Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Violence in Roman Politics

  • A. N. Sherwin-White

Extract

To speak of Roman politics in the late Republic without touching on violence would hardly be possible. But my real theme is concerned with methods of interpreting Roman history. We have seen in the last hundred years some three general attitudes or schools of thought about the study of the later Republic. It all begins with Mommsen, of course. First there were those who, following Mommsen, tended to explain Roman history in terms of the nineteenth century. The conflict of Optimates and Populares tended to be assimilated to the forms of conflict in parliamentary countries; parties, programmes, even democrats and conservatives were brought in. Then came a swing away. The stress was laid more and more on the generals and their ambitions. The terminology of parliamentary democracy was discarded as unsuitable, and the history of the late Republic was seen as an inevitable procession of great Imperatores, each foreshadowing the next. Even the Scipios were involved, then Marius, Sulla and so forth. Much less stress was laid on the popular movement. Apart from the Gracchi the tribunes were treated as tools of the Imperators and nothing more. The politics of the generation before the Social War were explained in terms of the Ciceronian age. One might cite the great chapters of the Cambridge Ancient History, and Meyer's Caesars Monarchie as characteristic.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Violence in Roman Politics
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Violence in Roman Politics
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Violence in Roman Politics
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All

1 This paper was read at the conference arranged by the Committee of the Joint Greek and Roman Societies at Oxford in August, 1955. The sources are well documented in Greenidge and Clay, Sources for Roman History B.C. 133–70 (Oxford, 1926), and in Broughton, T. R. S., Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 1951). Here references have been added to the original text only at places crucial for the argument.

2 On the circumstances of Marius' legateship see Vell. Pat. 11, 11. Plut. Mar., 7. Diod. 35, 38.

3 Compare Sallust, , BJ 27, 30, 31–3, 40.3–5, with 64; 65, 4; 73. For the rift between equestrians and plebes after Gaius Gracchus, ibid. 42, 1.

4 ibid., 73.

5 For the origins of Rupilius see Val. Max. VI, 9, 8. For Billienus, Cic. Brutus 175. Mallius Maximus, consul in 105, was ignobilis but not novus, Cic. pro Plancio 12.

6 Plut. Mar. 12, 1.

7 Sall. BJ 73.

8 Livy, Ep. 67. Sall. BJ 114.

9 Vell. Pat. II, 126. Livy, Ep. 68–9, gives both sides of the picture. Plut. Mar. 28, 5, gives the Rutilius version. Cf. Dio's statement on the ‘consensus omnium’ at the elections of 102, fr. 92.

10 Plut. Mar. 28, 4.

11 App. 1, 30, 3–6. Plut. Mar. 29, 2 and 4. The bias of the source is apparent. Marius could not have known beforehand that Metellus alone of all the senators would refuse to take the conditional oath, Saturninus' trick could only be devised after the final taking of oaths.

12 Plut. Mar. 30, 3. Cic. pro Rab. perd. reo. 20, 27. Cf. Orosius V, 17.

13 Plut. Mar. 30, 4.

14 R. Syme, Roman Revolution, 29. Last, H. M. in CAH IX, 332.

15 App. BC 1, 121. Plut. Pomp. 21, 3–23, 2. Crass. 12.

16 Vell. Pat. 11, 30.

17 Pompey was granted dispensation to hold his triumph in 71 by the Senate, Cic. de Imp. Pomp. 62. The sc. allowing ratio absentis would be at the same time.

18 Livy XL, 43, 4–5.

19 Cic. I in Verr. 44.

20 For the author and date of the Aurelian rogation see o.c. 46, 11; in Verr. II, 174; 111, 223. Plut. Pomp. 22, 3. For Pompey's contio see I in Verr. 45.

21 Dio 38, 5, 1–2. Professor R. E. Smith in a forthcoming article, which he kindly communicated to me, links this with the obscure lex Plotia that formed the model for the agrarian rogation of Flavius in 60 B.C. Cic. ad Att. 1, 18, 6.

22 JRS XLI, 1951, 112.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed