THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COMITIA CENTURIATA
I. _In the Early Republic_
From the point of view of the Roman historians the centuriate
assembly,[1181] planned by Servius Tullius, came into existence at the
beginning of the republic; its earliest act in their opinion was the
election of the first consuls[1182] and its earliest statute the Valerian
law of appeal.[1183] Though they could not know precisely when it voted
for the first time, they were right in understanding it to have been
the basal comitia of the republic during the patrician supremacy. It
may not have been instituted till some time after the downfall of the
kingship,[1184] and it certainly did not reach its full complement of a
hundred and ninety-three centuries till more than a hundred years after
that event.
Through the early republic Rome was engaged in an almost unceasing
struggle for existence. The army was constantly in the field; and the
consuls from the praetorium issued their commands for the protection
and the government of the city. Their measures, after discussion in
the council of war, they must often have submitted to the approval of
the army. The military contio was sometimes summoned for exhorting the
men,[1185] for promising the reward of spoil in case of victory,[1186]
for reprimanding as well as for encouraging.[1187] On one occasion
the master of horse, calling a contio of soldiers, appealed to them
for protection from the dictator,[1188] and they replied with a shout
that they would allow no harm to befall him.[1189] Thereupon the
dictator summoned another contio to witness the court-martial of the
rebellious officer.[1190] On another occasion the consuls asked the
soldiers to decide a question by acclamation, and they obeyed.[1191]
We hear of the adjournment of a meeting on the motion of a military
tribune.[1192] After a victory, honors and rewards were granted by
vote of the soldiers.[1193] For acclamation, the regular form of
voting,[1194] was sometimes substituted a division of the army to right
and left for the sake of silence.[1195] A military assembly, meeting
at Veii, decided upon the appointment of Camillus, then in exile, to
the dictatorship, and despatched the resolution to Rome.[1196] In the
year 357 the consul Cn. Manlius held a tribal assembly of his troops at
Sutrium, and passed in it a law which imposed a tax of five per cent
on the manumission of slaves.[1197] Long afterward the army in Spain
elected a propraetor.[1198] It may be that much other political business
was decided by the army in the troublous times which followed the
overthrow of the kings. Although such acts were valid, they were always
of an exceptional nature, and they ran counter to the spirit of the
constitution, which granted to all the citizens, not to those merely who
chanced to be on military duty, a voice in the decision of such public
affairs as came before the people.
It is true that the centuriate assembly, having developed from the
army, showed pronounced military features. It could not be convoked
within the pomerium, for the reason that the army had to be kept
outside the city;[1199] before the reform it met ordinarily in military
array under its officers and with banners displayed;[1200] the usual
place of gathering was the Campus Martius; and no one but a magistrate
cum imperio could under his own auspices convoke it for the purpose
of taking a vote.[1201] For these reasons it was frequently, even
in official language, termed exercitus.[1202] The use of this word,
however, should not mislead us into supposing that the assembly was an
actual army. Though Dionysius[1203] represents the first meeting as
armed—a mere supposition, apparently to account for its known military
features—the fact is that the citizens carried weapons to none of the
assemblies.[1204] Strictly, too, the centuriate gathering was termed
exercitus urbanus in contrast with the real army designated as exercitus
armatus or classis procincta.[1205] The facts thus far adduced amply
warrant us in refusing to consider the voting assembly an army.
But some imagine the censorial assembly for the assessment and lustration
of the citizens to have been an army.[1206] For this view they rely upon
Dionysius,[1207] who states that the people came armed to the first
lustrum, and upon an uncertain passage from the Censoriae Tabulae, quoted
by Varro,[1208] which possibly speaks of the citizens in the lustral
assembly as armati. If this word should be supplied in the passage, it
might refer to an inspection of arms of the men of military age;[1209]
but that circumstance would by no means imply that all who attended the
lustrum were armed or were liable to military duty. It is certain that
as the census-taking had primary reference to property for the purpose
of apportioning taxes and other burdens of citizenship, those only were
summoned who were legally capable of holding property in their own name.
The list excluded all the men “in patris aut avi potestate,” however
liable they were to military duty,[1210] as well as the women and
children.[1211] All such persons were reported by the father or guardian.
It included, on the other hand, many who were exempt from military
service on account of age, physical condition, or want of the necessary
property qualification. Hence the censorial assembly could not have been
identical with the army. Furthermore the centuriate assembly was not a
basis for the levy.[1212] On the contrary, the soldiers were enrolled
directly from the tribes.[1213] These facts warrant the conclusion
that the relation between the army and the assembly must have been one
of origin only; the organization of the assembly developed from that
of the army, but at no time was the political assembly an army or the
army otherwise than exceptionally or irregularly a political assembly.
The truth is that an army regularly officiating as a political body
would require for its explanation two revolutions—one to bring it into
existence and another to abolish it; but of both cataclysms history is
silent.
The growth of the political from the military organization was somewhat
as follows. After the Romans had determined to use the centuries
regularly as voting units for the decision of questions not purely
military, they proceeded forthwith to extend the organization so as
to include all the citizens. For this purpose the men of military age
who were free from duty for the time being, or who had served the
required number of campaigns—sixteen in the infantry or ten in the
cavalry[1214]—or who were exempt on account of bodily infirmity or for
any other reason, had to be admitted to the junior centuries, thus
materially increasing their number and making them unequal with one
another. In a state, too, in which great reverence was paid to age the
seniors could not be ignored. They were accordingly organized in a number
of centuries (84) equal to that of the juniors—an arrangement which
made one senior count as much as three juniors.[1215] The mechanics who
were liable to skilled service in the army[1216] were then grouped
for voting purposes in two centuries, that of the smiths and that of
the carpenters,[1217] based on the two guilds in which these artisans
were already organized.[1218] Authorities differ as to the classes with
which they were associated. Livy[1219] adds them to the first class.
Cicero,[1220] too, places a century of carpenters with that group, making
no mention of the smiths, whereas Dionysius[1221] assigns both centuries
of mechanics to the second class. The explanation of the difference of
opinion seems to be that information as to this point was not contained
in the censorial document from which the annalist (Fabius Pictor) drew
his knowledge of the earlier comitia centuriata; the Romans knew only by
tradition that the industrial centuries were associated in the assembly
with one of the higher classes. The weight of authority inclines in favor
of the first class, and the reason for the respectable place occupied
by the mechanics is the high value placed on their service in early
time.[1222] In like manner the trumpeters (tubicines, liticines) and the
hornblowers (cornicines) were grouped each in a century for voting in the
comitia,[1223] also on the basis of their guild organizations.[1224]
The accensi velati, who as we are informed followed the army in civilian
dress and without weapons,[1225] also received a centuriate organization.
As to the number of centuries belonging to them opinion has differed.
Some, formerly including Mommsen,[1226] have assumed two. Livy,[1227]
however, gives but one century; Cicero[1228] seems to have only one in
mind; and in imperial time there was a single collegium, or century, of
accensi,[1229] probably a survival of the old political group. These
considerations led Mommsen to abandon his former view, to assume instead
a single century of the kind; and recent writers are inclined to follow
him.[1230] Lowest in rank of the supernumerary centuries was that of
the proletarians.[1231] The government so designated those citizens
who owned no land,[1232] and hence were poor. They were exempt from
military duty, excepting in so far as they served with arms furnished
by the state.[1233] Though few in the beginning, their number gradually
increased till in the time of Dionysius[1234] it exceeded all the five
classes together. At some time in the early history of the comitia
centuriata they were formed into a century and given one vote,[1235]
which was not counted with any class but was reported after all the
others. Dionysius[1236] wrongly speaks of it as a sixth class. The
existence of this century is due to the principle that no one should be
excluded from the right to vote on account of poverty.[1237]
Six supernumerary centuries have now been mentioned and the place of
three—the two industrial and the one proletarian—in the voting system
has been considered. With reference to the others Dionysius assigns the
musicians to the fourth class, Livy to the fifth. The settlement of this
question is aided by an examination into the total number of comitial
centuries of the fifth class. It is given as thirty by the sources.[1238]
Assuming this to be the correct number and adding to the sum of centuries
in the five classes (170) the six supernumerary centuries and the
eighteen centuries of knights to be considered below, we should have in
all a hundred and ninety-four, which would be one too many. In an earlier
chapter, however, the conclusion was reached that there were but fourteen
military centuries in the fifth class.[1239] Two of the thirty centuries
assigned to that class In the comitia centuriata must therefore have
been in fact supernumerary. If one was the accensi, what was the other?
Most probably it was the century of the tardy described by Festus,[1240]
made up at each meeting of those who came too late to vote in their own
classes. Obviously all writers who apply the discriptio centuriarum to
the army view this century, as well as that of the proletarians, with
suspicion.[1241] The two centuries of the accensi and the tardy should be
included among, not added to, the thirty of the fifth class.[1242] Having
reached this result, it might seem advisable for us to assume no further
supernumerary centuries for the fifth class, but to follow the authority
of Dionysius in assigning the musicians to the fourth. Or as the
trumpeters preceded the hornblowers in rank, it might be plausibly argued
that the former belonged to the fourth and the latter to the fifth. In
this way a compromise could be effected between Livy and Dionysius,
and Livy’s three supernumerary centuries of the fifth class could be
explained. Absolute certainty is unattainable. The notion of Dionysius
that one century of musicians voted with the seniors, the other with the
juniors, and so of the mechanics,[1243] is erroneous; for the seniors did
not vote separately from the juniors.
In the centuriate assembly each of the six tribal troops of knights[1244]
had one vote, and was called, therefore, a suffragium. As the term
centuria had not previously applied to these groups, it was for a time
withheld from them in the comitia, the six divisions being known simply
as the sex suffragia.[1245] Afterward as new voting groups were added
to the equites they came to be called centuries, and thence the term
extended to the old.[1246] The centuriate organization of the comitia did
not demand the creation of suffragia seniorum, to correspond with the
centuriae seniorum of the infantry, perhaps because the six votes in the
comitia centuriata adequately represented the whole number of patricians.
As the equites originally provided their own horses,[1247] they held
their rank for life, not merely through the period of service. After the
state had undertaken to furnish money for the purchase and keeping of
the horses,[1248] the eques retained his public horse, and consequently
his membership in an equestrian century, long after his retirement from
active duty.[1249] The increase in the number of equestrian votes was
owing to the participation of plebeians in the mounted service.[1250]
From them twelve equestrian centuries were formed for the centuriate
assembly, and added to the six groups already existing. This increase
probably came about in the course of the fourth century, accompanying or
following the enlargement of the infantry from two to four legions.[1251]
Thus the total number of one hundred and ninety-three centuries could not
have been reached till shortly before 269.
The foregoing discussion has made it evident that from the time when
the comitia centuriata came into being, there were two centuriate
organizations; (1) the military, which continued as before till it
changed to the manipular formation,[1252] (2) the political, which
developed from the military but which was at no time identical with it.
DISCRIPTIO CENTURIARUM OF THE COMITIA CENTURIATA
Old centuries of knights 6
New centuries of knights 12
=========+=====================+===========+==================
CLASSES | JUNIOR CENTURIES | SENIOR | RATINGS IN ASSES
| | CENTURIES | ACCORDING TO LIVY
---------+---------------------+---------—+-------------------
I | 40 + 2 of artisans | 40 | 100,000
II | 10 | 10 | 75,000
III | 10 | 10 | 50,000
| | |
IV | 10 + 2 of musicians | 10 | 25,000
V | 14 + 1 of accensi | |
| + 1 of the tardy | 14 | 11,000
=========+=====================+===========+==================
Below the classes:
1 century of proletarians
SUMMARY
Knights 18
Seniors and juniors 168
Supernumerary 7
---
Total 193
Before the reform this assembly met in military array with banners
displayed, each company under its centurion.[1253] The voting was
oral. Probably it was at first by acclamation; if so the suggestion of
individual voting, as we find it in historical time, must have come from
the orderly military array, which offered itself conveniently for the
purpose.[1254] The centurions may originally have served as rogatores,
to collect and report the votes.[1255] Each century cast a single vote,
which in historical time the majority of its members decided.[1256] The
voting proceeded according to classes; the equites were asked first,
hence their centuries were termed prerogative (praerogativae), then the
eighty centuries of the first class. If the votes of these two groups
were unanimous, they decided the question at issue; as ninety-seven
was a majority, they had one to spare from their total number. If they
disagreed, the second class was called and then the third and so on to
the proletarian century. But the voting ceased as soon as a majority was
reached, which was often with the first class; and it rarely happened
that the proletarians were called on to decide the issue.[1257] The
announcement of the prerogative votes greatly influenced the action of
those which followed.[1258]
II. _The Reform_
The study of the centuriate assembly begun earlier in the volume[1259]
and continued in the preceding part of this chapter shows it gradually
developing its organization during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.
The main line of progress has been traced though details are unknown.
The growth of popular rights in the latter half of the fourth century
gave a great impetus to the activity of the assemblies in general, as is
manifested in the Genucian, Publilian, and Hortensian legislation. In
312 when the change was made in the appraisements from land to money,
many aerarii who had voted with the proletarians must have been advanced
to the higher classes.[1260] This step toward the democratization of
the comitia centuriata, following upon the reduction of the patrum
auctoritas to a mere formality, could not help adding new energy to
the institution, leading to further changes in a popular direction.
The class ratings which are known to history were established no
earlier than 269.[1261] Two other more important changes, which can be
but approximately dated, must now be considered in detail. They are
(1) the abolition of the equestrian prerogative and the introduction
of the custom of drawing by lot a prerogative century from the first
class on each occasion before the voting began; (2) the division of the
citizens into classes and centuries within the several tribes. These two
innovations are commonly grouped together under the name of the “reform.”
As they have no necessary connection with one another, they need not
have been simultaneous. Livy’s narrative of the happenings of 396[1262]
and of 383[1263] seems to imply that they had been introduced before
these dates.[1264] But the passages here referred to are uncertain; and
at all events they belong to a period in which the centuries may still
have been closely connected with the tribes.[1265] But should they be so
interpreted as to apply to the reformed centuriate assembly, they might
still be looked upon as historical anticipations for the reason that
Livy’s[1266] account of the year 296 has reference to a feature of the
old organization. This disposition of the three passages is supported by
the following consideration. Had the reform been introduced much earlier
than 269, the annalists would have assigned it to Servius Tullius, just
as they assigned to him thirty tribes (reached in 318), all thirty-five
tribes (reached in 241), and the census ratings in the sextantarian asses
(established in or after 269);[1267] and in that case all memory of the
original Servian system would have been lost. The circumstance that we
are acquainted with it in some detail is proof of its survival into the
third century B.C. In fact Livy’s[1268] chief reference to the reform
indicates that it was completed, if not undertaken, after the number of
tribes had been brought up to thirty-five (241). On the other hand it
came before the opening of his third decade (218), which takes the new
arrangement for granted.[1269] The contention is often made that Livy
must have given an account of the reform in his second decade (292-219)
now lost; and there is a universal agreement that the reform was brought
about not by statute, but by arbitrary censorial disposition.[1270] The
censor commonly assumed to be the author of the change is either Fabius
Buteo, 241, or Flaminius, 220.[1271] Against the latter may be urged
the silence of Polybius[1272] and Livy,[1273] who in speaking at length
of his opposition to the nobles makes no reference to this reform. In
favor of Fabius it may be said that in 241 the full number of tribes
was completed; and the name of the thirty-fifth, Quirina, corresponding
to Romilia, the first rural tribe, suggests that the Romans intended to
create no more. In naming the last tribe the censors seem to have had in
mind the completion of the new system, to each component part of which
they apparently guaranteed a definite share of political power, which
would have been impaired by the further creation of tribes.[1274]
A little reflection, however, will convince us of the impossibility of
assigning the reform to any one censor or to a definite date. Livy could
not have made much of it in the lost part of his history without leaving
some trace in the epitome, which mentions far more trivial matters.[1275]
The only explanation of the epitomator’s silence is that the reform
was so gradual as to escape marked attention. This view is supported
by a strict interpretation of Livy,[1276] who supposes the change to
have come about naturally with the increase in the number of tribes,
and of Dionysius,[1277] who ascribes the innovation, or a part of it,
to no individual but to “certain powerful forces.” A conclusion as to
the date of the reform, to be acceptable, must satisfy the conditions
above mentioned. In earlier time, when there was a single classis, the
centuries were made up within the tribes; but this simple system was
rendered impossible by the increase in the number of classes.[1278]
For convenience of administration the censors must soon after this
enlargement have begun an effort to reduce the discord to harmony. One
class may have been brought into agreement with the tribes more readily
than another, and thus the readaptation may have extended through
many lustra. The number of centuries probably did not long remain at
one hundred and ninety-three. It may have received its first increase
above that sum in 304, for instance, the date to which Niebuhr[1279]
assigns the reform. The process may have been far advanced in 241, the
date preferred by a majority of scholars, and completed by Flaminius
in 220.[1280] The abolition of the equestrian prerogative may likewise
have been gradual; it may have been retained in one class of comitial
acts—elections or legislation, for instance—longer than in another. The
conclusion that the changes were gradually introduced in the period from
304 to 220 would best explain all the known facts.[1281]
As no description of the reformed organization has come down to us, we
are obliged to reconstruct it from the scant references of various
writers. It is to be noted first that the five classes continued in the
new system.[1282] They were still based on the census,[1283] and were
called to vote in their order as before.[1284] The distinction between
juniors and seniors was retained;[1285] and as these comitia were still
called centuriata, the centuries necessarily continued as the voting
units.[1286] But the reform brought them into direct relation with the
tribes, which now served as a basis for the division into centuries
and for their distribution according to age and class. On this point
Livy[1287] remarks, “We ought not to wonder that the arrangement which
now exists after the tribes have been increased to thirty-five, their
number being doubled in the centuries of juniors and seniors, does
not agree with the total number instituted by Servius Tullius; for he
divided the city into four parts, ... which he called tribes.... Nor
did those tribes have any relation to the distribution and number of
the centuries.” From this passage we may infer (1) that in the reformed
assembly the number and distribution of the centuries depended closely
upon the tribes—a conclusion supported by other citations to be given
hereafter, (2) that the number of centuries was changed, although we are
not distinctly informed whether by diminution or increase. According to
one interpretation the number of tribes was doubled by the number of
centuries of juniors and seniors, and there were therefore seventy of
these centuries, thirty-five juniors and as many seniors, each century
forming a half tribe. This view is supported by passages in which the
century bears the name of the tribe, as Aniensis iuniorum,[1288] Voturia
iuniorum,[1289] Galeria iuniorum,[1290] as well as by those which in a
more general way refer to voting or the announcement of the votes by
or according to tribes in the centuriate assembly.[1291] It accords
perfectly with other evidence that the century was an integral part of
the tribe.[1292] This is the view adopted by Niebuhr.[1293] It is open,
however, to the fatal objection of abolishing the classes, which in
fact continued through the republic, as has already been shown.[1294]
He does indeed allow for a first class comprising the country tribes
and a second class made up of the others;[1295] but this hypothesis is
overthrown by those citations which imply the continuance of all five
classes,[1296] as well as by those which make the census an element of
the later organization.[1297] Huschke,[1298] who places the reform in the
earliest times of the republic, adopts Niebuhr’s view as to the number
of centuries; but maintaining the continuance of the five classes,[1299]
he considers them to be groups of tribes, the seventeen old rural tribes
being distributed as follows: in the first class eight, in the second,
third, and fourth respectively two, in the fifth three.[1300] But bearing
in mind that these tribes were primarily local, we cannot at the same
time regard them as census groups without ascribing to them an impossibly
artificial character. For this reason the theory of Huschke should be
rejected. To avoid this difficulty, while retaining the classes, the
assumption has been made that the classes were subdivisions of the
century, in other words that each century contained men of every class.
This view is invalidated by the fact that the centuries continued to
be divisions of the classes, which were still called to vote in their
order.[1301]
The assumption of a diminution in number having proved untenable, the
conclusion is that there was an increase.[1302] In view of the facts
(1) that the reformed organization rested on a tribal basis,[1303] (2)
that the centuries were divisions not only of the tribes[1304] but also
of the classes,[1305] (3) that the tribes could not have been divisions
of the classes,[1306] it is necessary to conclude that the classes were
themselves divisions of the tribes with the centuries as subdivisions.
In other words, the work of organization took place within the tribe:
the members of a tribe were first divided into five classes according to
their wealth; within each class the men were grouped on the basis of age
into juniors and seniors,[1307] one century for each within the several
classes, making ten centuries of juniors to the tribe, or in all three
hundred and fifty tribal centuries, to which are to be added eighteen
centuries of knights and probably five supernumerary centuries, amounting
to a total of three hundred and seventy-three. This is substantially the
view of Pantagathus.[1308] Convincing evidence is afforded by a group of
inscriptions of the imperial period.[1309] From them we learn that under
the emperors the urban tribes comprised severally (1) a corpus seniorum,
(2) a corpus iuniorum, (3) the tribus Sucusana a corpus Iulianum, and the
Palatine and Esquiline each a corpus Augustale. Every corpus consisted of
several centuries. In the corpus Sucusana iuniorum were eight centuries
divided into two groups of five and three respectively, the first group
being evidently superior to the second. At the head of the century was a
centurio or curator.[1310] Eliminating the corpora which were named after
emperors and which must have been instituted in their time, eliminating
also the inferior centuries of the corpora seniorum and iuniorum, which
were undoubtedly added either by the emperors or by the late republican
censors, we have remaining five centuries to the corpus as it must
have stood in the period immediately following the reform. This result
confirms the view suggested by Pantagathus.
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)
that Mommsen’s theory is refuted by the language of Cicero,[1318] who
speaks of the voting divisions of the four lower classes not as groups of
centuries but simply as centuries, the absence of a name for such a group
being one of the strongest arguments against its existence. Mommsen’s
interpretation of the passage is in brief too strained and unnatural to
commend itself to the understanding. Apart from its lack of support in
the sources, an objection to the theory is its extreme impracticability.
Holding that juniors and seniors could not have been brought together in
the same voting divisions, and assuming that the combinations were made
by twos and threes and that the four lower classes had an equal number of
votes, Klebs has worked out the simplest arrangement as follows:
===============+===========+==================================+=========
CLASS | CENTURIES | | VOTES
---------------+-----------+----------------------------------+---------
I | 70 | One vote each | 70
II | 70 | 35 of seniors |
| | 8 in groups of two 4 votes |
| | 27 in groups of three 9 votes |
| | -- |
| | 13 votes |
| | 35 of juniors |
| | 2 in a group 1 vote |
| | 33 in groups of three 11 votes |
| | 12 votes |
| | -- |
| | Total | 25
| | |
If the remaining classes are like the second, we shall have:
| | |
III | 70 | | 25
IV | 70 | | 25
V | 70 | | 25
Equites | 18 | One vote each | 18
Supernumeraries| 5 | One vote each | 5
| | | ---
| | Total | 193[1319]
===============+===========+==================================+==========
This complex system would make the action of the centuriate assembly
exceedingly slow and difficult, and would be as useless as impracticable;
for if the object was to reduce the votes of the first class by ten and
to make the other classes equal, that end could have been easily attained
by the readjustment of numbers on the old basis, without the invention
of this awkward grouping, the like of which is not known to have existed
in any ancient or modern state. Such a reform, too, would bring out
more clearly than ever the inequality of rights in the comitia,[1320]
and therefore could not have been called democratic by Dionysius.[1321]
It is contradicted also by Livy,[1322] who distinctly states that the
number of centuries was changed. Lastly the objection must be made that
the joining of centuries of different tribes into voting units cannot
be reconciled with the imperial grouping of centuries of the same tribe
into corpora,[1323] and is refuted by the many citations which assume the
voting or the announcement of the votes to have proceeded according to
tribes[1324] as well as according to classes.[1325]
Lange,[1326] not thinking it necessary to preserve a total of a hundred
and ninety-three votes but accepting in the main the view of Pantagathus,
tries to bring the centuries into relation with the tribes by assuming
that the seventy half-tribes, severally comprising five centuries
of juniors or seniors, were given each one vote in the “concluding
announcement” (Schlussrenuntiation), this vote being determined by a
majority of the five component centuries. In like manner the eighteen
centuries of knights were grouped in divisions of three centuries each,
so as to count six votes in the final announcement, hence the name sex
suffragia. The supernumerary centuries were grouped in one or two voting
divisions, so that in all seventy-seven or seventy-eight votes were
cast.[1327] As to the process, he believed that after the prerogative
the seventy centuries of the first class and the eighteen centuries of
cavalry voted simultaneously, and while their votes were being counted
the second class was voting, the votes, in his opinion, not being
announced as soon as known.[1328] This view as to the announcement is
contradicted by the sources,[1329] which clearly imply that the reports
were made public as they came in. Against his theory may be urged also
(1) the fact that no name existed for the half-tribe, which in his
opinion cast one vote in the closing announcement,[1330] as well as (2)
the fact that the sources give more than six votes to the equites in the
late republic.[1331] Lange is right, however, in understanding that the
voting did not now, as formerly, cease when a majority was reached, but
continued till all the centuries had voted.[1332]
A solution of the problem as to the order of voting suggested by
Klebs[1333] seems to satisfy all conditions. The centuries gave their
votes by classes, each being announced as soon as it was ascertained.
Then when all the centuries had voted, a count was taken by tribes in the
order determined by lot;[1334] and a second announcement, made in that
order, decided the election or other act of the people. Each candidate
was declared elected when a majority of votes was reached in his favor.
Regarding the supernumerary centuries our information is extremely
meagre. As it does not seem likely that influential corporations would
be robbed of a privilege they once enjoyed, we may reasonably believe
that the artisans, musicians, and accensi velati retained centuries of
their own in the reformed organization. Cicero,[1335] however, speaks of
a single century of artisans for his time. The two industrial colleges,
which had existed from an early age,[1336] seem to have been joined in
one and to have continued into the imperial period after nearly all
the other guilds had been abolished.[1337] When the two were united,
they were probably reduced to a single vote in the assembly. In like
manner the liticines, or tubicines, and the cornicines were united in
one college of musicians[1338] and were probably given one vote. The
accensi velati, too, formed a college composed of wealthy freedmen,
freeborn, and even knights.[1339] We may well suppose that it still
possessed a vote in the centuriate assembly. Lastly may be mentioned
the century of proletarians and that of the tardy,[1340] which were as
necessary after the reform as before it.[1341] Although new centuries
were added, possibly by the later republican censors and certainly by
the emperors,[1342] the principle of the reformed organization remained
unchanged.[1343]
In the reformed assembly the equestrian centuries ceased to be
prerogative.[1344] A century was drawn from the first class[1345] by
lot[1346] to take the lead in voting. Then came the remainder of the
class, including the equestrian centuries and the single century of
artisans, eighty-eight in all. In the announcement the votes of the
equites were distinguished from those of the class;[1347] and the sex
suffragia, no longer exclusively patrician,[1348] were reported after
the other eighty-two. The inferior place assigned to the suffragia was
evidently to remove them far from their earlier prerogative position so
as to free the assembly from patrician influence. Next the lower classes,
among which other supernumerary centuries were distributed as in the
earlier republic, voted in order; and finally came the summing up by
tribes in the way described above. The old military array gave place to
a civilian grouping like that already established for the curiate and
tribal assemblies.[1349]
I. THE EARLIER ORGANIZATION: the literature on this subject is
essentially the same as for ch. iv.
II. THE REFORM: Schulze, C. F., _Volksversamml. der Römer_, 69
ff.; Huschke, Ph. E., _Verfass. des Königs Servius Tullius_,
ch. xii; Peter, C., _Epochen der Verfassungsgesch. der röm.
Republik_, 42 ff.; Savigny, F. C., _Verbindung der Centurien
mit den Tribus_, in _Vermischte Schriften_, i. 1-13; for
other early literature, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 495 ff.,
notes; Neumann, C., _Zeitalter der punischen Kriege_, 187
ff.; Nitzsch, K. W., _Gesch. der röm. Republik_, i. 146 f.;
Mommsen, _Röm. Tribus_, 66-113, 143-149; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii.
269 ff.; Lange, L., _De magistratuum romanorum renuntiatione
et de centuriatorum comitiorum forma recentiore_, in _Kleine
Schriften_, ii. 463-493; _Röm. Alt._ ii. 494-516; Madvig,
J. N., _Verfass. und Verw. des röm. Staates_, i. 117-23;
Herzog, E., _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 320-7; _Die Charakter der
Tributcomitien ... und die Reform der Centuriatcomitien_, in
_Philol._ xxiv (1876). 312-29; Willems, P., _Droit public
Romain_, 92-8; Mispoulet, J. B., _Institutions politiques
des Romains_, i. 46-8; Greenidge, A. H. J., _Roman Public
Life_, 252 f.; Abbott, F. F., _Roman Political Institutions_,
74-6; Karlowa, O., _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 384-8; Soltau, W.,
_Altröm. Volksversamml._ 358-71; _Cicero de Re Publica und
die servianische Centurienordnung_, in _Jahrb. f. Philol._
xli (1895). 410-4; Kappeyne Van de Coppello, J., _Comitien_,
20 ff.; Morlot, E., _Comices électoraux sous la république
Rom._ ch. v; Goguet, R., _Centuries_, ch. iv; Le Tellier, M.,
_L’organisation centuriate_, ch. ii; Hallays, A., _Comices à
Rome_, 25-31; Plüss, H. T., _Entwick. der Centurienverfass._;
Ullrich, J., _Centuriatcomitien_; Clason, O., _Zur Frage
über die reformierte Centurienverfass._ in Heidelb. _Jahrb._
lxv (1872). 221-37; Ritschl, F. W., _Opuscula Philologica_,
iii. 637-73; Genz, H., _Centuriat-Comitien nach der Reform_;
Guiraud, P., _De la Reforme des Comices centuriates au III
Siècle av. J.-C._ in _Rev. hist._ xvii (1881). 1-24; Klebs,
E., _Stimmenzahl und Abstimmungsordnung der ref. servianischen
Verf._, in _Zeitschr. d. Savignystift. f. Rechtsgesch.
Röm._ Abt. xii (1892). 181-244; Meyer, E., _Die angebliche
Centurienreform Sullas_, in _Hermes_, xxxiiii (1898). 652-4;
Humbert, G., in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1389 f.;
Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1956-60.