Download Democracy: History, Theory, Practice

T'\
[Jemocracy
History, Theory, Practice
Plural Autonomy: Roman and
Later Republicanism
Sanford Lakoff
Athenian democracy-as the direct self-government of an entire community--did not set an example that later societies would seek to emulate;
Roman republicanism-a form of balanced or mixed govemment in which
public opinion had only a restricted role and in which power was divided
among different assemblies, with an aristocratic senate the most important--did provide such a model. Although the republic was succeeded by
an imperial monarchy, it provided a source book for republican government that was to be carefully examined centuries late4, when monarchy
t)l
r
WestviewPress
A D it
i
s
ion o/ HarperCollin sP*blishers
(
nre)
came under attack and opponents sought a practical alternative.
Roman republicanism resembled Athenian democracy in locating ultimate authority in the citizenry, but differed in dividing legislative and elective authority among several assemblies. Because of the Roman example, a
republic came to be understood as a system of mixed or divided government combining monarchy, aristocracy, and popular government in what
was often thought to be the most stable political arrangement. The Roman
constitution was also "rnixed" in the sense that it distributed power among
various constituencies, based upon kinship, status, place of residence, and
wealth. In the popular assemblies, voting was by group rather than by
individual suffrage. The balance or equilibrium among these constituencies was thought to provide a form of power sharing among the major
groups composing society, but one that respected the need for social hierarchy. In recognizing the political legitimary of these groupings or factions,
Roman republicanism differed from Athenian democracy, which united all
citizens in a single assembly and gave much less recognition to differences
of wealth. It may therefore be thought of as introducing a form of "plural
autonomy" modifying the communal autonomy claimed as much by the
Roman cioi fas as by the Greekpolls. As a result, when a Roman citizen went
into battle to defend his city or to extend its poweq, he fought both as a
proud Roman citizen, exhibiting patriotic "civic virtue," and as a member
65
History
a class-divided army carrying a banner inscribed SPQR, for "the Senate
and People of Rome." At home, the same citizen would be identified with
different parties whose struggle for control was sometimes so divisive as
to lead to intemecine warfare.
Along with its greater size and pluralistic characteX, other factors also
made the Roman experiment more influential than the Athenian in later
centuries. Rome lasted much longer and was regarded as the proud symbol and foundation of western civilization for centuries after its collapse.
The republic, because it created the conditions for Rome's successful expansiory could notbe dismissed as a failed experiment contrary to human
nature or a system of government fit only for a very small and homogeneous community. Memories of the grandeur that was Rome blended the
spirit of republican citizenship with the might of empire and associated
of
both with military and organizational prowess. When opponents of feudalism and absolutism sought an alternative that would create an operational and not merely theoretical form of popular sovereignty, they were
able to point to the history of Rome and they found in Roman law and
political practices a veritable handbook of procedure. The fact that the Roman Republic had been more oligarchic thanAthenian democracy made it
more congenial to aristocratic and upper middle class reformers who feared
that unbridled popular sovereignty would lead to mob ru-le, but the fact
that over time the powers of the plebeian assembly had been greatly
strengthened also made it appealing to champions of a broadened franchise. The Roman model, with its elaborate constitutional engineering and
its stress on law and the authority of magistrates, seemed less susceptible
to demagoguery and incompetence than the Atheniary which hadbeen
roundly criticized by the city's own philosophers on that score. Rome had
suffered even more than Athens from corruptiory as sallust and other historians had pointed out, but this could be guarded against by drawing
lessons from Roman failures (especially by avoiding the conditions of poverty and dependence that helped produced caesarism) and emulating its
elforts to inculcate patriotic loyalty and an ethic of civic virtue. outrigrrt
democrats found Roman republicanism a source of inspiration because it
yielded a more expansive concept of citizenship than the Athenian polrs
and because the struggle of the orders resulted in a gradual widening of
popular participatior; coming close, in the revolt led by the brothers Gracchi,
to establishing a much more democratic constitution.
When later republicans sought to imitate the Roman example, they
sought to emulate both its emphasis on civic virtue and its recognition of
the pragmatic benefits of checks and balances, functional and social, in
preventing €rny one group from monopolizing power. Under the influence of natura-l rights-social contract theory, howevel, the association of
republicanism with social hierarchy was at first muted and then all but
Plural Autonomy: Roman and Later Republicanism
abandoned. what was retained was the commitment to functionally mixed
goverrunent and a pluralism of sociopolitical groups-interests, iactions,
and parties-as well as the understanding tliat republican govemment
requires civic virtue. when republicanism also became a sinonym for
popular representative goverrunent, often unicameral and based on universal suffrage, the difference between republicanism and democracy became more a matter of historical connotation than political reality.
Before the revival of republicanism, however, th; entire Roman experience was put under a cloud because of the Christian denunciation o? pag""ir-t" teachings and the use made of religious teachings by the pri-u
beneficiaries of feudalism. All that was Greet and Romanland not merelv
their pantheism, was condemned as idolatrous, including attachment to
the "earthly city," whether polis or cioitas. A "great chain-of being,, was
said to extend downward from the heavens and to assign everyone a
place in the social hierarchy. As the unity of Christendomlequired subordination to a single church headed by a single bishop, so tire unity of
society was held to require subordination to a single temporal oider
under a Christian king.
Even within the idealized " corpus christinnum," howeveq, dissension had
to be dealt with. when it was not ruthlessly suppressed in campaigns against
heresy but allowed to express itself in churchibuncils, the mediei,at church
provided an experience of self-government that helped prepare the way
for the reappearance of secular republicanism. The 'tort iuur movement,,
led by figures like Marsilius of Padua, Nicholas of Cusa, and
John of paris,
championed representative goverrunent both for the church and for secular society. some heretical movements repudiated episcopacy and called
instead for covenentalism, a tendency which finally found political expression_among groups like the Levellers among the Lngfish Furitans. when
the Protestant revolt created a schism of faith that could not be resolved
by the wars of religion, the way was finaily open for the toleration and
separation of church and state that became a bulwark of modern democracy- substantively, Protestantism also provided powerful support
for secular individualism, both in economic and political behavior, even
though its leaders usually preached political quietism and support for
Protestant princes.
The Rise of the Roman Republic
Rome differed from AJhens in encompassing a larger territory with a
more varied populace. "The difference between the Greek polis and the
La$rr ciaitas," A. N. sherwin-white has pointed out, "corresponds to the
differencebetweenthemountains of Greece and thehills of Lati'um.,, Latium
plain not broken by impassable mountains but encircled by hills.
ig-a
\A/hereas the Athenians had no choice but to remain within Attica and
to
68
History
found colonies and make alliances by seaborne expeditions, Rome could
more readily expand to incorporate neighboring peoples.r
Like the Greek democracies and soon after them, the Roman Republic
also arose after a long pre-history in which the immediately prior form
had been monarchy. originally a collection of villages on the banks of the
Tiber, Rome is thought to have become a monarchical state as a result of
Etruscan conquest in the middle of the seventh century 8.C., not as legend
would have it, because its eponymous foundet, Romulus, had been a demigod who passed without dying to the dwelling-place of tire immortals.z
The conquerors seem to have fused the mostly small villages into a single
political unit, with an elective kingship that became hereditary.3 The republic is thought to have arisen in 509 B.C. in a revolt led by patricians
(ftornpater or fathe{, connoting clan elders), a noble class of long standing,
with the support of the royal military forces, against the tyrarnical rule of
the last Etruscan king, Tarquin the Proud. It reached the zenith of its power
in the several centuries following the decline of the Athenianpolis, during
which the form of govemment that prevailed elsewhere in the Mediterranean world was d1'nastic. Unlike Athens, however, Rome went through
a second transformation when the republican constitution was replaced,
after it had lasted over 400 years, by an imperial monarchy, which eventually succumbed when the lr.succeeded in invading and sacking
br<Llcicrrs
*to A.D.
Rome in I
at first more explicitly oligarchical
was
republicanism
Roman
Although
into a more popular form of
its
development
than Athenian democracy,
maintain
is
hard
to
once the principle of
oligarchy
goverrunent shows that
hard
the Romans
much
experience,
After
popular sovereignty is adopted.
that
the
great
divide in
Athenians
came to understand as clearly as the
popular.
The
very
term res
forms of govemment is between autocratic and
publica implied that popular government is the only form in which all citizens could enjoy liberty. Even aristocrats saw monarchy as a form of domination analogous to the relationship between master and slaves.a Cicero
expressed the Roman appreciation of the link between popular government and liberty, even as he also expressed the Roman view that popular
govemment must be tempered by respect for superior merit:
In a monarchy all except the king are too much excluded from the protection
of the law and from participation in deliberative functions, though these rights
belong to the whole people. In a government dominated by an aristocracy
the mass of the people have hardly any share in freedom, since they have no
part in corunon deliberative and executive Powers. And when the state is
governed by the people, even though they be just and self-disciplined, yet
their very equality is inequitable in that it does not recognize degrees of merit.
Therefore, even if Cyrus the Persian was a perfectly just and wise king, nevertheless the condition of the commons-that is, the commonwealth . . . does
Plurnl Autonanry: Ronrart anri Later Rcpublicnnisnt
69
not seem to have been one which we should particularly covet, since it was
subject to the caprice of a single man. Similarly, even if our clients, the
Massalians, are governed with the greatest justice by their oiigarchy of nobles,
still in a people so situated there exists something like slavery. And even if
the Athenians at certain periods after the fall of the Areopagus conducted all
public business through enactments and decrees of the people, still their state
did noi preserve its glory, since it failed to regard di{ferences of worth.s
The Roman effort to achieve Ciceronian balance involved a constant
struggle which ultimately failed when reliance on patronage made voting
in the popular assemblies too dependent on bribery and when control over
the armies passed from the Senate to military cornmanders. Internal conflicts among the orders led to a broadening of political participation which
in some respects resulted in a stronger sense of unity, but the later shift
toward populism exacerbated problems caused by corruption and helped
open the way to demagoguery and the rule of generals who made themselves emperors. The republican constitution fell victim, the historian Sallust
observed, mainly to a combination of avarice and ambition.6
Roman republicanism differed from Athenian democracy in several
important respects. Like Athenian citizens, Roman citizens were divided
into classes denominated by status and income with different military roles,
but these distinctions were far more influential in the structure of Roman
government than they r,l,ere in the Athenian. The predominance of the Roman upper class, at first completely patrician and eventually also composed of wealthy plebeians, was reinforced by the insiitution of clientela
(clientship), a form of personal dependence unknown in the Greek world.
Clients performed a variety of services for their patrons in exchange for
protection, and they also provided important political backing, by delivering their own votes and those of their friends.TAt first the Roman republic
had separate assemblies for patricians and plebeians (from plebs or common people, equivalent to the Greek dentos) and property qualifications for
all high offices. By not providing salaries for elected officials, Rome effectively barred its highest offices to all but the wealthy. Even the Roman notion of aequilas, or equality before the law, differed in connotation from the
Athenian id eal of isonomrc, its literal counterpart. Initially, Chaim Wirszubski
points out, the plebeians did not enjoy the same civic rights as patricians
and had no political rights. They therefore "attached great importance to
equality before the law and to the fundamental rights of citizenship. But
the right to govern was not considered a universal civic right. The Athenians sought to establish equality in respect of the right to govem, whereas
the Romans sought to safeguard their rights against the power of government."8 Although this understanding changed over time, as the plebeians
gained full civic rights and a greater degree of authority and access to high
office, Rome remained a largely oligarchical republic. A unique form of
History
group voting, which had been introduced early on, continued to serve as a
usefui instrument for the elite to frustrate majority rule. A differential notionof civicfghts allowing for variations in degrees of citizenship encouraged the affiliation of foreigners but was also used to vitiate the popular
character of Roman republicanism. The Roman form of govemment became the model of the mixed constitutiory celebrated by rolybius, who
cited it as the reason for Rome's success, blending monarchy (the Consuls),
aristocracy or oligarchy (the senate), and popular govemment (the Tribunes
and the plebeian council).
From Monarchy to Republic
Thcitus began lis
_
Rome was from
Annals with the categorical statement that the cify of
its beginning in the hands of kings. This claim is consid-
ered higNy doubtful by modem historians, even though they acknowledge that local kingships did efst in Italy before the Etruscans imposed
monarchy and with it the status of a city-state or ciuitas on Rome.eAll that
it is known with reasonable certainty is that a period of monarchy arose
during the Etruscan conquest and that the republic emerged afterward.
The Etruscan kings were said to have imperium-a teim that came to
sum up for Roman jurisprudence everything that would be connoted by
the word sovereignty when it came into use in the sixteenth centurv. Thev
used the symbol of the/asces, an axe bound with rods, which was of Etuscan
origin. The king was not only a political authority, but at the same time the
religious authority, military commander-in-chief, and chief justice. He held
powerbyvirtue of religious sanction and by force of arms, butnotby popular concession.
lhe patres or elders formed a senate which the king'o,ilttt
choose to consult and to which royal authority initially reverted on ihe
death of the king. The senate would appoint an interrex who would hold
office for a-short period before a,new king could be nominated. popular
councils called curiae are reported to have had the role of giving appioval
to the nomination.l' The king was assisted by several offrcialslppbinted
byhim.
within early Roman society, the authority of the king was paralleled by
the authority of the pater familias. These patres and their legitimate sons
formed the patrician order and lived as landowners on the Se.ren Hills of
Rome or in the countryside. The patricians had a standing in society that
brought with it a sense of social superiority and a still uncertain sense of
authority. They alone had ciaitas optimo iure, tt.e full rights of citizenship,
including personal freedom, ius commercii, the right to hold and exchange
prope*y, ius conubii, the right to intermarry with other members of the
gent:s-or dans, ius gantilitatis, the right to share in the worship of the clan,
and the political rights: ius sufragii, the right to vote, and. ius honorum, the
right to hold office. Foreigners who settled in Rome, either to better their
Plural Autonomy: Roman and later
Republicanism
Zl
conditions or because they had rived in conquered territory
or had been
freed from slavery became t,.e clientes of a_patrician patronis,exchanging
serv.rcls and payments f9r the privileg"s thir status accordei
ttrem.tt etordeq, the plebeian, had come
ryady {uring the mo-narchical p-eriod, i
into being, which at first did not have the^"*
same legal status as thi patrician,
but was considered a motrey co'ection of outsiders, p"rrrup, rormed
of
conquered populations.
The penultimate Etruscan king, servius Ttrllius, is reported
by Livy to
have established a census and used it to form five classes
subdiviaed into
"centuries" or hundreds, ail based on wearth, and all with
Jifferent
tary roles, rather like the four classes established under soron mili_
and
Cleisthenes in Athens, except that in Rome those whose
fortunes did not
meet the minimum were assigned to a single separate."r.tory-u*umpted
froT
rnj,ury service. The cavalry centuries were raised from the First class,
and the burden of supporting the cavalry was said by Livy
to have been
borne by the rich.12
The p.rocess by which civic rights as well as duties were
given the plebs
may well have begun because the kings needed their finan"cial
assistance
and wanted to use theS t? offset patrlcian pressure. The
plebeians were
apparently keen to make this bargain becauie it gave them
a measure of
protection for their persons and goods. They received
ius cammercium in
furr at an early period and won qualified citizenship
when civic rights were
granted on the basis of wearth and residence ratirer
than excrusively by
birth. The reforms were not the work of the Etrusc"" ti"g,
t o*eve4 and came to fuX fn1i,lrl only after they were
"r,iir"ty,
a*ing
tf,"
sixth and fifth centuries 8.C.13 It was then that the ptJbeians
"*p"jt"J, *"." org"_
nizedalong with the patricians into four urban,,hi6es,,
*JuJ^ittua
to
partial citizenship.
The exp'lsion of the Etruscan kings red at first to the
replacement of
by-two chief executirres, th-e prnetores,who were chosen
*gryrc\r
annuby the whole body of citizens----organized in various councils-and
lly
later given the title of ionsul. other offi"iul, were
also
i^"ruding
frte censor, whose function was to assess property, "r".i"a,
prepare registers of
citizens according to tribe, crass, and military organizatior;
and who rater
acquired the function of moral guardianship. A"certain
number of prebeians were admitted to.me-mbeplip i" the senate,but
these conscriptiwere
81vgn only a restricted role. Although kingship was retained, the function
of that office became purely religioirs and"ceremonial,
until the early part
oj urc.rirt\ celtury when ihe ki-ng's rerigious role was
removed and assrgned to the Pontifex Mnximus. To decrease the
likelihood that the consul_
srup wourd become a basis for a revival
of kingship and tyranny, two consuls were elected to hold the office joinJly, ealrr
na.ring Jq*iio-", 1po,
potestas) and the right of mutual control (ntercessio).
rf,e a^uat consurship
History
was sometimes criticized for producing contradictory directives, especially
harmful in war, but it reflected a belief in dividing power as a way of
preventing arbitrary rule-a belief which has always been characteristic
of republican polities. The consuls and all other magistrates, well over
fitty by the time of Cicero, were elected annually by several assemblies,
after the early period when they were elected by the military assembly,
the Comitin centurinta.rA The patricians recognized that a weak and disunited executive could be dangerous in an emergency, so to forestall that
eventuality they early introduced the provision for the appointment of a
constitutional dictator who would rule by decree as Magister Populi (afterwards Dictator) for a period of no more than six months.1s The most famous such Dictator was Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, who was called by
the Senate from his small farm to rescue the city, and after doing so gave
up the office and returned to the farm-an example which led George
Washington to form the Society of the Cincinnatiwhenhe refused to stand
for reelection and instead returned to Mount Vernon.
At first the populace was organized in military form as t}re Comitia
centuriata, which usually convened outside the city at the Campius
Martius.lsAlthough in origin a military organization, it gradually acquired
political functions. The centuriate assembly gained importance because it
was here that the consuls were elected and endowed with total control and
that supreme decisions were taken overwar and peace as well on laws. It
also had the judicial function of hearing appeals of those condemned to
death and pronouncing on their cases as the court of last resort.
The political version of thLe Comitia canturiata consisted of centuries, so
called because they originally consisted of 100 soldiers. Even after they
retired from active military service, members of the various cenfuries retained their membership in them for political pu{poses. The 193 centuries
included eighteen of cavalry or equites,LT0 of infantry and five of militarily qualified non-combatants. The infantry centuries were subdivided into
five classes based upon ownership of landed property, and one underclass
of non-landowning proletarii (so called because their only possession was
their offspringor proles).In each class, the centuries were further divided
by age into senior and junior. Eighty of the infantry centuries were senior
and junior centuries of the first class. Each century cast a single voice vote
previously decided by the majority, and the votes were cast sequentially
by class. Because the equites were asked to vote first, their centuries were
called "prerogative," the origin of the term that would in later European
history be used to denote the exclusive right of the sovereign. If the equites
and the eighty fust class infantry centuries were in agreement, they there.
fore controlled ninety-seven votes, one mor€ than the necessary majority.lz
Over timg moneove1 the political centuries ceased to be of uniform size,
further advantaging the patricians and wealthy plebeians. Cicero reported
Plural Autonomy: Roman and Lnter
Republicanism
79
that in his day there were more members of the one century
enro'ing proletarians than in ail the first crass centuries combinedi8
Initiaily, the
celturfte3ssembly was almost as much an instrument of
patrician control as the senate. As pressures were felt to make Roman
go.rJ,,,*"r,t
-or
populal, the rules of the centuriate assembry were .rru"s"".l,
i";it remained
in control of the upper classes.re
The republican constitufion was compreted by the
addifion to the senformally tri-cameral:yrt"T of popular assembries.
qf.u
1t"
Alongside the
comitin centuriata were recognized thecunita curiata, compo""J
or *r" tt irty
curine or ten sub-divisioru of each of the three originar
t iues (the
Tities, Ramnes, and Luceres), and the comitia ti\ufu, "iu""o,
or tribar assembly.
T}ne comitin curiata had been estabrished under,"o"";.hy;;an
assembly
of subjects convened to hear announcements and endorse
initiatives. un_
der the republican constitution, it had the largely formar
firming the authority of the magistrates to tite auspices""a"riry of con_
in their officiar
capacity, and it soon seems to have lost much u.r".,'of
its t;tea signifi_
cance.m The Comitin tributa included all mare
citizens, as listed in the cen_
sus as belonging to thirty-five territorially defined
tributaor ,,tribes,, in the
sense of administrative units and, after izt n.c.,voting
dishic;; based on
domicile. Four of the tribes were urban, the rest rural.
New citizens were
assigned to tribesby the censors. These new tribes
were created to replace
the old system of kinship tribes or clans represented
in the comitit curiata.
The tributa were themselves also sub-govemmental
units with the task of
collecting the citizen t ax or tributum. Tli.e comitia tributag.uJ";riy
the power to elect all the lower magistrates as
""quired
well as ce"rtain juiiciar
func_
tions and an increasingly importarit role in legislation.2l '-'-''
This tribal assembly consiited of traro bodiel: the
concilium plebis, or pre_
beian assembly, probably the first of the two to
be created, and the ress
formally recognized aiita poputi triuuii,-ortribal
assembry of the whole
people, as it was commonly called. patricians
were excluded from the former
but the_y were infruentiar in the ratteq, and
even aprebisscifa or resorution of
the plebs at first required patrician sanction (auctoritas
patrum) to acquire
the force of law. Bv ihe thiid century B.C.,
howeve4 the plebeian assembry
had acquired the authority to legislate without
restriction on behalf of the
whole people.z
The patricians contained the power of the
military assembry by imposing elaborate constitutional cheiks. Although
th;.;'*"b;;rl Jiu","o uy
tlte comitia centurinta, their power had to
b'e conferred in two stages. The
potestas or right to deal with the
people and senate was confeirei by the
comitia ienturiata,but the imperium-thetotarity
of civil, military and judicial power---could be conferied onry by
m"co*iti iurii,*ff"Liney conuntil the plebeians succeeded'in achieving a greate*r,ui"
|ox9d
or
thority and power. In effect, the comitia
c:uriataratified the election of "rthe
History
consuls, who could only be chosen from the ranks of Patricians and who
had formal and inIormal power in the choice of successors. The outgoing
consuls had to transmit tlne auspices-the religious legitimation of secular
rule-to their successors by means of a definite statement on their part. In
addition, because they served as presidents of the centuriate assembly, who
had to narne (nominare) candidates for the succession, they might refuse to
announce names they disapproved of or to proclaim such a candidate if he
were to be elected nevertheless. The Comitia centurinta, moreovex. could
only discuss bills the presiding Coruul chose to put forward; it had no
initiating power of its own. ln these ways, the patricians sought more or
less successfully to limit the authority of the Comitin centuriata in order to
foreclose the possibility that the plebeians might make use of it to gain a
stronger voice.
This patrician or oligarchical system might have persisted but for the
fact that in the fifth century and the first half of the fourth century 8.C.,
Rome was hard pressed by Etruscan and other enemies and by inhabitants
of Latium who rebelled against its hegemony. The patriciate, which had
been more open to new recruits earlier ory had become a closed caste which
began to be depleted in numbers. As the patrician clans or gentes were depleted, their clients were released to swell the ranks of the plebeians. The
patricians therefore had no choice but to turn for help to the plebs, who in
turn insisted on greater Power in recognition of their increased military
and financial burdens. In494, when Rome was engaged in a fierce struggle
with theAequi and the Volsci, the plebeian soldiers refused to march against
the enemy until the patricians agreed to allow them to elect annually officials called tribunes (tribuni plebis).
As a result of concessions made to the plebs, differences between patricians and plebeiars in respect of military service and tax obligations all but
disappeared by the end of the fifth century B.C. All members of the ciaitas
were required to serve in various capacities in the military and to pay taxes
according to their means.As Rome expanded its control over the surrounding territories and then over most of Italy, those absorbed were granted a
Iimited form of citizenship, becoming citizens without the vote (ciaes sine
suffragio), which meant that they were required to serve in the Roman legions and pay taxes to Rome, and enjoyed certain civic rights in return, but
could not vote in any of the assemblies.a The plebeians, once they had
gained more civic rights, demanded that their voting right be given more
in-fluence over policy and that the disabilities limiting their participation
in the Senate and magistracies be lifted. In particular, they insisted on a
series of reforms: authority to legislate debt relief and agrarian reform; the
establishment of a written Iegal code, corunon to all, a demand which led
to the publication of the TWelve Tables, the first codification of Roman law;
authorization of inter-order marriages; the right to serve as consuls and in
Plural Autonomy: Roxurr and Utter Republicanisnr
other magistracies that might be created, and as mernbers of the senate;
recognition of the legal validity of all plebiscites; the right to cast a secret
written ballot; and the right of admission to the priestlood on the same
terms as patricians.
Debt relief was of particular concern to the mass of small landholders
who formed the bulk of the rural plebeians. They were compelled to bor_
row frequently at often usurious rates of interesi; insolvency could result
in enslavement or execution. The urban proletarians also demanded land
and distributions of food to feed their children. Goaded by pressures from
both qrrarters, the plebeian leadership aimed to achieveiotal equality
of
rights between patricians and plebeians in recognition of their eqiral
share
in the burdens of maintaining Roman security ind power. Theiiability
to
withhold critically needed support by calling a skik! of taxpayers and sol_
diers put them in a strong position in which to make these demands.
The Struggle of the Orders
The result was the epic conflict known to classical scholars as ,,the
struggle of the orders," a conflict which tookboth social and topographical form: because the patricians lived in the older parts of the
ci'ty such as
the seven Hills, and the plebs in the newer quarteis, the conflict
of orders
therefore also became a conflict of districts or neighborhoods. The
patri_
cials.yeleclear\' 2 social class, whereas the prebeiins were a ,,pure multitude," in Michel serres'imaginative contrast. The patricians had long ,,been
perfectly organized; attached to agricultural property, domestic
altars, the
tombs of their ancestors, familiar hierarchy, junior bianches, clientele,
servants, and slaves. There is an order. The plebs has no social
order, no de-
Iimited agrarian terrain, no religion, no law, no magistrates. It is
not a people,
a body, not a group; it is a true collective. It is th-e pure
muJtitude. Crowd,
aggregatiory populatiory cloud, confusion, herd oi cattle."2a
The struggre
of the orders was therefore not a class waq, Serres suggests, fought
between
two organized and disciplined groups, each with iis-own ur*""a
forces; it
was rather a conflict between "a class and a nonclass." In
the process ,,the
classical patrician order resists, undoes itself, redoes itsell
falfo into disor_
plebeian disorder fluctuates, organizes itself, orders itself, undoes
9*..fu
itself, redoes itself, moves toward ordeq,-and falls back into
disorde r.,,8 rrt
more prosaic terms, the conflict forced the central governing
apparatus
controlled by the patricians to accept a series of comlromises]Tfiese
held
the society together, but the unity of the ciaitas
oit"n
nearly
lost
in
the
-as
struggle between the optimates-as the ruling oligarchs
calledihemselves
to emphasize their supposedly superior moial cLims-and
their less co_
hesive opponents, who had in common that they sought
the supfort of the
populus and were therefore called the populares.l6
not
History
Inpursuingtheirends,t}replebssoughtandgraduallywonbothmore
in the
oo*u, for the coirc ilium plebis and greater opportunity to take Part
The
with
the
patricians.
footing
equal
more
a
on
itt er uodies and offices
which was
Concilium plebishad, gained formal recognition in a convention
of the
form
th:
held-office
leadership
Its
peace.
in effect a ireaty of ciric
T TWo such ofleader.
tribal
for
word
the
from
triUrt urrup, u i"rrr, derived
assembly
fices wereireated, a number later increased to ten. The plebeian
could
(which
first
at
plebiscites
by
decisions
made
elected the tribunes,
cases'
court
in
judgment
exercised
geiial
and
apply only to plebeians),
as
and
individually
both
plebs
the
represent
to
fhe itib.tn"s hid authority
"I
(literally
"veto"
to
intercession"
oJ
"right
their
a group, and they used
the
within
b.ut
a
consul,
includittg
fo?fia;jdecisiors of magistrates,
9nly.
inviolabilcity.u Tire free exercise of"this right was g'aranteed by the legal
of a trisafety
personal
or
authority
the
to
ity of the tribune; challengers
bune risked being outlawed or put to death'
by
The struggle oT the plebeiansfor a greater share of power succeeded
of
was
that
first
at
enjoyed
they
iight
civic
several stagfi. The oniy specific
and
testament,
marriage,
of
rights
the
civic
commerciuir. Next they giined
adoption. In the past ihise rights had been denied to them on the gror:nd
thaithey entailed religious acts from which plebeians, as strangers/ were
barred. New secular f6rms were devised to enable the plebeians to enjoy
and
ihese rights. Another major advance took the form of the codification
proa
tribune
century,
fifth
the
of
publicaiion of Roman law. In the middle
resisting,
posed that the laws be published in a.code, and the senate, after
the
Greek
of
the
codes
study
to
iinally agreed to appoint a commission
cities of-southern 1ialy. Upon their return, a ten-member commission
(Decemairi)was appointed in 451 to draft a new code, resulting after great
the founstrrrggte in the La*s of the TWelve Tables, celebrated by Livy as
Roman
this
action,
Prior
to
dation of all Roman public and private rights.28
because
patricians
by
the
law had been based upon custom as interpreted
of
of their virtual *onopoly of the institutions of government- Publication
implewas
the
law
which
the laws did not make public the procedures by
mented and justice delivered, which continued to provide an opportunity
too
for patrician manipulation, until, at the end of the fourth century, these
Thbles,
the
TWelve
of
were set down and published. Shortly after the drafting
in 445, it is thoughi another tribune introduced a bill abolishing the prohibition of intermarriage between the classes, and it too was carried over the
vehement opposition of the patricians'
for
The achievement of theseiivic rights emboldened the plebs to press
political rights as well. Its leaders demanded admission to theComitia curinta '
more influ-ence in ttte Comitis centuriata, and more power for the Conciliunr
curiataplebis. They succeeded in gaining entrance into the Comitia
centurista
when is not clear-and in gaining a larger role in ttre Comitia
Plural Autononry: Roman and Lnter Republicanism
comrnensurate with their growing military responsibilities. In this council,
howevel, wealth had been made such a key organizing principle that greater
plebeian participation in effect meant that wealthy plebeians shared power
with wealthy patricians. The new power of the concilium plebis was recognized in a series of laws giving plebiscites the force of law provided they
were subsequently ratified by the senate. This law was later changed to
prowide that the senate must first authorize laws, which would then be put
to the vote of the people. It was changed again, finally, in the Ler Horteisin
of 287 8.C., to eliminate the need for any senatorial sanction. This was still
a far cry from full democratization. No one but a magistrate could bring a
biil before one of the popular assemblies for action, and the Senate .s.tully
found ways to maintain control over the magistrates.a In 445 B.C. a tribune demanded that the consulship be shared by plebeians and patricians.
lnstead, some of the powers of the consuls (notably the census and public
works) were transferred to new magistrates and the consulship was replaced by the military tribuneship with consular power. These tribunes,
who varied in number from three to six, might be chosen from either order.
In 376 8.C., in one of the Licinian laws, howevel, a military exigency was
met by reviving the consulship with the stipulation that one of the two
annual posts should be reserved for plebeians. once this barrier was overcome, the plebeians gained admission to all other magistracies. Eventually
all offices, including the dictatorship and the priesthood, were open to them.
The end result of these changes was that the plebeians were ad^itted to
membership of the senate in 400 B.c. The plebeian minority in the senate
increased in size steadily until it became a majority by the end of the third
century B.C. The ranks of the plebeians swelled with the annexations that
resulted from the conquest of Latium and the unification of peninsular
Italy and as Rome itself became more important as a center of trade. Rome,s
expansion increased the wealth and influence of some plebeian families.
Military conquests also enhanced the power of the plebeiars, who were
the backbone of the army. with the passage of the Ler Hortensia,by which
plebiscites no longer needed senate approval, the plebeian assembly became more and more powerful.
with the resolution of the con{lict of orders, all Romans except those
foreigners who had been granted conditional citizenship became formally
equal citizens with the same civic rights and obligations, though with military and political roles and power corresponding to their wealth. The city's
political institutions were divided, so as to accommodate both patricians
and plebeians, but combined, in order to prevent civil war. Each assembly
was founded on a different principle: the curiata on the right of birth (based
on membership in one of thirty clan sub-groups), the cen turiata on military
role as determined by wealth, thetributaon domicile. This complex system
was made to work because a new elite emerged, a nobilitas compoied of
History
7B
patricians and plebeians, which gave it unify, although each assembly had
a faction unwilling to compromise with its old enemies. William R. Everdell
sums up the system of shared power about as clearly as possible, given its
complexity:
The legislative power, based like ours on the theoretical sovereignty of the
people, was vested in no less than four assemblies, each elected on a different
pattern of constituencies. The old Comitia Curiata, divided by families, still
met to elect the rex sacrorum or confer imperium (executive power) on a
magistrate. The prerepublican Comitia Centuriata, divided by wealth, elected
consuls, praetors, and quaestors, and retained the power to make law. Made
supreme
n 287 8.C., the Comitia Tiibuta, divided according to residence,
made law declared war and peace, and elected the tribunes and aediles. Finally, there was the Senate, composed entirely of former elected magistrates,
which issued advices (senatus consulti\ to both the consuls and the assemblies
on foreign and military policy. To ensure that all these assemblies would
maintain their representative character and that the members of the Senate
would remain worthy despite life tenure, the Romans in 443 B.C. created the
censorship, tvvo magistrates with the uniquely long term of five years (later
shortened to eighteen months). Their duty was to maintain and revise the
census, or list of citizens, and to impeach members of the Senate.s
Social tensions persisted, and were met by a variety of policies. Usury
continued and the burdens faced by poorer plebeians continued to
rankle, leading to debtor rebellions. The moderate coalition tried to
address the problem by easing conditions for the rural plebeians. In
326 B.C. a law was adopted abolishing the seizure of the person (nexus)
for debt. Colonies were founded, mainly for the benefit of the rural
plebeians. Booty from Roman conquests was also used to allay discon-
tent.
Nevertheless, at the end of the fourth century B.C., a clever patrician die-hard, who might also be considered the first Tory democrat,
Appius Claudius, succeeded in uniting the unreconciled patrician faction with populist elements among the plebeians. He did so by using
the power he had acquired as a leading patrician to infiltrate plebeian
allies into the institutions that had become the bastions of power for
ihe coalition. The coalition succeeded in repelling his subversive efforts but the reforms adopted under plebeian pressure launched Rome
in the direction of rural democracy. Despite these changes, the practi-
cal difficulties of achieving effective self-government by 250,000 to
300,000 citizens, many living great distances from Rome, whose assemblies were expected to make decisions affecting foreign regions of which
they had no direct knowledge, enabled the Senate to continue as the
effective seat of government.
Plural Autonomy: Roman and Inter Republicanisnt
79
ldeology of Roman Republicanisn According ta Cicero
A_s the republic mature-d, it acquired an ideology. According
to cicero,
the foremost spokesman for this ideology, the republic is the b-est form of
goverlxnent because it is held together by the twin strands of a common
sense of right and self-interest. The commonwealth lres pubtical is ,,the
people's affair; and the people is- not every group of men, associated in any
mannex/ but is the coming together of a considerable number of men whb
are united by a common agreement about law and rights [consensus juris]
and by the desire to participate in mutual advantagei."sl Libertas or freedom consists not in the power to do as one pleases but to live according to
thelaw which applies equally to all, and the law is respected because it is
understood to be extremely advantageous to all.32
Republican govemment, Cicero argued, is preferable to monarchy and
aristocracy because in monarchy everyone but the king is excluded from
the protection of the law and from participation in deliberation, whereas
in aristocracies the mass of the people is excluded. Rule by the people,
however, is also deficient, in that it does not recognize degiee of merit.s
Cicero was typically Roman and republican in believing that although
equality before the law means that in principle democracyls the only go-vernment that deserves to be considered republican,s the success or pJpular government depends.ot on mass participation or majority rule, but on
the willingness of the ablest citizens to take part in the politital life of the
ciuitas rather than withdraw to their private affairs. ln an obvious allusion
to the drastic remedy proposed by plato for the ills of Athenian democracy,
that of compelling thewise to take part in government, Cicero appealed to
a sense of duty as well as self-interest:
The
It is asserted . . . that political life attracts in general only utterly worthIess men, to be compared with whom it is disgusting, and to contend
with whom, especially when the mob is aroused, is dellorabre and dangerous. Therefore, it is said, a wise man does not grasp the reins of government, since he cannot restrain the mad lunges of the untamed rabble,
nor does a free man strive against vile and savage opponents, or submit
to the lash of insult, or suffer injuries that a wise man should not bear.
As if a good and brave and high-minded man could find a more honorable reason for entering public life than the desire to avoid the rule of
scoundrels or to prevent them from rendering the commonwealth, while
he himself, though eager to aid, looks impotently on!35
Hierarchy, Pluralism, and the Republican Constitution
Although in principle the republican constitution was understood
as
Soverrunen! by the people, as in democratic Athens, there were important
irstitutional differences as well as differences in understanding, especially
History
of the degree to which inequalities of merit and wealth shouid be reflected
in political authority. The Roman system did not provide direct seif-government to the same extent as the Athenian system, but neither was it representative in the modern sense of elections based upon universal suffrage.
All magistrates or public officials were elected for one-year terms in the
various public assemblies. All legislation initiated by the magistrates had
to be confirmed in the assemblies. Each of the assemblies, however, had a
different characteq, though this character became more uniform in the course
of time as the plebeians gained access to all of them. After the Ovinian
Laws (339-312 B.C.), membership in the Senate was open only to those
who had served as magistrates, offices for which only patricians were eligible. Only after much struggle did plebeians become eligible to enter the
Senate. As the Comitia centuriata became more powerful, plebeians rose in
power, but wealth continued to determine access to power and influence.
The Senate and the other assemblies became in effect arenas in which the
patricians and the plebeians struggled for control. In the process, wealth
was gradually joined to social status and oligarchy succeeded aristocracy.
It is in the voting arrangements that Rome's emphasis on plural autonomy contrasts most plainly with the Athenian emphasis on conununal autonomy. Rome's use of group voting set a precedent for the later use
of districting in parliamentary elections and for the electoral college in
American presidential elections.s The Athenians practiced voting by group
in only one respect, when delegates to the Council of 500 were chosen by
each of the artificial tribes created by Cleisthenes. The use of the system in
Rome functioned both to make it more broadly reflective of the regional
distribution of population, as theAthenian system did, and to confirm class
divisions and open the electoral system to manipulation. As the Roman
populace expanded to include people with full rights of citizenship who
lived too far from the city to take part in the popular assemblies, the system of group voting created incentives for corruption and enabled oligarchy to survive a broadened franchise by means of patronage or clientship.
Owing to group voting, a candidate for office in the various assemblies
could succeed with the support of as few as a quarter of the voters. The
votes of smaller elite groupings consistently outweighed the votes of the
larger groups comprising poorer citizens. In the tribal assemblies, the powerful and influential could control the votes of blocs of followers, even
though, unlike the procedure for recording and announcing votes in the
military assembly, the order of voting was determined by lot. Anyone assured of the support of a bare majority of voters in half plus one of the
regional districts could win election even without capturing a single vote
in the remaining districts. The inllexibility introduced by the assignment
of voters to district tribes made the system particularly disproportionate
when the rural areas were depopulated in the second cenfury B.C. and
Plural Autortonty: Rotnn and Later Republicanisnt
81
those who came to Rome were not reassigned to the urban diskicts or tribes.
These new urbanites outnumbered those from the rural areas willing and
able to make the journey to Rome to participate in the deliberations of the
Comitia tributa. As Staveley explains,
Those who migrated to Rome at this time appear to have retained theirmembership of the particular rural tribe in which they had been registered while
they were still farming the land. Consequently, as their numbErs grew, they
found themselves in a position to outvote any fellow-tribesmenivho happened to be present from their home areas, with the result that the comitia
gradually came to be dominated by urban interests. This trend could very
readily have been checked if the censors had taken the simple step of reas_
signing the immigrant urban population to one of the foui city tribes; but
there is no suggestion that they ever attempted to do so, or that ih" id"u *u,
ever seriously mooted.37
The censors' failure to reassign these voters very likely reflected the inter_
est of those who secured their election.
Electorally and institutionally, Rome was a more divided society than
Athens. More starkly than in Athens, nobilitas and populus and rich and
poor stood apart from each other and opposed. The military assembly might
have held a balance of power but it too was dominated by the patricians at
first and then by the new patrician-plebeian elite. The
of several
"*irt"r,""
assemblies with different qualifications for membership
instead of one
uniting all citizens on the same basis was in iiself a formidable barrier to
majority rule. But the patricians could not rule without any check because
the plebeian assembly had the constitutional right to cali magistrates
to
account after their term of office. By contrast, there is no case rlorded
of
any but a unicameral legislature in Greece.s
. Another peculiariy Roman institution which enabled the majority to
check the power of the oligarchy was the tribunate. The power or *r"
t ibungs was not positive, as was that of the consuls, but oiy negative.
Like
modem-day ombudsmen, they co rlcl protect plebeians who "were being
badly treated by exercising a right of heip o, ouiilir^.They could forbid
or
veto any administrative act.
The Roman republican system functioned to preserve the dignitas of the
nobility and at the same time the /ibertas of thecommon people-je Even this
h11mony, such as it was, did not come about by accident. It^was
the result
of the power struggle in the republic between tire old families
and the new
citizens or plebeians. The plebeians had in effect organized themselves
into
a kind of state within a state, with assemblies of tieir
own under officials
elected by themselves. (There is asimilarity here with the
struggle during
the French revolution between the aristocracy and the
newfren of the
third estate.) The plebeians fought hard enough to force the patricians
History
to recognize the right of their officers to check the action of the senate or
ordinary magistrates judged to be oppressive. They also forced them to
accept the resolutions of the assembly as having the force of law.
elthough the plebeians won considerable victories in the early phaseof
the history of the republic, a period lasting more than 150 years after the
fall of the monarchy, the patricians retained the exclusive right to be elected
as chief magistrates or consuls until 367 B.C. when the Licinio-Sextian law
established that one of the two consuls must always be a plebeian.
Why was their victory not carried forward to establish a more complete
form of dernocracy? \a/hy in fact did the administration of Roman govemment remain substantially aristocratic while Rome was conquering much
of the known world? During this period the plebeian assembly became a
legislative body that normally worked in harmony with the Senate and
.tt dut its influence, and the tribunate was changed from an office of oppo-
sition to a rung on the political ladder that led to the consulship and the
Senate. This harmonization may have been due to the Pressure of external
conflict which led to a sense of the need for discipline and obedience on the
part of the people. Another conceivable reason is that because votes in the
plebeia.r assembly were decided not by the majority of individuals but by
tribal ut its, the landowning rural elementpredominated. The more mixedstatus, relatively poorer urban element of the population, in other words,
was subordinated until the decay of the republic set in. As Rome's population swelled with annexation and conquests, landless citizens were given
the right to vote, but they could exercise that right mainly in the four urban
tribes whichwere readily outvoted. These urban tribes came tobe the least
prestigious, indeed the tribes in which the most despised members of the
population were concentrated. Thus, as Sidgwick Points out, when, after a
prolonged struggle the plebeians had established a system of control over
their goveming class "so effective that, judged by Greek analogies, it seems
likely to lead to complete democracy, they stopped at this point for the two
centuries that decided the fate of Westemcivilisation; leaving the administration of affairs in the hands of what in Aristotle's sense as well as onrs
may be called an'aristocratic' body."o
The struggles between the two social groups were not altogether onedimensional. Th"y involved a clash of economic interests, especially those
dividing the poor farmers from those who had more land and sought to
control even more. They also led to a struggle on the part of "new" families
to gain access to high offices monopolized by the old. The victory of the
pteueians in 367 B.C. led to the coalescence or cooptation of the leading
ptebeians with the old nobility. Anew nobility was formed in which rank
was given not by patrician extraction but by having ancestors who had
held ihe highest offices. That left the old nobility with the lion's share of
the offices but opened access to power for some previously excluded.
Plural Autonomy: Roman and I"ater Republicanism
Rebellion and Imperial Monarchy
Itis an intriguing question why this compromise worked for so long to
quell the conflict between the plebeians and patricians until, in the hlter
half of the second century 8.C., revolution broke out led by the Gracchi.
Agu''u the answer may lie in the history of Rome's wars of Lxpansion. As
Italy was being subdued, the conquered were forced to cede i portion of
their land. This land--considered ager publicus or public land-belonged
in the first instance to the community, and large portions of it were distributed among Rornan citizens who held it in complete ownership. This was
done largely by founding colonies. unlike Greek coronists, theiettlers did
not create new poleisbut extended Rome's control over outlying territories.
In other cases, those in conquered territories who held office could therebv
acquire Roman citizenship. This system provided a network of garrisons
and extended the Latin language in such a way that it protectld Rome
from assault and enabled the two assemblies to govern an extended i*p"rial republic. Although there were tensions between the colonists and the
natives, eventually Roman citizenship was broadly extended. By the middle
-banks
of the second century 8.C., therefore, the Rome located on the
of the
Tiber contained 328,000cifu9* capable of bearing arms. when expansion
stopped for a time, trouble developed. The demand of the pooreriitizens
for land could notbe satisfied.Acentury of conjlict, dissolution, and agony
followed through which the republic was transformed into a monaichy.
Land reform led to the enlargement of the number of citizens. The senaie
pragmatically recognized that it had to accept these reforms, and sought in
vain to cling to power. The wealthy and powerful surrendered all self-restraint and became a "gang of venal and avaricious tyrants. To keep their
poweq, the plunderers of the provinces threw large handfuIs of the plunder to the people at home. They distributed grainiirst at low price, then at
merely nominal prices, they practiced wholesale bribery at elictions, turning yeoman farmers into a metropolitan mob."alsailuit saw the underlying conllict as a struggle between the few and the many in which the bilance of dignitas andlibertas was destroyed: "For the nobility began to push
to excess its claim to dign #as, the people its claim to lfuertas;everyonesought
to draw or snatch everything to himself. And so everything feli to one side
or the othe1, and the res p ublica , wlichwas the bone oi contentiorv was tom
to pieces."' Rome moved from-monarchy to republic, and therl after nearly
500 years, back to monarchy. In the period of republican expansiory the
central power was held by the senate. It had the power to assign provinces
gorg
magistrates and allocate troops, money and staff; consisting of exofficials given life membership, it was in a better position than the consuls,
wfro wgre appointed annually, to exercise continuous power. I4/hen the
role of the consul was effectively replaced by that of theprinceps, who was
History
at the outset only the nobleman considered first among equals, and the
principate became institutionalized underAugustus, republicanism became
a veneer for monarchy.4
The transition from republic to imperial monarchy was in the first instance a function of the growing inadequacy of the republican form for the
management of a far flung empire, but it was also due to internal difficulties which overwhelmed the republic's balance of power. The causes of
change are many, having to do with the absorption of a larger population
into citizenship; with the anornaly of a govemment based in Rbme trying
to rule over a large country and then a large empire; and with the changE
in the character and loyalty of the army. when the Roman legions were
still composed of citizens in arms, their loyalty went to Rome; is they absorbed non-citizens, their allegiance shfftia more to the commanders of
the army units. The predominance of the cit5r's govemment could not be
maintained against those who were the masters of the Roman legions. At
first the power of the proconsuls was increased. Finally the emperor succeededinbecoming chief of the Roman legions. Gradually the siaffolding
of republican institutions fell away and the unlimited mbnarch stood re.
vealed in the form of the Caesars. whery during the third centuryA.D., full
Roman citizenship was bestowed on all subjects of Rome, the list relics of
the distinction between Italy and the provinces fell away and the city-state
disappeared into the empire.
The revolt of the Gracchi brought Rome to the brink of a fully democratic-system,
lhough it is impossible to know whether their succeis might
actually have brought about greater democratization or merely their own
personal control. They were tribunes who appealed to the principle of the
sovereignty of the people in their demand for military and ecoiomic reforms. The result was civil war. The fustbrother was aisassinated, the second who took up his banner fell in the civil war that followed. one of the
causes they fought foq, the enfranchisement of Italians under Roman rule,
was eventually successful because the government needed the support of
the provincials in war. But as the state was enlarged, and as the generals
achieved a position in which to use their legions against the senate and
people, the way was open for the establishment of tlie rule of the Caesars.
The Roman ideal of libertas, having once been understood to mean that
Romans were their own masters, now underwent a complete change.
"Now," Wirszubski starkly observes, "they were subjects whose welfire
depended on the care of an absolute autocrat who ruled them by direct
command. In the last resort their freedom depended on whether their ruler
was kind'and errlightened. All that remained of the res publica was govemment for the people."e In thehands of Nero and Caligula, unrestrained
power furned into oppression on a grand scale, but even that terrible experience did not lead the Roman people to reestablish the republic. However
Plural Autonomy: Roman and Later Republicanism
85
much some may have yished to do so,
the power of the m'itary in the
form of the Praetorian Guard was-too great
to overcome and the m'itary
insisted on maintaining the ru_le of u p.L"u-
History
individuals in courts and assemblies from the thirteenth century onward'
repreThe convening of general church councils embodied a principle of
inJluencedand
prefigures
also
which
sentation of th-e wliole community
especially through the conciliarist movement of the late middle ages-the
rise of modem democracY.6e
The Republican Reaioal
The rebirth of republicanism gained important suPPort when RenaisThe
sance humanists rediscovered and refurbished the classical legacy.
the
of
the
antithesis
Renaissance republic was, Bouwsma has observed,
and
Venice
of
respublica chrisiiana. The tone of Giovanni Botero's eulogy
Genoa is completely different from the earlier christian disparagement of
the Roman republic:
From good government derive all those good qualities in-subjects-that belong to"civillnd virtuous life, every means for doing good things, all the arts
of ieace and war, of acquiring and saving, all polite customs,.all noble manneis, every honored form of politeness. For this reason free cities of great size
surpass those that are subject to princes, at once in magnificence of buildings
ur,i ir, beauty of streets ind squares, in multitude of people, in variety of
arts, in refinement of manners, and own every kind of polity and humanity.
venice and Genoa prove it, and Florence and siena did so in their time.7o
The new secular ideal centered on the human capacity for virtue-unsense of manliness and the Christian sense of
derstood both in the pagan
-on
incorrigible human sinfulness and incapacity.
goodness-rather thin
i{umanistic rationalism was skeptical not with respect to the capacity for
virtue, which was a function of will and could be nurtured by education
and good laws, but toward the power of unaided reason, as the theologianinaa used it, to grasp the absolute-structure of creation and the hierIrchical order of the .tt ine.se. In effect this very skepticism broke the great
chain of being that made submission and subordination necessary to the
very order of"the universe. The capacity for virtue was enough to entitle
all humanbeings to determine their own destiny, and the need in civic life
for prosperity required a variety of talents and callings and an oPenness
to siudy u.rd dir"o,r"ry. The independence of the republican state from
control by religious authorities was the sine qua non and primary exPression of ntettylWttuther the state should be ruled by a prince or people
became, in the humanistic mind of Niccold Machiavelli, a function of the
degree of virtue in society, but that it should be the home of liberty was
taken for granted.
The infl;ence of republican ideology spread as feudalism was being dis'
mantled by the rise of the nation-state under the aegis of absolute monarchy'
Plural Autonomy: Roman and later Republicanisnt
At first, however, republicanism seemed too closely tied to a small-scale,
communitarian perspective to serve by itself as an alternative to monarchv
in the era of the nation-state and the incipient market economy. Federalism
was embraced by republicans as an answer to the need for lirger associations, and it was to play a very important role in promoting rep'ublicanism
as a practical option.
As a practical alternative to monarchy, the new outlook took shape in
calls for the supremacy of parliament and in demands for the substitution
of the rule of law and constitutionalism for the arbitrary power of the monarch. hr the process both ecclesiastical and secu-lar institutjons experimented
with schemes of representation that are properly understood as forerunners of modern representation. The idea of representation took root in the
medieval concept of the corporation, which came to be understood as a
legal fiction in which
lemberl were personified by the artificial person of
the corporation. hr addition, religious and secular deliberative bodies were
often composed of elected delegates.Tl
Before Protestantism took hold in the northern regions of western Europe and brought with it resistance to Catholic monarchs and in some
instances a spirit of covenantal egalitarianism, classical republicanism was
revived in the city states of Renaissance Italy. A civic coniciousness arose
in certain of these cities, especially Venice and Florence, deliberately modeled on that of ancient Rome and providing a self-understanding that stood
in sharp contrast to feudalism and seemed more appropriate 6 burgeoning urban and comrnercial centers. Humanism miae tne new city dwellers acutely aware of the potential conflict between the Hellenisiic view
that man was destined to live in society as a citizen among other citizens
and the christian view that he was formed to live in coirmunion with
God and the community of the faithful. This conllict might be resolved in
aesthetic terms, notably in graphic art and architecture] as the humanist
phiiosophers recast christian belief to endorse human creativity, especially
the service of religion, but active civic engagement remained a stum11
bling block until a new ideal of politics took holi. The Renaissance republi.cs were hardly as egalitariarras their eulogists claimed.
The righis of
citizenship were always restricted; "the people" was understood as the
politically competent, a category that did not included the working
classes.z But fear of despotism engendered a concern for the
replacement
of monarchy by a constitutional and parliamentary system
of government
in which citizens, even if not all ciiizens, could govern the
a"ffairs of the
city, check the dangers o-f arbitrary rule and the iifluence
of special interests, and better protect the state from extemal threats.
The doge of venice
may have been described as a "prirtce," because he representui
tt soverof the state, but he was very different from other princes because
"
he was subject to the laws of the city and the control of
patricians.T3
listy
the
History
which,
The republican constitutionbecame a model of mixed goverrunent,
with tire support of the classical authorities, was thought to be the best
guarantor of order.
" Writ"., who reflected the keen concem for civic life, notably Machiavelli
and Francesco Guicciardini, sought to fashion a republican ideal of civic
virtue coupled with a constitutionalist emphasis on law and restraints on
popular authority. By refurbishing an ideal that had been decried as paancient republican heritage to mod!ui, ttr"y revived ani transmitted the Machiavelli's
Dlscourses on the First
!*-enropeans.Ta Lr this perspective,
the Roman republic
he
praised
kn Books of Titus Liaius, the work in which
virtue to the decivic
of
for promotng hberty and noted the importance
than his
important
more
is
fense of the iepublican form of govemment,
Prince'
The
more notorioui and much more in{luential book,
while Machiavelli was convinced that the Roman republic had incorporated the wisdom of the ancients concerning the art of Sovemment, as
ihe glorious history of Rome had shown, he was too much the realist not
to rJcognize that the republican form is appropriate only as long as civic
republic
spirit iJstrong.
will inevitabf r.t.c.t*b to monarchy. If the prince were himself "virtuous," not in the Christian but in the Roman sense of civic ttirtus, he might
achieve both personal ambition and the civic good, by assuring the security and prosperity of his realm. Machiavelli did not ar8ue, however, that
ttre rep.tbn.an foim was inappropriate for large polities: everything depended on whether the people still maintained its civic spirit or was driven
Ly baser concerns. The problem that obsessed him, and many republicans
after him, wis that the very liberty republics inspire also pro*ho
"u-"
motes corruption. The loss of civic virfue and its replacement by a shortsighted selfiihness dooms the republic. The corruption that set in when
n|me expanded and became an empire was a cautionary lesson, one that
also s.rggested the need from time to time of a great reform€r, a "legislator,, lik-e-solon or Lycurgus, who can rekindle civic virtue by reforming
the laws. But Machiivelli was well aware that in such conditions, the opportunity for autocracy presents itself, and that ambitious princes would
iet out tb achieve \r"ry different goal from republics, the goal of self"
aggrandizement.
"fohen the republican ideal spread to England, where
particularly
1t rylt
in the cities
royaliststrongholds
the
outside
lived
who
appealing to those
commonwealth
The
quality'
pastoral
a
more
acquired
it
and universities,
imagined by writers like James Harrington was a society of smallholders,
or g;ntry which Harrington thought would replace the feudal system with
its-emphasis on large estates held together through primogeniture.
Harrington's utopian vision was not so much that of a Roman republic
bent origlory and expansion as of a peaceable kingdom in which families
Once a people becomes_corrupted, he asserted, a
PIuraI Autononty: Roman and Inter Republicanint
would cultivate the land and live in harmony with each other and the outside world. This was not a naive view which ruled out all possibilitv of
conflict, but rather one that stressed the need for mechanisms to regjate
and resolve the conflicts that would arise from efforts to engross the public
domain or from rapacious moves by commercial interests (the most likely
source of corruption) that would attempt to monopolize manufactures and
wring the surpluses out of the agrarian sector. The "commonwealthmen,,
who set themselves against the British monarchy and its aristocratic supporters and beneficiaries, saw the future society as one in which communities of farmers would manage their own affairs and send representatives
to parliaments which would take care of collective business. To prevent the
danger of the emergence of a new aristocracy of wealttr, Harrington called
for an "equal agrarian," a law that would limit disparities in land holding,
and for the equalization of the suffrage so that property qualifications would
be removed or lowered to a point where smallholders would hold the balance of power. By removing monarchy, they also thought they would remove the source of expansion and war.
Ihe Puitan Reuolt Against Absalutism
The renewal of interest in the classical models of govemment had a profound influence on political life in Western Europe, nowhere more so than
in England. As movements for popular sovereignty succeeded in challenging absolutism, especially in Holland and then in England, speculation
tumed increasingly toward the republican altemative. At the new university at Leydery "the youth of the country were instructed in democratic
principles."ro Puritan writers followed |ohn Milton in rejecting the very
principle of hereditary monarchy, pronouncing it contrary to natural law
and championing the parliamentary cause. In the turmoil of the puritan
Revolution, England came close to adopting a republicanconstitution. Once
the decision had been taken to execute King Charles, and the Roundheads
defeated the Cavaliers, there was agitation in the New Model Army for a
kind of written constitutiory an "Agreement of the People" which would
have created a framework for a representative form of govemment. The
earlier Petitions of Right had at least adumbrated a belief in universal principles of natural rights rather than arbihary privileges. The proposed Agreement of the People declared such matters as freedom of religion, freedom
frorn military impressment, and equality before the law as rights that no
government could abridge, and went on to call for the establishment of
biennial parliaments to be elected after a redistribution of seats in proportion to population. The Putney debates in which the proposals were considered took representative parliamentary government for granted, even
though the debates were often spirited on the question of now broad
History
representation should be. Colonel Thomas Rainborough made his famous
observation that because "the poorest he that is in England hath a life to
live, as the greatest he . . . nothing . . . can convince me, why any man that
is born in England ought not to have his voice in election of burgesses."
Nor was there anything'in the law of God" indicating that "a lord shall
choose twenty burgesses, and a gentleman but two, ot a Poor man shall
choose none . . ."76 Maximilian Petty, another radical figure in the debates,
summarized the Leveller position: "We judge that all inhabitants who have
not lost their birthright should have an equal voice in elections."n Latet
theorists like Algernon Sidney, Harrington, and John Tlenchard and Thomas Gordon, would advance more secular versions of republicanism,
couched as advocacy of the commonwealth, the anglicized form of repub'
lic,ru but the refusal of Oliver Cromwell and the Independents to endorse
l,eveller radicalism during the Puritan revolution and the bad example of
Cromwell's own rule dealt the republican campaign a setback from which
it never recovered. After Cromwell's protectorate was ended, the restoration of monarchy quelled republican agitation and made the focus of re'
form the Whig effort to limit monarchy by transferring power to an elected
parliament. The republican movement reflected in the writings of the English "commonwealthmen" had a more revolutionary effect elsewhere,
especially when it was reinforced by the development of natural rightssocial contract theory
338
Nofes
26. David Stockton, The Classical Athenian Democraal (Oxford: Ox{ord University Press, 1.990), pp.2-3.
27.1bid.,p.20.
32.Ibid., p. 62.
33. Stockton, The Classical Atheninn Democracy,
mocracy,p.216.
43. Hansen, The Athenian Democracy,pp.40-43.
44. Stockton, The Classical Athenian Democracy, pp. 15-16.
45. A. H. M. Jones, Athenian Demouacy (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957), p. 81.
J
of Citizenship,
p.
Aristotle,
76.Ibid.,p.6I.
77.[bid.,p.62.
78,[bid.,p.64.
79. Kagan, P ericles, pp. 269 -27 0.
80. see Karl R. Popper, The open society and lts Enemies (princeton: princeton
University Press, 1966, fifth edition, revised).
89. Ibid., p. 83.
90. Forrest, The Emergence of Greek D emouacy, pp. 65-66.
Chapter 4
pp. 11-16.
55.Ibid., p. 3.
56.Ibid., p.27.
57. ]osiah Ober, Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology, and
Power of the People (Pfinceton: Princeton University Press), p. 328.
60. Manville, The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens,
61. jones, Afhenian Democracy, p. 107.
p.79.
1.
A. N. sherwin-white,The RomanCitizenship (oxford: oxford University press,
1973), p.3.
2. George
177.
the
58. Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. Charles Forster Smith
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library 1920), vol. 2, book
3, chap. 43, 4-5, p.77, quoted by Athanasios Moulakis, "The Greeks and Democratic Theory: Moses I. Finley's Democracy Ancient and Modern Revisited," Riuista
internnzionale difilosofa del diritto, fourth series,68, 1, (January-March I99I),p.69.
59. Moulakis, "The Greeks and Democratic Theory," pp.69-70.
6.
-
Politics, book 3, n,74,p.726.
73. Jones, Athenian Democracy, p. 48.
74.See Ostwald, From Popular Sot:ereignty.
75. ]ones, Atheni"an Democracy, pp.56-57.
88.lbid., p.77.
M. I. Finley,
Ibid., p.
69.Ibid., p.7.
70. ]ones, Athenian Democracy, pp. 47-42,
71. Stocktory The Classical Athenian Democracy, p.169.
72. Thus "the diner
not the cook
will beihe best judge of a feast.,,
86. Ibid., pp. 37-38
87. Ibid., p. 43.
Democracy Ancient and Modern (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1985), pp. 18-19.
62.
67"
85.Ibid., pp.E-26.
8.
ones, Athenian Demo cr acy, p. \L
53. jones, Atheninn Democracy,
\4iet "Tyranny and Democra cy,', p. g.l.
jones, Athenian Democracy, p. S.
68. FinJey, Democracy Ancient and Modern, p.86.
66. Van der
81. Quoted inlones, Athenian Demo*acy,p.47.
82. Ibid.
83. Farrar, The Origins of Democratic Thinking, p.20.
84. Ibid., pp 27-22.
52. See Gregory Vlastos, "Slavery in Plato's Thought," in Mastos, platonic Studles (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), p.I52, note 22.
54.
63.Ibid., p. 3.
64. Hansen, The Athenian Democracy, p.89
-
p.27.
34. Hansen, The Athenian Democracy,p.M.
35. Ibid.
35. Ostwald, From Popular Souereignty, p.27.
37. Hansen, The Athenian D emocr acy, p. 50.
38. See in particular Ostwald, From Popular Sooereignty, pp. 3-84.
39. Manvilie, The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens, p,23.
40. Staveley, Greek and Roman Voting and Elections, p.55.
41. Ostwald, From Popular Sooereignty, p. 79.
42. Quoted from Demosthenes, Firs! Philippic,4,47,Hattsen, The Athenian De-
57.
339
65.Ibid., p. 6.
28. Hansen, The Athenian Democracy,p.30.
29. Stockton, The Classical Athenian Democracy, pp. 6-7.
30. Hansen, The Athenian Democracy, p. 43.
31. Piutarch, TheRise andFaII of Athars,trans" Ian Scott-Kilvert (Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books, 1960), p. 60. Solon's poem is among the fragmentary remains collected in Theodor Bergk, ed., Poetae Lyrici Graeci (Leipzig, 1843). Ibid., p. 45.
46.Ibid., pp.97-92.
47. Manville, The Origins
48. Ibid., pp. 8-9.
49.Ibid., pp. 8-10.
50.Ibid., p. 11.
Nofes
willis Botsford,
The Roman Assemblies
(New york: Macmillary 1909),
p
.
3. Frank Frost Abbott, A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions
(New York Biblo and Thnnen, 1963), p. 10.
4. see Chaim wirszubski, Libertas as a political Ideal at Rome During the l"ate Republic and Early Principafe (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, i950;, p. 5.
5. Marcus Tullius Cicerq on the Commonwealth, trans. George Holland -sabine
and.stariley Bameysmith (Columbus, ohio: TheohiostateUniv:ersitypress,rg2g),
book 1, 28,pp.132-133.
6. see the discussion of sallust's account in p. A. Brunt, social Conflicts in the
Roman Republic (London: The Hogarth Press, L986), pp.75-76.
7. MichaelCrawford, TheRonunRepublic(Glassow: Fontana/Collins, I97g),p.JS.
8. Ibid., p. 14.
340
Nofes
Nofes
J{I
9. See L6on Homo, Ronnn Political Institutions from City to State (London;
Routledge, Kegan Paul,1929), pp. 3-8.
10. Abbott, A History and Description of Ronun Political Institutions, p.1.4.
39. F. E. Adcock, Ronun Political ldeas and Practice (Ann Arbor: Universify of
Michigan Press, 1959), p. 23.
Ibid., pp. 1,6-17.
12. Livy's account is quoted in Homo, Roman Political Institutiotrs, p. 15.
i3. Ibid., p. 17.
14. E. S. Staveley, Greek and Roman Voting and Elections (Ithaca: Comell University Press, 1972), p.121.
15. For a discussion of this insfitution and its modem applications see Clinton
Adcock, Ronun Political ldeas and Practice, p.23.
42. Bellum lugurthinum 41, 5, quoted by Michael Crawford, The Roman Republic,
p.160.
43. See especially Wirszubski, Libertns, pp. 115-118.
44- Wirszubski, Libertas, p. 769.
45. william J. Bouwsma, venice and the Defense of Republican Lilterty (Berkeley:
Univcrsity of California Press, 1968), p. 6.
11.
Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Goaernment in the Modern Democracies
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1948; reprinted Wesport, Conn.:Greenwood
Press, 1979).
16. Botsford, The Roman Assemblies, pp. 202-203.
17. Brunt, Social Conflicts, p. 67.
18. See Botsford, The Roman Assenrblies, pp.124-126.
19.Ibid., pp.272-225.
ibid., pp. 122-123.
21. Lily Ross Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic; The Thirty-fiae
Urban and Rural Tiibes (Rome: The American Academy in Rome, 1950), pp. S-9.
22. See Staveley, Greek and Roman Voting and Elections, pp. 129-131.
23. For an elaborate discussion of this stafus, stressing the Roman military interest in granting it to allies and changes over time see Sherwin-White, The Roman
Citizenship, pp. 39-58, who points out (p. 35) that at a relatively late time in the
history of the Republic, one tribe was set aside at Rome in the Concllium plebis rn
which Latin citizens could cast a vote.
24. Michel Serres,Rome: Thz Book of Foundntbns, ftans. Felicia McCarren (Stanford:
Stan{ord University Press, 199L), p. 153.
20. See
25.
26.
Ibid.
Wirszubski, Libertas, pp. 38-40.
27. William R. Everdell, The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans
(New York: The Free Press, 1983), p. 50.
Abbott, A History, p. 3I.
Ibid., p. 65.
30. Everdell, The End of Kings, pp. 51-52. The praetors were executive officials
who assigned legal cases and appointed district judges, among other duties. The
quaestors were mainly in charge of caring for decrees of the Senate and otherwise
serving the consuls. The aeililes were in charge of public buildings and of maintaining public order. See Abbott, AHistory,pp.375-379.
31.. Cicero, On the Commonwealth, book 1, 25,p.129.
32. See for an exposition of Cicero's views Wirszubski, Libertas, pp. 12-15.
33. Cicero, On the Commonznealth,book 1,, 27 , p. 732.
34. Ibid., book 1, 3?, p.136
35. Ibid., book 1,5, p. 110.
36. See especially Staveley, Greek and Roman Voting anil Elections, chap.7,
28.
29.
pp. 133-142.
37. Ibid., pp. 1,36-737.
38. Henry Sidgwick, The Deaelopment of European Polity (London: Macmillan,
1903;
New York: Kraus Reprint Co.,1969), p.7M.
40.
Sidgwicl
The Dnelopment of European Polity,
p.748.
41.
45. GianfrancoPoggi,TheDeoelopment of the Modern State: ASociological Introducfion (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978), pp.25-26.
47 . bid., pp. 42-tA.
48. Hannah Arendt, The Hunmn Condition: A study of the Cmtral Dilemmas Facing
Moilern Man (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1959),p.65.
49.Ibid., p.287.
50. Saint Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods (New york: The Modern Library), book 15, 1, p. 479 .
51. Ibid., book 19, 15, p.596.
52. Ibid.,'1.9, 21,, p. 6D
53. See Arthur P. Monahan, Consent, Coercion, and Limit: Tfu Medinal Origins of
Parlinmentary Democracy (Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen's university press,
1987),
p. 30.
"what can be leamed of the christian attitude towards politics from the writings of early Christianity shows no express concem at all with the issue of consent as
a feature of either the theory or the practise of pol,itical authority." Ibid., p. 42.
54.
55. A. P. D'Entrdves, ed., Aquinas: Selected Political Writings (Oxford: Basit
Blackwell, 1948), especially SummaTheologica, First Part, '1,., qu.92,96,,,political life
natural to man," pp. 103-106.
56. G. W. F. Hegel, "The Spirit of Christianity and its Fate," trans. T. M. Knox,
Early TheologicalWitings (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. ig2-301.
57. Norman Cohn, Tlre Pursuit of the Millenniurn (London: Secker & Warburg,
1952), especially chaps. 7 and 8, pp. 149-794.
58. See jacob L. Thlmoru Political Messianisnt: The Ronuntic p,tase (New york:
Praeger, 1960).
59. This discussion draws on sanford A. Lakoff, Equality in political philosophy
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964) and "Christianity and Equality," tnI. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds.,Equality/I,tronros 9 (Newyork:
Atherton Press,
1967).
60. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. George Lawrence (Ner.r'
York: Harper & Row, 7969), vol. 1, Author's Introduction, p. 16.
61. G. P. Gooch, English Demo*atic ldeas in the Sepenteenth Century (New york:
Harper, 1959), p.7.
62. Ibid., p. 48.
63. See for Suarez's views, Martin Sicker, TIre Genesis of the State (New york:
Praeger, 1991), pp. 36-39.
64. Monahan, Consent, Coercion, and Limit, p.135.
65.Ibid., pp.137-143.
342
65. Ibid., p. 98.
67.Ibid., p.99.
68. Ibid., p. 109.
69. Ibid., pp. 110-119.
70. Quoted by Bouwsma, venice,p.8. The interpretation that follows is indebted
to Bouswma.
71. A. P. D'Entrdves, The Notion of the state: An Introduction to political Theory
(Oxford: Oxford University P ress, 19 67), p. 90.
72. Bouwsma, Venice-p. 16
Ibid., pp.62-63.
G. A. Pocock, The Machiaoellian Moment: Florentine Political Thousht and the
Atlantic RepublicanTradition (Princeton: Princeton university press, 1975), chaps.573.
74'I'
8,pp.ll4-277.
75. Gooch, English Democratic Ideas, p. 46.
76. A. S. P. Woodhouse, ed., Puritanism and Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), Putney Debates, October 28, L647, p 56.
77. Quoted Gooch, English Democratic ldeas, p. 130.
78. see CarolineA. Robbins, The Eighteenth-century Commonwealthman: studies in
the Transmission, Developmant anil Circumstances of English Liberal Thought
from the
Restoration of Charles II until the war utith the Thirteen Colonies (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1959) and Pocock, The Machiaoellian Moment, chap. 1.2,
pp.401-422.
Chapter 5
L. Letter to Roger C. Weightman,lune24, 1826.
Merrill D. peterson, ed., The
Portable lefferson (New York: The Viking Press, 1.975), p. 585.
2. Dorothy Pickles, Democracy (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1970), p.46.
3. Their relationship and the influence of the "exclusion crisis,, on Locke,s
work
are examined in Richard Ashcraft, Rnolutionary Politics €t Locke's Two Treatises of
Gooernment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).
4. Iohn I-ocke, Tzuo Trmtises of Governmenf, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964), Second Tieatise,6,61, p.326.
5. Ibid., Second Treatise, 5, 51, p. 320.
5. Ibid., S econ d Treat is e, 1-1., 135, pp. 37 5 - 6.
7. Ibid., Second Treatise, 5, 5i, p. 320.
8. David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the
principles of Morals, Hume,s Moral
and Political Philosophy, ed. Henry D. Aiken (New York: Hafner, 194g), Appen-
dix
1, 5, p.269.
9. See Adam SmittU The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. D.D. Raphael and A.L.
Macfie (oxford: oxford University Press, 1976; reprinted, tndianipolis: Liberty
Classics, 1982).
10. A. P D'Entrdves, The Notion of the State: An Introduction to political Theory
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), p.274.
11. Maurice Cranston, "Introduction," Jean-|acques Rousseau, The Social Confracf (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968), p. 31.
12. Rousseau, The Socinl Contract, chap. 3, 4, pp. ll2-114.
L3. Cranston, "Lrtroduction," pp. 42-43.