rotation in office in the roman republic-s.e.stout pp.429-435

8/12/2019 Rotation in Office in the Roman Republic-S.E.stout Pp.429-435

1/8

Rotation in Office in the Roman RepublicAuthor(s): S. E. StoutSource: The Classical Journal, Vol. 13, No. 6 (Mar., 1918), pp. 429-435Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and SouthStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3288159.

Accessed: 27/03/2014 14:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Classical Association of the Middle West and Southis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to The Classical Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 77.78.253.25 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:22:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=camwshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3288159?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3288159?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=camws


2/8

ROTATION IN OFFICE IN THE ROMAN REPUBLICBY S. E. STOUT

Indiana UniversityIt is a fundamentalprincipleof freegovernmentthat its officersshall at fixedperiodsbe reducedto a private station, returnintothat body from which they were originally taken, and that thevacancies thus caused shall be filled by regularelection. As theconstitutionof Marylandstates it, Rotation in office n the execu-tive is one of the best securities of permanent freedom. Ineighteen states of the United States the right of the governor tore-election is restricted by the constitution. In seven states the

governoris prohibitedfrom succeedinghimself. The wide-spreadprejudice in our country against the election of any man to thepresidencyfor morethan two terms is not due alone to the exampleand advice of Washingtonin decliningto be considered or a thirdterm. Some such limitation is inherent in any political systemwhich looks toward the governmentof the people by the people.If not embodiedin the substantive law, it is certain to become amatter of practice. As mos or as lex it is a mark of the capacityof a people for self-government. In the conventionwhich framedthe Constitution of the United States only two propositionswithregardto the length of the president'sterm of officereceived seriousconsideration: one, that he should serve seven years and be ineli-gible to re-election; the other, that he should servefouryearswiththe right of re-electionconcededor implied. It would be going toofar to say that the framersof our Federal Constitution drew theirconviction of the wisdomof this restrictionfrom the experienceofRome; but they were seriousstudents of the political institutionsof freeRome,and it is not improbable hat they found confirmationin Roman history of their own conclusionson this point.The Romansearly reachedthe conclusionthat rotation in officeis one of the best securities of permanent freedom. Their kingswere elected by the people for life; but the regalpowerwas found

429

This content downloaded from 77.78.253.25 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:22:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/8

430 THE CLASSICALJOURNALtoo great by reasonof this long tenureto be held in check. In theirlater political thought they always looked upon the period ofgovernment by kings as a time of servitude. In Livy's analysisof the changefrom the regal governmentto a state of freedomhecalls attention to the fact that the first consuls had all the rightsand all the insignia of the kings, and finds the principalsourceoffreedom n the fact that theirpowerlasted but a singleyear ratherthan in any restriction upon that power. Libertatis autemoriginem nde magis, quia annuumimperiumconsulare actum est,quam quod deminutumquicquamsit ex regia potestate, numeres.Omniaiura, omnia insignia primi consules tenuere (Livy ii. i. 7;cf. Dion. Hal. vii. 55). The practical force of this restrictionwasmade still more effective by the fact that both consuls did notemploy thefasces in the city at the same time. Id modo cautumest, ne si ambo fasces haberent, duplicatus terror videretur(Livy loc. cit.; cf. iii. 39. 8). The two consuls usually alternatedin administering he governmenta month at a time throughtheiryear of office. That therewas at first no restrictionupon the rightof consuls to re-election s shownby the fact that one of the consulsof the firstyearof the republic,M. ValeriusPublicola,was re-electedthe next two years in succession,and again a fourth time after aninterval of three years. It must have occurredat once, however,to the Romansthat the re-electionof a consul to succeedhimself-continuatiowas their technical term for this-was in reality apartialnullificationof the principleof one-yeartenure of the office.It is not repeated after Publicola until 274 B.C., a period of 233years. This is the more remarkable when we remember thatelections were annual. There are only two certain cases of con-tinuatio n 400 years,until the four successiveconsulshipsof Marius,which clearly mark the arrival of the revolution that convertedthe republicinto the empire.Someof the fasti' reportL. PapiriusCursoras succeedinghim-self in 319 B.C.,but others give the name of the consul of the secondyear as L. Papirius Mugillanus. Livy (ix. 15. 11) calls attentionto this discrepancyin his sources, and leaves the matter at that

'It is assumed in this article that the best tradition of the fasti is in the maintrustworthy.




4/8

ROTATION N OFFICE IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC 431point without expressing his preference. Although in a laterpassage (ix. i6. i1) he by implicationfavors the view that Cursorreally succeededhimself,it seemsunlikelythat so notable a depar-ture shouldnot be better attested in our sources. The firstcertainexception after Publicola to the rule of non-continuation s in 274B.c. The great plebeian, M'. CuriusDentatus,

Quemnemoerropotuit uperare ecauro,who had dealt the Samnites a crushingblow in his first consulship,was afterthe lapseof fifteenyears againcalledto lead in the desper-ate struggle againstPyrrhus. Having defeatedPyrrhusand drivenhimfromItaly, he was made consul forthe followingyear to succeedhimself. In the poverty of oursourcesforthis year we are not toldwhy; but we can surmisethat it was in order that he might com-plete the victory or the arrangements hat shouldsucceed it. Theother certain case of continuatio s that of Q. Fabius Maximus in214 B.C. He had served but part of the previous year as consulsuffectus,and this mightconceivablyhavebeenpleaded nhis behalfif his election had been merely a matter of political struggle. Atany rate a similar circumstancehas been held by many in recentAmericanpolitics to justify a candidacyfor a third term as presi-dent; and in some states in which a governoris not permitted tosucceed himself it is stipulated in the constitution that if his firstterm has been merely the filling out of an unexpiredterm of hispredecessor,he shall not be considered neligibleto succeedhimself.The re-election of Fabius, however,was not for the sake of Fabius,but for Rome's sake; for he was greatly needed at the time as aleader against Hannibal. Moreover, two years before, after thedisaster at Lake Trasimene, it had been expresslydecreedby thesenate and enacted by the people that so long as the war shouldcontinue in Italy it should be legal to re-elect ex-consuls as oftenas the people wished. The case of Marcellus in the same year,214 B.C., is not a real exception to the rule. He had been chosenfor an unexpiredterm in the previous year, but if he had enteredupon the officeit would have given Rome for the first time in herhistory two plebeian consuls. The patrician augurs, therefore,had no difficulty n deciding,when it thunderedwhilehe was being




5/8

432 THE CLASSICALJOURNALinducted into the office, that his election had been displeasingtothe gods; and Marcellus was too good a Roman to enter upon theconsulship deis renuentibus. The Sword of Rome was thereforealtogether eligible when elected the followingyear.Althoughafter the consulshipsof Publicola thereis not anothercase of continuatio or more than two hundredyears, it was not atfirst made a matter of law. The principleappealed to the greatbody of patricianswho were eligible to the consulship,for it gavemore of them opportunity to attain this goal of their ambition,and made it more difficultfor one to overshadowall the rest anddominate the state. It appealedto the plebeians, as it gave theoppositeparty less perfect harmonyand a less concentered eader-ship. There were not often candidates bold enough to ask forimmediate re-election; and in the few instances when this didoccur the tribunes of the people were quick to enter a protestagainst the consideration of the candidate. The first legislationon the subject was a senatus consultum of 470 B.c. In reliquummagistratuscontinuari et eosdem tribunos refici iudicare senatumcontra rem publicam esse (Livy iii. 21. 4). This enactment isentirely generalin its terms, includingall the regularmagistracies,and addingthe tribunes of the people,whoseoffice was not at thattime regardedas a magistratus. The decree was aimed, however,at the tribunes,whoseleadershipwas beingmademoreeffectivebytheir continuation in office. When the people disregarded thedecree and re-elected the same tribunes for the following year,the patricianswaveredfor a time andwereinclinedto continue thesame consuls also. They were dissuaded from doing so by oneof the consuls who would have been re-elected. Eleven yearslater, in 459 B.c., a popularconsulagaindeclined to allow his nameto be presentedas a candidate for re-election(Livy iii. 64-65).The principleof non-continuationrequiredonly that one yearshould intervene between two consulshipsof the same man. Inpractice they were usually separated by a longer interval. Thismoswas given the validity of enactedlawin 342 B.C. Livy (vii. 42)reportsthat in this year it was enactedby a plebiscitum, Ne quiseundem magistratum intra decem annos caperet. This plebis-citumwas, however, disregarded n the election for the following




6/8

ROTATION N OFFICE IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC 433year. Because it was twice violated within the next twelve yearsand then more generally followed, Mommsen, in the Staatsrecht,where he discusses this and allied topics in considerabledetail,suggests that it may have been passed in 330 B.C. instead of in342 B.C. The suggestion has, however, little to commend it.Re-elections to the consulshipwith less than a ten-year intervaloccur in 320 (two cases), 315 (two cases), 314, and repeatedlythereafter. These frequent exceptions take away all justificationfor arbitrarilyassuming330 as the date of the enactment, for it islittle less out of harmony with the records of the fasti than theearlier date given by Livy. The vote by which such a law waspassedwas no morean expressionof the people'swill than the voteby which a consul was elected for a second term; and it wasprovided in a law of the Twelve Tables (Livy vii. 17. 12) utquodcumquepostremumpopulusiussisset, id ius ratumqueesset.The only personto runany riskin such a re-electionwas the officialwho presidedat the election,who might be called to account beforethe people after he was out of office for holdingthe electioncontraleges; but the people were not likely to vote a fine upon him forhumoringthem in their partiality for a favorite candidate. Everylaw passed in Rome controlling elections was thus violated onoccasions by election officials. When providing for elections inmunicipaltowns this defect was guarded against in the Lex luliaMunicipalis by assessing a fine against the candidate elected tooffice in contravention of the law, and an equal fine against theofficerpresidingat the electionfor receivingvotes for a disqualifiedcandidate.' The law fixing the ten-year interval between twotenures of the same magistracy gained in favor steadily. Brokenratherfrequently n criticalparts of the Samnitewars,we find thatbetween 295 B.c. and 254 B.C.,out of fifteen iterations of the consul-ship, only three violate the rule of the ten-year interval. In thelateryearsof the First Punic War,under the stressof that struggle,the law was practically cast aside. It was placed in abeyanceduringthe SecondPunic War, as noted above. Between the close

'It maybe notedalsothat in theLexMunicipalisMalacitanat is made a condi-tion of eligibility or a candidate orthe duovirateof the municipiumhat he shallnothave heldthat officewithinthe precedingiveyears.




7/8

434 THE CLASSICALJOURNALof the Second Punic War and Io4 B.c.,

the year of the secondconsulshipof Marius, during a period of ninety-five years, out oftwelve iterations of the consulship only three show less than aten-year interval. The frequent consulships of Marius, Cinna,and Carboin the last century B.C.were revolutionary. The lawrequiring he ten-yearinterval was re-enactedby Sulla,brokenbyPompey, and frankly given up under Caesar and his successors.During the period when consuls were replaced by tribunimilitaresconsularipotestate,since these officials were magistratusextraordinarii,here was no legal impedimentto their immediatere-election. They were more numerous than the consuls, and there-electionof individuals wouldnot be so dangerous n principleasin the case of consuls. In the fifty-one years in which militarytribunes with consular power were elected, out of 254 cases ofindividual elections only nine cases of continuatiooccurred. Thetwenty-six cases in which men were re-elected after an intervalof one year suggest that the introduction of this interval was amatter of policy. This is especially true in a case like that ofSer. CorneliusMaluginensis,who was elected in 386, 384, 382, 380,378, and 376 B.c., six times, each with an interval of one year.The principleof rotation was thereforepractically kept in effectduringthe periodof the tribunimilitaresconsularipotestate.Re-electionwas very rare in the offices of quaestor,aedile, andpraetor. These offices were looked upon as stepping-stones tohigher position, and the aedileship and the praetorshipentailedheavy expense on the holder if he sought popularity in the officewith a view to higher preferment. There was therefore smallinducementto lead any person to seek re-election to these offices.The officeof censorplaced so great and such arbitrary powerin the hands of its possessorthat the length of term was reducedfrom five years to eighteen months. Q. Fabius MaximusRullus,the censorof 304 B.c., when urged to stand for re-electionrefused,dicens non esse ex usu rei publicaeeosdemcensoressaepiusfieri-an ancient prototype of an illustrious modern example. Theonly man duringthe republicto hold the office of censortwice wasC. Marcius Rutilus, and for this his countrymenadded the cog-nomen Censorinus to his name. His first official act in his




8/8

ROTATION N OFFICE IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC 435second censorship was to assemble the citizens in a contio andrebuke themsharplyfor twiceentrustingthe officeto the same man.If we may trust the statement of Cassius Dio (Fr. 22. 2),continuatio n the office of tribunusplebiswas forbiddenfrom thefirst. The senate's decree of disapproval in 470 B.C. has beenreferredto above, and we know from Dionysius of Halicarnassus(x. 30) that the continuation of tribunes was again struck at in457 B.C. In the fierce political struggles between the patriciansand the plebeians,however, the latter did not hesitate to continuein office at critical times in the contest tribunes who were zealousand effective in championingtheir cause. At the climax of thestruggle they kept the same tribunesin office for ten years in suc-cession in the effort to pass the law requiringone consul to be aplebeian. The law was passed in 367 B.C. This ended for a longtime the political struggle between the orders,and the tribunesofthe people sink out of the notice of the historiansuntil the tribune-ship of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 B.C. The fasti tribunicii cannotbe madeup with any approachto completenessfor the intervening234 years, but it is certain that second elections as tribunusplebisin this period are very rare, and continuations occur but two orthree times. The principle of non-continuancein the office hadbecome so well established by the time of the Gracchi that theattempt of Tiberius to keep the officea secondyear led to violentmeasures.The principle of rotation in office was therefore thoroughlyaccepted by the Romans of the republic, and although the veryelastic nature of the Roman constitution made possibleexceptionsto any positive law on the subject, it was adheredto with remark-able strictness n every electivepoliticaloffice; andin the abandon-ment of the principlein the last century B.c. we have one of theclearest indications of the approachingbreakdownof free govern-ment amongthem.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

rotation in office in the roman republic-s.e.stout pp.429-435

Documents