / The rich class had the wisdom to admit to its circle the most considerable families of the subject and allied cities. All who were rich in Italy became gradually to form the rich class of Rome. This body continued to increase in importance, and became the master of the state. The rich alone filled the magistracies, because these cost a great sum to purchase. They alone composed the senate, because it required a very large property to be a senator. Thus we see this strange fact, that, in spite of democratic laws, nobility was formed, and that the people, who were all-powerful, suffer this nobility to take rank above them, and never made any real opposition to it. / Rome, therefore, from the third to the second century before our era, was the most aristocratically governed city that existed in Italy or Greece.
(6) Passim: Finally, let us remember that, if the senate was obliged to manage the multitude on home questions, it was absolute master so far as concerned foreign affairs. It was the senate that received ambassadors, they concluded alliances, that distributed the provinces and the legions that ratified the acts of the generals, that determined the conditions allowed to the conquered – all acts which everywhere else belonged to the popular assembly. Foreigners, in their relations with Rome, had, therefore, nothing to do with the people. The senate alone spoke, and the idea was held out that the people had no power. This was the opinion which Greek expressed to Flaminius. ’In your country’, said he, ‘riches alone govern, and all else is submissive to it.’/ As a result of this, in all the cities the aristocracy turned their eyes towards Rome, counted upon it, looked to it for protection, and allowed its fortunes. This seemed so much the more natural, as Rome was a foreign city to nobody; Sabines, Latins, and Etruscans saw in it a Sabine, Latin, or Etruscan city, and the Greeks recognised Greeks in it.”
Marx Caesar Asimov 