Unit 2

The constitution of republican

Rome as a model for
constitutions of the modern age
 The chronological framework
• In the first Unit, we have talked mainly
about the Roman Empire, in this second
unit we will especially dwell on the
Republic of Rome.
• It may therefore be necessary to briefly
summarize the chronological picture of
Roman history for students with no specific
knowledge of ancient Rome.
2
 The chronological framework
• Monarchy (753-510 BC)
• Republic (509-31 BC)
– Earlier Republic (509-264 BC): the age of conquest of Italy and of the internal
strife between patricians and plebeians.
– Middle Republic (264-133 BC): the age of conquest of the Mediterranean, under
the leadership, almost uncontested, of the senatorial aristocracy; the phase in
which we can place basically the issues of this Unit.
– Late Republic (133-31 BC): the age of the Civil Wars.
• Empire (31 BC – 476 AD)
– Principate (31 BC – 285 AD): the rule of the emperor as a princeps, in the meaning
of “first among peers” (primus inter pares); ruling power conceived as a
collaboration between the emperor and the aristocracy.
– Dominate (285 – 476): the rule of the emperor as a dominus (“master”): Imperial
power as an absolute and dispotic monarchy.

3
 Reflecting on politics in the
classical world
• A peculiar feature of the Roman world (and the Greek
world), in comparison to other ancient civilizations: the
deep reflection on the forms of politics.
• One of the many issues in which the study of the
Roman world can not be cut off from that of the Greek
world: so we have to talk of “classical political
thought”, rather than “Roman political thought”.
• Political theory of the modern world has always looked
at classical political tradition as a model, until today.

4
 Some characteristic feature of
classical political thought
• In classical civilization, forms of politics are considered an
essentially human construction, they do not have a divine
origin.
– Unlike what happens, for example, with the ancient Chinese Empire,
in which the emperor rules according to the "Mandate of Heaven".
– Or in ancient Egypt, before the Roman conquest: the pharaoh as the
"son of the god Ra"; in the roman province of Egypt this title it is
replaced, in the title of the emperor Augustus, by Autokrator, the
Greek translation of the Latin Imperator.
– the sovereign no longer owes his power to a special relationship
with the gods, but to his imperium, the absolute power that belongs
to the magistrates of Rome, therefore it refers to a juridical concept.
5
 Some characteristic feature of
classical political thought
• On the contrary, in the classical world there is some
subordination of the religious sphere to the political
sphere: traditional classical religion as a political
religion.
– As Cicero says, “every city-state has her own religion, and
we have our own religion”: a religion connected to the
state, not to personal beliefs.
• The recognition that a successful political life depends
not only on a well-designed constitution, but also on
the concrete and virtuous behavior of citizens.
6
 Characters of the “Roman
Constitution”
• In this Unit we will use the word "constitution" in a very improper
sense.
• In fact, Rome never had a written constitutional charter, approved
at a precise moment, as it happens in France, in the United States
of America or in contemporary Italy.
• The "Roman Constitution" is in fact a sum of individual laws
concerning the institutional framework and of unwritten customary
practices and traditional behaviors (in Latin the mores), which have
been formed over many years, or even centuries.
• The "Roman Constitution" is, therefore, essentially a modern
reconstruction, based on various sources, above all the historical
work of the Greek historian Polybius.
7
Polybius, our main source
for the constitution of
Republican Rome
• Born in Megalopolis, in Arcadia, around
200 BC, Polybius was a prominent
politician of the Achean League, an
important federal state of Greece
• His father, Lycortas, was a strategos
(“commanding general”) of the same
Achaean League.
• So, for family tradition too, Polybius was an
expert in political and military affairs.
• On the right the so-called stele of Kleitor,
supposedly depicting Polybius as a military
commander (Rome, Museo della Civiltà
Romana)

8
The Achaen League around 200 BC,
at the eve the Second Macedonian
War

9
 The Achean League
• A confederation of Greek city states in the northern and central Peloponnese.
• The league was named after the region of Achaea in the northwestern
Peloponnese, which formed its original core.
• The Achaean League was established in 280 BC. As an ally of Rome, the league
played a major role in the expansion of the Republic into Greece.
– In fact the League joined Rome in the war against Philip V of Macedon (Second
Macedonian War, 200-197 BC) and in the war against the king Antiochus III the Great
of Syria (Syrian War, 192-188 BC).
• During the Third Macedonian War (171–168 BC), opposing Rome to the new
king of Macedon, Perseus, the League flirted with the idea of neutrality, or of
even an alliance with Perseus.
• After the victory in the war against, Rome punished the League for his
ambiguous attitude, by taking several hostages, including Polybius.

10
 Polybius in Rome
• Deported to Rome after 167 BC with others members of the
political élite of the Achaean League, awaiting trial for his
alleged pro-Macedonian attitude, Polybius was admitted to the
most distinguished aristocratic houses of Rome, in particular to
that of Lucius Aemilius Paullus, the conqueror in the Third
Macedonian War.
– Aemilius Paullus entrusted Polybius with the education of his son,
Scipio Aemilianus (who had been adopted by the eldest son of Scipio
Africanus, the conqueror of Hannibal and of the Second Punic War).
– Thanks to the friendship with Scipio Aemilianus, Polybius became a
member of the so-called Scipionic Circle, a group of philosophers,
poets, and politicians patronized by the same Scipio Aemilianus.

11
 The Histories of Polybius
• Thanks to his experience in military in political affairs and to his
direct knowledge of Roman institutions, in the years of the exile
Polybius devoted himself in writing a universal history (The
Histories) trying to explain the rise of Rome to world power, from
264 to 146 BC.
– Polybius wrote in greek: his main audience is the cultural élite of the
greek world.
• Of the 40 original books of the Histories, unfortunately only the
first 5 (events from 264 to 216 BC) are entirely preserved, others
are known only for extracts.
– This is perhaps due to the fact that Polibius was considered a very
accurate historian, but also a quite boring historian: his entire work was
more and more rarely read, so the whole work was no longer copied,
instead anthologies were created, with the more interesting passages.

12
 The Sixth Book of the Histories
• In the Sixth Book Polybius interrupts his
narrative of events (to the Battle of Cannae
in 216 BC, during the Second Punic War) to
describe the constitution of Rome.
• In fact he regards the excellence of Roman
constitution as one of the main reasons for
the hegemony of the Romans on the entire
world, as he announced in III, 2, 6.
13
 Polybius, Histories, III, 2, 6: a digression
on the Roman constitution
• At this point I shall pause in my narrative to
introduce a disquisition upon the Roman
Constitution, in which I shall show that its
peculiar character contributed largely to their
success, not only in reducing all Italy to their
authority, and in acquiring a supremacy over the
Iberians and Gauls besides, but also at last, after
their conquest of Carthage, to their conceiving
the idea of universal dominion.
14
 Mixed constitution as the best
constitution
• In Polybius's vision the best constitution is the one in which there is a mix of
monarchic, aristocratic and democratic elements, as the roman constitution.
• The constitution of Rome, however, is not the first example of a well-
balanced charter in history: Plato and Aristotle in the 4th century BC had
revealed the mixed nature of the constitution of Sparta.
• However, Polybius notes that in Sparta and Rome the same result was
achieved in a different way:
– In Sparta thanks to the logos ("reasoning") of a single man, the lawgiver Lycurgus,
who accordingly to the tradition, drafted around 700 BC. the Spartan constitution
(the Great Rhetra, or Great Charter).
– In Rome more gradually and collectively, as a response to a series of challenges, the
most serious of which is the invasion of Italy by Hannibal at the time of the Second
Punic War.

15
Polybius, Histories, VI, 3, 5-8: the invention of
mixed constitution by Lycurgus
• Now, it is undoubtedly the case that most of those who
profess to give us authoritative instruction on this subject
distinguish three kinds of constitutions, which they designate
kingship, aristocracy, democracy. But in my opinion the
question might fairly be put to them, whether they name
these as being the only ones, or as the best. In either case I
think they are wrong. For it is plain that we must regard as
the best constitution that which partakes of all these three
elements. And this is no mere assertion, but has been proved
by the example of Lycurgus, who was the first to construct a
constitution – that of Sparta – on this principle.
16
 Lycurgus in Brussels

• On the right the statue of the legendary lawgiver Lycurgus in the Palais de justice fo
Brussels (19th century).
• The classical tradition as a living tradition until today (or, may be better, yesterday …)
17
 The six different types of constitution
and their cyclical evolution in Polybius
• An important contribute of Polybius to the constitution theory: each of the
three main forms, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, has a
corresponding degenerate form: tyranny, oligarchy, oclocracy.
• A certain swinging in terminology about monarchical forms: in some
passages monarchy is the name of an original form of power, in others it
designates a degenerate form.
• In other passages to the proper form of kingship, Polybius opposes the
degenerate form of tyranny.
• Polybius, proposing an analogy with the cycle of human life, believes that
constitutions grow old and are subject to a natural corruption, adding that
this process is cyclical.
• From monarchy to tyranny, then from aristocracy to oligarchy, then from
democracy to oclocracy, to return finally to monarchy.

18
 The six different types of constitution and
their cyclical evolution in Polybius, Histories,
VI, 4, 6-10
• So then we enumerate six forms of government, – the three
commonly spoken of which I have just mentioned [i.e. monarchy,
aristocracy and democracy], and three more connected forms, I
mean despotism, oligarchy and mob-rule. The first of these arises
without artificial aid and in the natural order of events. Next to this,
and produced from it by the aid of art and adjustment, comes
kingship; which degenerating into the evil form connected to it, by
which I mean tyranny, both are once more destroyed and
aristocracy produced. Again the latter being in the course of nature
perverted to oligarchy, and the people passionately avenging the
unjust acts of their rulers, democracy comes into existence; which
again by its violence and contempt of law becomes sheer mob-rule.

19
 An unusual term: oclocracy
• An occurrence of this term in Euripides, The Suppliants, vv. 404 ff. in a dialogue
between the Athenian hero Theseus and a messenger coming from Thebes.
• Theseus states that Athens "is not governed by only one man, but the city is
free, the people (demos) are sovereign”.
• The theban messenger answers polemically that "the city where I come from is
governed by only one man, is not dominated by the mob (ochlos)”.
• Actually in this passage of The Suppliants (424-420 BC) oclocracy is not the
degenerate form of democracy, but the way in which democracy itself is
defined by its opponents.
• Nevertheless, in this passage of Euripides emerges the opposition between the
demos, the people ordered by political institutions, and the ochlos, a wild and
disordered mass, which does not follow any rule.
– A parallel to the concept of demos in the first article of the constitution of the Italian
Republic: "sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it in the forms and within
the limits of the Constitution".

20
 The balance of powers of the mixed
constitution blocks degeneration
• A simple constitution is inevitably subject to downgrading: in
the absence of a form of control, monarchic, aristocratic or
democratic rule tends to an overwhelming power.
• A mixed constitution, taking the best of the three simple form
of constitution and ensuring a balance of powers, blocks the
process of degeneration.
• To express the concept of balance of power, Polybius uses the
term, antiploia “rowing against the stream”.
• in the passage reported in the next slide Polybius refers once
more to Lycurgus’ constitution; but later recalls that the
Romans too have achieved the same result, albeit gradually.
21
 Polybius, Histories, VI, 10, 2-11: the
mixed constitution blocks degeneration
• Lycurgus, I say, saw all this [i.e. the process of
downgrading of constitutions], and accordingly combined
together all the excellences and distinctive features of the
best constitutions, that no part should become unduly
predominant, and be perverted into its kindred vice; and
that, each power being checked by the others, no one
part should turn the scale or decisively out-balance the
others; but that, by being accurately adjusted and in exact
equilibrium, the whole might remain long steady like
rowing against the stream.

22
The three elements of the mixed
constitution in Rome
• Three governing institutions embody in the
republican Rome the monarchical, aristocratic
and democratic constitutional principles:
respectively the Consuls, the Senate, and the
Popular Assemblies.
• Their coexistence and their ability in checking
one another create the mixed character of the
Roman constitution and guarantee the balance of
powers.
23
 Polybius, Histories, VI, 11, 11-12: the three
governing institutions of the roman mixed
constitution
• As for the Roman constitution, it had three elements, each
of them possessing sovereign powers: and their respective
share of power in the whole state had been regulated with
such a scrupulous regard to equality and equilibrium, that no
one could say for certain, not even a native, whether the
constitution as a whole were an aristocracy or democracy or
monarchy. And no wonder: for if we confine our observation
to the power of the Consuls we should be inclined to regard
it as monarchical; if on that of the Senate, as aristocratic;
and if finally one looks at the power possessed by the people
it would seem a clear case of a democracy.
24
 The three elements of the mixed
constitution of Republican Rome
• We have no problem in recognizing in the Senate the incarnation
of the aristocratic principle and in the popular assemblies the
democratic element.
• But even the almost monarchical nature of the power of the
consuls is clear and already recognized by the ancient Romans,
for example by Livy, in his Books from the Foundation of the City
II, 1, 6-7:
– “Moreover you may reckon the beginning of liberty [i.e. in the first year
of the Republic, 509 BC] as proceeding rather from the limitation of the
consuls' authority to a year than from any diminution of their power
compared with that which the kings had exercised. All the rights of the
kings and all their insignia were possessed by the earliest consuls”

25
 The powers of Consuls, Senate,
and popular assemblies
• In the chapters 12-14 of the sixth book of The
Histories, Polybius illustrates in detail the powers
of Consuls, of the Senate, and of the popular
assemblies, respectively.
• We do not have time in our lectures to read all
these texts, we will only summarize what we
know about the nature of these political
institutions, thanks to Polybius and other sources
of evidence.
26
 The Consuls
• The consulship was considered the top in the
career of a Roman politician, the so-called cursus
honorum (“the order”, or “the sequence of public
offices”).
• Consuls are two, each with a power of veto over
the other consul actions.
• Consuls are elected by Centuriate Assembly, one of
the popular assemblies of Republican Rome.
• The office of the consuls lasted only one year.
27
 Restrictions in the power of
consuls
• The power of veto of his colleague, the fact of being elected by the
popular assembly (and having to give account for his actions to the
assembly at the end of the office) and, above all, the short period of
the office heavily restricted the almost monarchical powers of a
consul.
• This created a problem of effectiveness of executive power: but in
the eyes of the Romans the real problem was to prevent a single
person from having too much power in his hands.
– The last king fo Rome, Tarquinius Superbus (“Tarquinius the Proud) was
described as a tyrant, overthrown by a revolution of the Roman aristocracy.
– According to Livy, II, 1, 9 the first act of the newborn Republic was a oath by
the people, swearing never to allow any man again to be king in Rome.

28
 The powers of the consuls: the
civil sphere
• Nevertheless, the consuls have large powers.
• In the civil sphere:
– The consuls represented the executive power and were responsible for
carrying into effect the decrees of the Senate and the laws of the
popular assemblies.
– All the other republican magistrates, with the exception of the tribunes
of the plebeians, as we shall see, were subordinate to the consuls.
– The consuls could convene the Senate, and presided over its meetings;
they could also summon the three general Roman assemblies (Curiate,
Centuriate, and Tribal) and presided over them.
– The consuls had the power to arrest a citizen and to inflict the death
penalty on him: but this power was limited by the right of appeal of
the roman citizen to the popular assembly.
29
 The powers of the consuls: the
military sphere
• Outside the walls of Rome, the powers of the consuls were
even more extensive, as they are the commanders-in-chief
of the Roman Army.
– Each consul commanded a single army, usually composed by two
Roman legions and units from the allies (about 20,000 soldiers).
– When he was on campaign, a consul could inflict any punishment
he saw fit on any roman soldier, without the limitations of the
right of appeal.
– The consul could conduct the war as he prefers; however, after
the end of the campaign, he could be prosecuted for his
misdeeds.

30
 Imperium and fasces
• The “power to command” of the consuls (and of other republican
magistrates) was defined by the term imperium, in its original and
concrete meaning.
– Only in the imperial age the term assumed the abstract meaning of “Empire”.
• The symbol of the imperium were the fasces, a bundle of rods
containing an axe.
– The rods symbolized the power of scourging the guilty, and the axe the
power of death penalty, beheading the guilty.
– The fasces were carried by twelve lictors, the bodyguards of the consuls.
– In a highly symbolic action, when a consul came to the popular assembly, the
lictors lowered the fasces, in a sign of respect for the people in assembly,
which ultimately held the sovereignity.

31
 A lictor with the
fasces

• A relief from a stele

in the Archaeological
Museum of Verona,
depicting a lictor
with the fasces.

32
 The afterlife of the fasces
• In Italy the roman fasces became a (infamous) symbol of the
movement of Fascism.
– The fascist party, however, takes its name from one of the meanings in
the Italian language that can have the word ”fascio": “Union, League”.
– Originally used by a democratic movement in Siciliy, at the end of 19th
century (Fasci siciliani), the word was revived in 1919 by Benito Mussolini
for his Fasci Italiani di Combattimento (“Italian League of Combatants”).
• Before italian Fascism, the fasces has a more noble history as a
symbol of republican freedom against the tyranny of monarchy,
above all in republican France and the United States.
• For this reason we can see the symbol of fasces in places where
we do not expect to find it, thinking of its “fascist” value.

33
 The symbol of the fasces in
republican France
The Great Seal of France in 1848 A National Emblem of France

34
The symbol of fasces in the Lincoln
Memorial in Washington

35
The symbol of fasces in the podium of
United States House of Representatives

36
The symbol of fasces above one of the doors
of the Oval office, in the White House

37
 The Senate

• The Senate of the Middle Republic has its origin

during the first phase of Roman history, the
monarchy, when it was an advisory council to
the king, composed by Elders (in latin senes).
• During the Middle Republic, the Senate
consisted of about three hundred senators,
chosen by the censors as a rule among former
magistrates.
38
 Senatus consulta
• The Senate of the Roman Republic passed decrees
called senatus consulta, "advices of the Senate”.
– While these decrees did not hold legal force, in practice
they usually were obeyed, because of the enormous
prestige this Council enjoyed.
– A glory stemming from the fact that the members of the
Senate were the best and most skilled politicians of Rome.
– The Senate's power was also increased by the fact that its
members had powers for life, unlike the magistrates, who
held their office for only one year.

39
 The powers of the Senate

• The Senate had important financial tasks in the state, as only it

could authorize the payment of funds from the public treasury.
• In a state of emergency, with the senatus consultum ultimum
("ultimate decree of the senate"), the Senate could empower
the consuls to employ any means necessary to solve the crisis,
suspending the normal civic guarantees of the Republic, such
as the right of appeal.
• The Senate also had important tasks in foreign policy: he
received ambassadors of foreign states, and he selected,
among its members, ambassadors to be sent to a foreign state.

40
 The Popular Assembies
• The popular assemblies of the Republic were composed by all the
citizen of the Roman state, male, adult and free.
• Popular assemblies were considered the supreme and original source of
the political power, in a framework of direct democracy, and had the
authority to elect magistrates, accept or reject laws, administer justice
(as a court of appeal), and declare war or peace.
• In fact there were in Rome three different popular assemblies of all the
citizenship (the Curiate, the Centuriate and the Tribal assembly) and a
fourth special assembly, only for a part of the citizenship, the Plebeians.
• An unusual feature, a result of the a gradual development of Roman
institutions in a rather chaotic way and of the respect of ancient
institutions, not abolished, but simply overlapped by new institutions.

41
 The Curiate Assembly: Comitia
Curiata
• Origins: Rome's oldest popular assembly, created in the period of
Monarchy.
• Voting Units: 30 curiae (may be from co-viriae, “reunion of men”), groups
on a clan basis (the members of each curia were kinsmen) or on territorial
basis (the members of each curia lived in the same place) .
• Composition: originally all the citizenship, then, in the Middle Republic, 30
lictors, each one representing a curia. In fact the Curiate assembly in the
Middle and Late Repubic was a sort of “institutional relic” of the past,
without real powers.
• Presidency: a consul, a praetor or the highest pontiff (pontifex maximus).
• Competences: official award of powers to magistrates with the lex curiata
de imperio; ratification of some acts relating to family law, as for exemple
adoptions.
42
 The Centuriate Assembly:
Comitia Centuriata
• Origins: according to the tradition already created by the king Servius
Tullius (traditional dates: 578-539 BC), but we see the Centuriate
Assembly concretely in action only since the 5th century BC, quickly
becoming the most important of the popular assemblies of republican
Rome.
• Voting Units: 193 (or 194) centuriae, on a census basis, therefore on
the basis of an assessment of the wealth of individual citizens.
• Composition: all citizenship.
• Presidency: a consul or a praetor.
• Competences: election of higher magistrates: consuls, praetors, and
censors; legislative competences, relating to international law, in detail
the right to declare war and peace; judicial court, as court of appeal.

43
 The Tribal Assembly: Comitia
Tributa
• Origins: the creation of tribes is ascribed to Servius Tullius, but
the Comitia Tributa are first mentioned in action in 447 BC;
their activity is best documented since 4th century BC onwards.
• Voting Units: 35 tribes on a territorial basis, including 4 urban
tribes (districts of the city of Rome) and 31 rural tribes.
• Composition: all citizenship.
• Presidency: a consul or a praetor.
• Competences: elections of minor magistrates; voting of laws
that were not exclusive competence of Comitia Centuriata.

44
 The Assembly of the Plebeians:
Concilia Plebis
• Origins: in 494 BC, at the time of the first secession of the
Plebeians.
• Voting Units: originally the 30 curiae, then (since 471 BC)
the tribes.
• Composition: only the Plebeians.
• Presidency: the Tribune of Plebeians.
• Competences: election of the Tribunes of Plebeians; vote
of a plebiscite (plebiscitum, “decision of the Plebeians”),
until 287 a.C. legally binding only for the Plebeians, since
that year for the Patricians too.
45
Defining Patricians and Plebeians
• In the contemporary Western World, we mainly have to do with social groups
defined through economic relations: the classes, in the very proper sense of this
term.
• In the Roman world certainly existed classes, but social groups defined by law
and status too.
• The most important of these of status groups: the Patricians and the Plebeians.
• The exact definition of these two groups is still the subject of debate among
scholars.
• The problem was very clear for ancient authors: the Patricians were the
descendants of the Founding Fathers, (patres), who helped the first king of
Rome, Romulus, to create the city.
• The Plebeians were defined as negative, for exclusion: they were all Roman
citizens who were not Patricians.

46
 Defining Patricians and Plebeians
• The explanations of ancient sources seem to us unsatisfactory.
• Some scholars seek to trace the original distinction between
these two ordines (“orders”,) in different causes:
– of economic type: the Patricians are rich landowners and
stockbreeders, the Plebeians poor craftsmen and simple peasants.
– of ethnic type: the Patricians comes from the ethnic group of the
Latins, native inhabitants on the site of Rome, the Plebeians are
migrants, especially of Etruscan origin.
• The scientific debate is still open.
• Whatever the reason of the original distinction between the two
orders, in the Republican age a roman citizen belongs to
Plebeians or to Patricians by birth; not easy to move from one
order to another.
47
 The Plebeian Tribune, an essential factor in
the democratic principle of the Roman
constitution
• The leaders of the Plebeian, the Tribunes,
were one the most important check on the
power of the Senate and of the consuls.
• The tribunes were elected by the Plebeian
Assembly (and among the plebeian citizens)
since 494 BC, for one year of office.
• In the Middle Republican period they were
ten.
48
 The Powers of the Tribune
• A tribune could summon Concilia plebis, preside the assembly
and present a proposal of a plebiscitum).
• A tribune has ius intercessionis, the “right to intercede” on
behalf of a single plebeian and right of veto against any action
of a magistrate that seems a menace to the plebeian order.
– A right limited to the city of Rome; a tribune can not block the action
of a consul in campaign.
– Within the city of Rome only the dictator (an extraordinary
magistrate, appointed in emergency cases, which lasted for a
maximum of six months) was exempted from the veto power of the
Tribune.

49
The sacrosanctitas of the Tribune
• The source of the powers of the Tribune was his
sacrosanctitas (“sacrosanctity”).
• In 494 BC the Plebeians, in fact, swore solemnly
to defend their tribunes from any attack by the
other magistrates.
• Whoever dared to do this, or ignored the veto of
a Tribune, was declared sacer, consecrated to the
gods, and could then be immediately killed by the
plebs.
50
 Voting in a Roman Assembly
• The members in each voting unit (curia, centuria or tribe) would
vote, and the majority in each voting unit would determine how
that unit voted in the assembly: “the winner takes it all”.
– A system similar to that, e.g., for the House of Commons in England,
usually described as First-past-the-post voting system (in Italy we use
instead an expression that can be translated as “majoritarian system”).
• A more important feature of the roman voting system: the
composition of the voting units means that the vote of individual
citizens had a different weight, disregarding what is now
considered a fundamental principle of democracy: “one man, one
vote”.

51
 Voting in the Centuriate Assembly
• In the Centuriate Assembly, with voting units on a census basis, the
wealthiest citizens were enrolled in 98 centuriae (18 centuriae of the
equites, “knights”, 80 centuriae of the first class): they had the
majority of the 193 or 194 centuriae, though they probably
represented only 10% of the citizens of Rome.
• The number of centuriae of young people (from 18 to 45 years of
age) was the same as the centuriae of elders (from 45 to 60)
– for example in the first class there were 40 centuriae of young men and 40
centuriae old men.
• But since in ancient Rome young people were much more numerous,
in fact the weight of the individual vote of the old men was greater.
• The voting system of the centuriate assembly supported the richer
and older people, with a more conservative attitude.

52
 Voting in the Tribal Assembly
• Also the voting system of the Comitia Tributa can be defined
unfair.
• The many inhabitants of the city of Rome (craftsmen,
traders) were enrolled in only four tribes.
• The landowners who lived in the rural area were instead
enrolled in 31 tribes.
• It is important to note that in the Roman Republic there was
no possibility of voting in polling places scattered throughout
all the territory of the state, it was necessary to go to Rome
to express the choice on a law or on a candidate.

53
 Voting in the Tribal Assembly
• Since the trip to the capital could be very long and
expensive, in fact only the wealthiest landowners could
fully exploit their civic rights.
• On the contrary, small farmers could hardly afford the
travel to Rome just to vote.
• So in the Tribal Assembly there was a strong majority in
the hands of a restricted group (relatively speaking) of
wealthy landowners, against the great number of
artisans and merchants of the city of Rome and the
many small peasants.
54
 A perfectly legitimate voting system in
the opinion of the Romans
• The odd voting system of the Roman Republic seems to us
nowadays a blatant abuse of the fundamental democratic
principle “one man, one vote”.
• It was not so for the ancient Romans: speaking of the
composition of the Centuriate Assembly, Cicero, casts in a
positive light the voting mechanism that favored the richest
citizens, although they were fewer.
• The text on the next slide is taken from the Republic, an
important political essay written by Cicero between 55 and 51
BC, in which the great Latin writer exposes his vision of the
mixed constitution of Rome.
55
 Cicero, Republic, II, 39-41: the nature of
the Centuriate Assembly
• After choosing a large number of knights out of the whole
people, Servius Tullius divided the rest of the citizens into
five classes and separated the older from the younger. He
made that division in such a way that the greatest number
of votes belonged not to the common people, but to the
rich, and put into effect the principle which ought always to
be complied in a commonwealth (res publica), that the
greatest number should not have the greatest power …
Thus, while no one was deprived of the suffrage, the
majority of votes was in the hands of those to whom the
highest welfare of the state was the most important.
56
 The principle of geometric
equality
• Nowadays there is a fundamental democratic principle: every
citizen must enjoy the same civic rights, regardless of his
economic stand, his skills in work, his physical abilities, and so on.
• A great French scholar in the Roman world, Claude Nicolet, has
pointed out that in the Roman world there was no such principle
of absolute equality.
• In Rome there was rather a principle of relative equality (or
geometric equality).
• According to this principle, greater responsibilities towards the
state correspond to greater rights: the more you give, the more
you receive.

57
Claude Nicolet (1930-2010)
• For the principle of relative
equality in Rome: Le métier de
citoyen dans la Rome
républicaine, Paris 1976 [Ancient
History Desk].
• Nicolet's commitment to
studying the foundations of the
French Republic, linking his
profession of historian and his
political interests: L'idée
républicaine en France: essai
d'histoire critique (1789-1924),
Paris 1982.
58
The principle of relative equality and the
Centuriate Assembly
• The application of the principle of relative equality is clear in the
Centuriate Assembly.
• The centuriae were not just a voting unit, but also a tax unit and a
soldier recruiting unit.
• Every centuria of Roman citizens had to pay the same amount as a tax
to the state and had to provide the same number of soldiers to the
army.
• Of course, those who were enrolled in the centuriae of the knights and
those of the first class, because they were few, as individuals had to
sustain the burden of taxation and military service to a greater extent.
• It seemed therefore fair and rightful, in the view of Cicero, that their
vote had a greater weight too.

59
 A synthesis of Polybius’
arguments
• In chapters 15-17 of the Histories, VI, Polybius analyzes
in detail what were the institutional tools through
which the consuls, the senate, and the popular
assemblies (with the tribunes of the plebeians) could
keep each other under control, thus ensuring balance
of powers.
• We will go directly to chapter 18, in which the Greek
historian suggests a synthesis of his arguments,
offering us some suggestion for more general
reflection.
60
 Polybius, Histories, VI, 18, 1-4: balancing and
checking powers, in bad and good times
• The result of this power of the several estates for mutual
help or harm is a union sufficiently firm for all emergencies,
and a constitution than which it is impossible to find a
better. For whenever any danger from without compels
them to unite and work together, the strength which is
developed by the State is so extraordinary, that everything
required is unfailingly carried out by the eager rivalry shown
by all classes to devote their whole minds to the need of
the hour … Accordingly, the peculiar constitution of the
State makes it irresistible, and certain of obtaining whatever
it determines to attempt.
61
 Polybius, Histories, VI, 18, 1-4: balancing and
checking powers, in bad and good times
• Even when these external alarms are past, and the people are
enjoying their good fortune and the fruits of their victories, and, as
usually happens, growing corrupted by flattery and idleness, show a
tendency to violence and arrogance,– it is in these circumstances,
more than ever, that the constitution is seen to possess within itself
the power of correcting abuses. For when any one of the three
classes becomes superb, and manifests an inclination to be
contentious and unduly encroaching, the mutual interdependency of
all the three, and the possibility of the pretensions of any one being
checked and thwarted by the others, must plainly check this
tendency: and so the proper equilibrium is maintained by the
impulsiveness of the one part being checked by its fear of the other.

62
 The metus hostilis theory
• Polybius noticed how the fear of an external threat (in Greek ektos
phóbos) was one of the reasons for the firmness of the constitution of
Rome.
• It is the first application of the so-called “fear of the enemy” (in latin
metus hostilis) theory in Rome, which will be later very successful among
the ancient historians.
• In particular, Sallust (86-34 BC), in several passages of his historical work,
emphasizes that only the fear of Carthage (metus Punicus) ensured the
harmony between the powers; dissolved this threat, the situation
degenerated and a period of internal conflicts and civil wars begun.
• In Polybius we still see an optimistic view: the Roman constitution is so
well balanced that it also prevents the degeneration that follows the end
of external threats.

63
 Sallust, The Jugurthine War, 41:
effects of the metus hostilis
• The prevalence of parties among the people, and of factions in the senate,
and of all evil practices attendant on them, had its origin at Rome, a few
years before [i.e. before the Jugurthine war, 112-105 BC], during a period of
tranquillity, and amid the abundance of all that mankind regarded as
desirable. For, before the destruction of Carthage [146 BC], the senate and
people managed the affairs of the republic with mutual moderation and
forbearance; there were no contests among the citizens for honor or
ascendency; but the dread of an enemy kept the state in order. When that
fear, however, was removed from their minds, licentiousness and pride, evils
which prosperity loves to foster, immediately began to prevail; and thus
peace, which they had so eagerly desired in adversity, proved, when they
had obtained it, more grievous and fatal than adversity itself. The patricians
carried their authority, and the people their liberty, to excess; every man
took, snatched, and seized what he could.

64
 An overall assessment of Polybius's
testimony on the constitution of Rome
• A reconstruction generally thought to be accurate for the Middle
Republican period, which is the period considered by Polybius.
• Obviously in some details we could reproach to the Greek historian
omissions and misunderstandings.
• A resumption of earlier constitutional theories, already exposed, among
others, by Plato and Aristotle
• But Polybius applied these theories in an original way to Rome, thanks to
his good knowledge of the institutions of the new power.
• Particularly interesting is the interpretation of the Roman constitution as
the result of a long debate (or even a conflict), an interpretation that
Polybius may have drawn from conversations with other intellectuals in
the Scipionic circle.
65
 The afterlife of the mixed
constitution theory: Thomas Aquinas
• As noted by a great German scholar, Kurt
Von Fritz, no part of ancient political theory
had more influence on modern politics than
the theory of mixed constitution.
• An influence that actually begins already in
the Middle Ages: the Doctor of the Church
and christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas
(1225-1274) in a tractate On Kingship,
identifies in a monarchy tempered by
aristocratic and democratic elements the
best form of government.
• On the right: Thomas Aquinas in a detail of
The Villa Romita Polyptych by Gentile da
Fabriano (1400) (Milano, Pinacoteca di
Brera)

66
 The afterlife of the mixed
constitution theory: Machiavelli
• A dialogue with the past that obviously
becomes more and more intense
during the Renaissance, thanks to a
deeper knowledge of classical texts.
• Certainly we must remember in this
period Nicolò Machiavelli (1469-1527),
a politician, historian, philosopher from
Florence, who is considered one of the
fathers of modern political science.
• On the right: Santi di Tito, Portrait of
Machiavelli (second half of 16th
century) (Florence, Palazzo Vecchio)

67
 The afterlife of the mixed
constitution theory: Machiavelli
• Machiavelli devotes an entire chapter of his Discourses on the First Ten
Books of Titus Livius (1531) to the theme Di quante spezie sono le
repubbliche e di quale fu la repubblica romana (“How many kinds of
Republics exist and what was the kind of the Republic of Rome”).
• Using contemporary political examples too, Machiavelli exposed in the
Discourses how a republic should be structured.
• The Discourses includes one of the first instances of the concept of
checks and balances and asserts the superiority of a republic over a
Principate.
• The mixed constitution of Rome in fact is a lively model for Machiavelli:
“In fact, when there is combined under the same constitution a prince,
a nobility, and the power of the people, then these three powers will
watch and keep each other reciprocally in check” (Discourses, I, 2).

68
 Machiavelli and the cycle of
constitutions
• Machiavelli seems to resume from Polybius the theory of a degenerative
cycle of constitutions, too.
• After describing a constitutional cycle similar to what we have found in
Polybius, Machiavelli notes: "This is the circle in which all the republics
have been governed and are governed today”.
• How did Machiavelli know Polybius' theories, since he did not know Greek
well enough and yet no Latin or Italian translation of the work of Polybius
historian had been published?
• His knowledge was perhaps derived from the readings of the Histories of
Polybius held in the Neoplatonic Academy of the Orti Oricellari in
Florence, by scholars who knew Ancient Greek.
• The Neoplatonic Academy, in fact, was a society of Republican and anti-
Medicean ideas: the institution was dissolved by the Medici in 1523.
69
The risks of democracy according
to Machiavelli
• Machiavelli seems to assign a greater role to the democratic
institutions of the Roman Republic (popular assemblies and
especially the tribunes of the plebeians) than Polybius and
especially Cicero.
• Nevertheless, Machiavelli says that, if left unchecked, democratic
institutions will overwhelm the other government bodies and this
could lead to the overthrown of the Republic (as in fact occured in
Rome in the second half of the 1st century BC).
• Finally Machiavelli observes that the temporary grant of
extraordinary powers to a dictator was essential in the case of
crises.

70
 The risks of an “imperial” Republic
according to Machiavelli
• Machiavelli added an important element to the “degeneration
cycle” of Polybius, noting that there are two kinds of Republic:
– “Either you discuss a Republic that wishes to create an empire, or
you discuss one that is satisfied to maintain itself”.
• Machiavelli suggest that an expansionist Republic will tend to
rush in the passage from aristocracy to democracy, and thence
to mob rule, to return finally to monarchy: an imperialist push
accelerates the degeneration process.
• A Republic happy to remain in its boundaries (such as the
Republic of Venice in the Renaissance) will be able to sustain
itself longer.
71
 The English political philosophy of the
17th and 18th centuries
• The political reflection that took place in England between the 17th and the
18th centuries was of decisive importance as an intermediary between the
ideas of the ancient world and the revolutionary ideas of the end of the 18th
century.
– In these years, England saw deep institutional changes: the Civil War of 1642-1651
ended with the execution of King Charles I and the creation of an English
Commonwealth under the leadership (“Protectorate”) of Oliver Cromwell and then of
his son Richard.
– After the restoration of Monarchy, in 1688 the Glorious Revolution led to the
expulsion of the Stuart Dynasty, accused of despotism (and to sympathize with the
Roman Catholic Church); the new king William III Orange recognized in 1689 the Bill of
Rights that limited the powers of the monarchy and affirmed Parliament's supremacy.
• In this role of mediators great philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John
Locke, and David Hume were not as important as lesser-known figures, such
as James Harrington and the Viscount of Bolingbroke.
72
 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1689)
• A supporter of the monarchy
(especially in the Leviathan, his most
famous book), even if the king was to
be respectful of individual rights.
• Hobbes criticized Polybius’ distinction
between tyranny and monarchy.
• In his treatise De cive (“On the
citizen”) of 1642 Hobbes stated that
the king and the tyrant do not differ
by their powers (both of them have
absolute powers), but only by
consent they enjoy: the same
monarch will be named king, to
honor him, tyrant to despise him.
• At right: J.M. Wright, Portrait of
Thomas Hobbes (London, National
Portrait Gallery).
73
 David Hume (1713-1784)
• In the essays That Politics May
Be Reduced to Science (1741)
and Of the Balance of Power
(1752) an opposite view to that
of Montesquieu that we see
later.
• A monarchy can be more rightful
than a republic, having a more
direct relationship with its
subjects and not discriminating
between them.
• On the right: A. Ramsay, Portrait
of David Hume (1766),
Edinburgh, Scottish National
Gallery.
74
 James Harrington (1611-1677)
• An english political theorist
and a supporter of republican
ideas.
• In his best known work, The
Commonwealth of Oceana
(1656) exposed an ideal
constitution of an imaginary
place, an utopia.
• At right: P. Lely, Portrait of
James Harrington (1658);
London, National Portrait
Gallery.
75
 The mixed constitution in Harrington’s
view
• Harrington, writing in response to Hobbes’s Leviathan and to his monarchical
ideas, noted that:
– “An equal commonwealth … is a government … arising into the superstructures of
three orders, the senate debating and proposing, the people resolving, and the
magistracy executing by an equal rotation through the suffrage of the people given by
the ballot”.
• In the Utopian Republic of Oceana popular assemblies have only limited
power: Harrington criticized the popular assembly of Athens and endorsed
instead the model of Rome.
– In fact, in Rome, unlike what happened in Greek cities, popular assemblies could not
meet on their own initiative, they could only vote on the issues that were submitted
by the president of the assembly and could not propose amendments.
• In Harrington's ideas we see a first step towards the theory of separation of
powers that will be best developed in the following century by Montesquieu.

76
 Henry St. John, first Viscount of
Bolingbroke (1678-1751)
• An english politician, leader
of the Tory party, and
political philosopher.
• A supporter of the Old
Pretender, James II Stuart,
against George I, of the
House of Hanover.
• At the right: A.S. Belle,
Henry St John, 1st Viscount
Bolingbroke (1712), London,
National Portrait Gallery.
77
 The mixed constitution in
Bolingbroke’s view
• In his Dissertation upon parties (1734) Bolingbroke endorsed a
“mixture of monarchical, aristocratical and democratical
power, blended together in one system, and by these three
estates balancing one another”.
• At the same time Bolingbroke criticized the Roman
constitution for lacking a strong monarchical element that
could moderate the social struggle.
• In fact, in the view of Bolingbroke, Roman political life during
the Republic was characterized by a long-running social
conflict between the Patricians and the Plebeians, which was
the cause of the weakness of the Republic.
78
 Montesquieu (1689-1755)
• After Machiavelli, another
fundamental figure for
understanding the legacy of
Roman political institutions in
the modern world is the
French philosopher
Montesquieu.
• At right, by an anonymus
french painter, Portrait of
Charles-Louis de Secondat,
baron de La Brède et de
Montesquieu.
79
 Montesquieu: Considérations
• Following Machiavelli, even in Montesquieu Roman History appears
to be a key to understanding the present.
• The great philosopher of politics dedicates a brief work to Roman
history: Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur de Romains et
de leur décadence, Lausanne 1734 (“Considerations on the causes of
the greatness of Romans and their decadence”).
• Already in this work Montesquieu sees in the republican institutions,
in their balance, the true foundation of the greatness of Rome: “The
government of Rome was admirable for the fact that since his birth
his constitution was such, for the spirit of the people, the power of
the senate or the authority of certain magistrates, that any abuse of
power could always be punished”.

80
 Montesquieu: L’Esprit des Lois
• Montesquieu dwells on the Roman past even in his most famous work,
L'Esprit des Lois (1748) (“The Spirit of the Laws”).
• Montesquieu points out the contrast between the free Roman Republic
and the despotic Roman Empire, in which a tyrant uses the grant of
Roman citizenship (now lacking real powers) to win the masses.
• However, the philosopher had to deal with the age of the Antonine
dynasty in the 2nd century AD, undoubtedly an era of peace and
prosperity for the Roman world: he solve the problem with some
boldness, pointing out that it was an Empire of philosophers, not of
tyrants.
• Although the solution found by Montesquieu may seem naive, he points
to a problem with which the following historians of Rome, of a liberal and
democratic tendency, will have to face: the Empire as an autocratic
regime, which nevertheless in fact often succeeded in securing the
welfare of their subjects.

81
 Montesquieu and the mixed
constitution model
• In L’Esprit de Lois Montesquieu clearly recognized the value of
three forms of constitution: monarchy, aristocracy and
democracy.
• He pointed out mainly that a mixed constitution imposes a
moderation to all social groups: in a mixed constitution ambition
of the singles too can be directed to ensure the prosperity of the
state.
• But, following Machiavelli, Montesquieu regarded Roman
imperialism as the chief cause of the fall of the Republic.
– A theory that will be resumed by the thinkers of the American
Revolution, as James Madison: “the liberties of Rome proved the final
victim of her military triumphs”.
82
 Montesquieu: the theory of
separation of powers
• Corresponding to division in three institutional principles of Polybius’
mixed constitution, embodied by the magistrates, the Senate, and
the Popular Assemblies, each with their powers, Montesquieu
detects another threefold division, between powers.
• According to Montesquieu the ruling powers of a state are the
executive, the legislative, and the judicial power.
• These three powers should be separate from each other, but at the
same time dependent upon each other, so that the influence of any
one power would not be able to exceed that of the other two.
• This theory of separation of powers (actually Montesquieu had
spoken of “distribution of powers”) is one of the ideas that have
exerted the strongest influence on many modern constitutions.

83
 The Classical example and the American
and French Revolutions
• As Hannah Arendt, the great
german-american scholar of
political theory, observed in
her essay On Revolution in
1963:
• “Without the classical
example … none of the men
of the revolutions on either
side of Atlantic would have
possessed the courage from
what then turned out to be
unprecedent action”.

84
The classical model and the Founders of
the United States of America
• In general, the Founding Fathers of the United States regarded the
classical tradition as granting useful historical precedents on
political theories.
– The historian R.B. Morris identified as the Founding Fathers seven key
figures creating the United States of America: John Adams, Benjamin
Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James
Madison, and George Washington.
• In detail, classical antiquity and above all republican Rome, could
provide a set of political models of concrete inspiration for the
government of the new nation.
• This importance of the classic model was particularly clear to one
of the Founding Fathers, a key figure for our lecture: John Adams.
85
 John Adams (1735-1826)
• A lawyer, diplomat, statesman, political
theorist, and a leader of the movement
for American independence.
• A delegate from Massachusetts to the
second Continental Congress of 1776,
where he played a leading role in
persuading Congress to declare
independence.
• Assisted Thomas Jefferson in drafting the
Declaration of Independence.
• He was the principal author of the
Constitution of Massachussets in 1780,
that served as a model for the
Constitution of USA of 1787.
• At right: B. Blyth, John Adams in 1766.

86
 John Adams (1735-1826)
• He was vice-president during the
two terms of George Washington
(1789-1797) then he became the
second president of the USA
(1797-1801).
• Among his many literary works,
important for our purpose
especially Defence of the
Constitutions of the United States
of America, published in 1787,
but to which Adams had started
to work long before.
• At right: G. Stuart, John Adams
(1815), Washington, National
Gallery of Art.

87
John Adams: the republics of the
classical world as a model
• Im 1765 Adams observed: “The knowledge of the principles and
construction of free governments … have remained at full stands
for two or three thousand years”.
• And so we have to turn our attention “to the ancients seats of
Liberty, the Republics of Greece and Rome”.
• In 1782, in a letter to Lafayette, Adams specified (perhaps in reply
to his political opponents, accusing him of sympathizing for the
monarchy); “I am a Republican on principle … Almost every thing
that is estimable in civic life has originated under such
governments. Two republican powers, Athens and Rome, have
done more honor to our species than the rest of it. A new country
can be planted only by such a government”.
88
The classical model as a pragmatical
model to solve the problems of the
new Republic
• The pragmatical model of the ancient world for the two crucial
problems facing the Founding Fathers:
– Balancing powers within the federal government.
– Defining the relationship between the national government and that of the
singles states that composes the Union.
• In fact the only useful precedents to solve these two problems were
from Antiquity, so the Founding Fathers were in a way compelled to
study Greece and Rome, in order to understand their success and their
failure.
• In this study of classical models, next to John Adams, stands out the
figure of James Madison.
89
 James Madison (1751-1836)
• A landowner (and owner of slaves)
from Virginia, delegate from his
state to the Continental Congress
and the Constituional Congress.
• He collaborated with Alexander
Hamilton and John Jay in writing
the Federalist Papers, an important
treatise in support of the
Constitution.
• Secretary of the State of president
Thomas Jefferson in 1801-1809, he
succedeed Jefferson as the fourth
president of the USA in 1809-1817.
• At right, J. Vanderlyn, James
Madison (1816), Washington,
White House Collections.
90
 Madison, the Federalist Papers,
and classical Antiquity
• As the delegate of Georgia at the Constitutional Convention, William
Peirce, observed, Madison was the Convention antiquarian: he “ran
through the whole Scheme of the Government – pointed out the
beauties and defets of the ancient Republics, compared their situation to
ours wherever it appeared to bear any analogy”.
• Noteworthy is the collective nickname that Hamilton, Jay and Madison
chose to sign the 85 newspapers articles that made up the Federalist
Papers (collected and published in a single volume): the typical Roman
name of Publius.
• No less significant is the fact that an opponent of the ideas of Madison,
Jay and Hamilton (whose identity is still debated) published letters in
which he expounded his ideas under the pseudonym of Brutus, named
after Caesar's killer, Marcus Junius Brutus.

91
 The Roman government model
as a negative model
• Not always the Roman government model was assumed
by the Founding Fathers as a positive reference.
• The strict control exercised by Rome over its provinces
was felt as a precedent of the tyrannical government
exercised by the English Crown on American colonies.
• A more positive model was represented by the example
of the Greek colonies, which had greater autonomy in
front of their metropoleis (“mother-cities”).

92
 George Mason and the negative model
of Roman provincial administration
• In 1778 George Mason (1725-1792) (another delegate
from Virginia in the Constitutional Convention)
defends the decision of American colonists to take up
arms against Great Britain remembering:
– “The truth is that we have been forced into it, as the only
means of self-preservation, to guard our Country and
posterity from the greatest of all Evils, such another
infernal government (if it deserves the name of
government) as the provinces groaned under, in the latter
ages of the Roman Commonwealth”.

93
 The criticism of George Mason
and the concept of province
• In this regard, a scholar of Ancient History may contest a
certain confusion by Mason (and other Founding Fathers)
between the concepts of province and of colony and in the
comparison between greek and roman colonies.
• A province was a large territory that had come under the rule
of Rome by conquest, and in fact was subject to strict control
by Rome.
• Significant is the fact that Rome sent a governor, a magistrate
of the Republic, to administer justice, maintain the internal
order and defend the province's boundaries: an example may
be the province of Gallia Narbonensis in southern France.
94
 The criticism of George Mason
and the concept of colony
• A Roman colony was a city-state, therefore with a much smaller
territory than a province; a Roman colony was part of the
Roman state, but has a large internal autonomy: for example the
colonists elected their local magistrates.
• A citizen of a Roman colony enjoyed the same rights and duties
as citizens who lived in Rome.
• Colonies could also be found within a province: for example, the
Roman colony of Narbo Martius, founded in 115 BC, within the
province of Gaul Narbonensis.
– In this case, the colony formed a kind of "privileged island" within the
limits of the province, where the powers of the governor were limited.

95
The Province of Gallia Narbonensis and
the colony of Narbo Martius

96
A testimony of the local autonomy of Narbo
Martius: the inscription Corpus Inscriptionum
Latinarum XII, 4338 (around 40 BC)

97
A testimony of the local autonomy of Narbo
Martius: the inscription Corpus Inscriptionum
Latinarum XII, 4338

• Q(uintus) Vibius Q(uinti) f(ilius) • Quintus Vibius Maximus, son of

Maxumus, M(arcus) Varius L(uci) Quintus, and Marcus Varius
f(ilius) / Capito, pr(aetores) Capito, son of Lucius, praetors
IIvir(i), aram Volcano duovirs [of Narbo Martius] have
maceriaq(ue) / aream cared for the construction of an
saepiendam piscinamque, ex altar to the god Vulcanus, with
d(ecreto) d(ecurionum), / de its enclosure and a pool, by
pecunia publica, facie(n)da decree of the municipal council,
coer(averunt). / Q(uintus) Vibius at public treasury expenses.
Q(uinti) f(ilius) Maxumus Quintus Vibius Maximus, son of
probavit. Quintus, has tested [the work].
98
 The criticism of George Mason
and the concept of colony
• The Greek colonies had a very different character:
– Although they retained cultural and religious ties with their mother-city, from which the
settlers came from the new city, the Greek colony was a completely independent state.
• In fact, there are cases in the Greek history of wars between a colony and its
metropolis, such as the colony of Corcyra and its mother-city Corinth in the 5th
c. BC.
• Even with regard to this topic John Adams seems to have had a clearer and
better idea of the Roman model: “The Senate and the People of Rome did not
interfere in making laws for their colonies, but left them to be ruled by their
governors and senates”.
• The confusion that we can reproach Mason is, however, in a certain way
understandable: what in modern history was a "colony" of the English crown,
for example the colony of Virginia, in Roman times would have been defined
rather a province.

99
 The model of the mixed
constitution
• We have seen in previous slides how the political experience
of the ancient world was felt as a current and lively model by
the generation of the Founding Fathers.
• A particularly strong exemplary value has the theory of mixed
constitution presented by Polybius, which we have examined
in the first part of this unit.
• It is worth pointing out that the generation of Founding
Fathers knew Polybius’ theories above all through the
intermediation of Machiavelli and Montesquieu.
– In fact Montesquieu was the most frequently quoted authority by
the Founding Fathers, except for the Bible.

100
 The Founding Fathers and
Polybius
• It is not surprising that the most fervent supporter of polybian
ideas was John Adams.
• In his Defence of the Constitution of the United States, Adams
wrote that among the “opinions and reasonings of philosophers,
politicians, and historians, who have taken the most extensive
views of men and societies, whose characters are deservedly
revered, and whose writings were in the contemplation of those
framed the American constitution, it will be no contested that all
this characters are united in Polybius”.
• But even a very cautious supporter of the mixed consititution, as
Thomas Jefferson, was an enthusiastic reader of the Histories of the
greek historian.
101
 Adams: the improvement of Polybius’
model of mixed constitution
• Adams believed that Polybius’ model of mixed constitution
might be further refined: “The constitutions of several of the
United States, it is hoped, will prove themselves
improvements both upon the Roman, the Spartan and the
English Commonwealth”.
– In creating a stronger executive power, that could mediate between
the popular assemblies and the Senate.
– In avoiding the excesses of militarism of Sparta and Rome.
– But above all “a Balance, with all his difficulty, must be preserved, or
liberty is lost forever” as Adams says in his Discourses on Davila
(1790), a commentary on the history of civil wars in France by the
italian historian Enrico Davila.
102
 The “democratic opposition” to
the model of mixed constitution
• Not all the members of the generation of the Founding Fathers were
convinced of the opportunity to adopt the model of the mixed constitution.
• Some suspected that Adams and his supporters, in praising a constitution
that included the three institutional principles, actually wanted to establish
an aristocratic or even monarchical regime.
• The Polybius’ model therefore appeared to some politician as essentially
antidemocratic, since it assumed the existence of inequality among men (the
nobility, the common people).
• Some doubts were raised by James Wilson at the convention of the state of
Pennsylvania for the ratification of the constitution: the mixed constitution
model would be “an improper government for the United States … because it
is suited to an establishment of different orders of men”.

103
 The debate on the mixed constitution in
the conflict of the parties
• In the early years of the USA, the issue of mixed constitution became
one of the factors of conflict between the two parties of the first Party
System of America.
• The Federalist Party, led by Adams and Alexander Hamilton (the first
Secretary of the Treasure).
• The Republican Party, led by Jefferson and Madison.
• A rather misleading names:
– The Federalist Party called for a strong central government, promoting
economic growth and friendship with Great Britain, against revolutionary
France.
– The Republican Party (sometimes named Democratic-Republican Party, or
Jeffersonian Republicans) opposed the centralizing financial politics of Hamilton
and denounced the Federalists' alleged sympathy for the monarchy; In foreign
policy they were closer to the French Republic than to the British Monarchy.
104
Republican criticism of the model
of the mixed constitution
• Jefferson quickly became aware of the danger of
supporting a constitutional form in which aristocratic and
monarchical principles were also present.
• In 1816 he could write that the Roman republic never
knew “one single day of free and rational government”
and that “the introduction of new principle of
representative democracy has rendered useless almost
anything written before on the structure of government”.
• Madison himself disclaimed his openings to the model of
the roman mixed constitution in the Federalist Papers.
105
 The new problems posed by a
representative democracy
• The main institutional organs of the Republic of the USA correspond
to the principles of the Roman mixed constitution and to the organs
of the republic of Rome, with one important difference:
– The monarchical principle is embodied in the USA by a strong presidency,
such as the consulate in Rome.
– The aristocratic principle is embodied in the USA by the Senate, as in Rome.
– The democratic principle in the US is instead embodied by an organ of
representative democracy, the House of Representatives, not by organs of
direct democracy, like the popular assemblies of Rome.
• The impossibility of applying forms of direct democracy in a state that
extends over thousands of kilometers and which counts millions of
citizens: a difficulty that even Rome had to face at the time of its
expansion.
106
 Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

• A landowner from Virginia,

delegate of his state at the
Continental Congress of
Philadelphia.
• The principal author of the
Declaration of Independence.
• Vice President, serving under
John Adams (1797-1801).
• Third President of USA (1801-
1809).
• A man with many interests,
including classical architecture.
107
Monticello, Jefferson's neoclassical
residence, designed by himself

108
 The shifting of the debate
• The federalist party's crisis, following Adam’s defeat in the presidential
election for 1801, and the affirmation of a tendency to radical democracy
(represented by Andrew Jackson, seventh US president and founder of
the Democratic Party) made every discussion of a constitution that
included monarchical and aristocratic aspects unpopular.
• The debate shifted to the problem of the separation of the three powers,
according to the vision outlined by Montesquieu, but also reflecting the
thought of classical authors, above all Aristotle.
• Indeed, we have already mentioned that the theory of the separation of
powers is essentially a conquest of modern thought, thanks to
Montesquieu.
• But on a closer inspection some anticipation of the theory can be found
in the thought of the great Greek philosopher.
109
 Aristotle, Politics, 1297 b – 1298
a: the three powers
• All forms of constitution then have three factors in reference
to which the good lawgiver has to consider what is expedient
for each constitution; and if these factors are well-ordered
the constitution must of necessity be well-ordered, and the
superiority of one constitution over another necessarily
consists in the superiority of each of these factors. Of these
three factors one is, what is to be the body that deliberates
about the common interests, second the one connected with
the magistracies, that is, what there are to be and what
matters they are to control, and what is to be the method of
their election, and a third is, what is to be the judiciary.
110
 Suggested Readings
• The key readings for Unit 2:
– A. Lintott, The Theory of the Mixed Constitution at Rome, «Philosophia Togata, II,
Plato and Aristotle at Rome», a cura di J. Barnes – M. Griffin, Oxford 1997, pp. 70-85
[website].
– D.J. Bederman, The Classical Foundations of the American Constitution. Prevailing
Wisdom, Cambridge 2008 [Ancient History TRAD. ANT. 189; partic. chap. 2, pp. 50-94:
Classical political models and the Founders, [website].
• Other suggested readings:
– C.-A. Biondi, Aristotle on the mixed constitution and its relevance for American
political thought, «Freedom, reason, and the polis. Essays in ancient Greek political
philosophy», D. Keyt – F.D. Miller (edd.), Cambridge – New York 2007, pp. 176-198
[website].
– P. Desideri, Repubblica romana e libertà politica: dalla storiografia antica ai Discorsi di
Machiavelli, «Rivista Storica Italiana», 124 (2012), 1, pp. 107-142 [Library of Modern
History section, Piazza S. Giovanni in Monte].
– E. Gabba, L'eredità classica nel pensiero di John Adams, «Rivista Storica Italiana», 108
(1996), pp. 872-896 [Library of Modern History section], reedited in E. Gabba,
Riflessioni storiografiche sul mondo antico, Como 2007, pp. 141-161 [website].111
 Other suggested readings

• E. Garin, Polibio e Machiavelli, «Quaderni di Storia», 16 (1990), 31, pp.

5-22 [Ancient History 4th floor].
• M.-R. Guelfucci, Polybe et Montesquieu: aspects d'une réflexion sur le
pouvoir, «Anabases», 4 (2006), pp. 129-139 [website]
• D.C. Hammer, Roman political thought and the modern theoretical
imagination, Norman 2008 [on Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Arendt]
[website].
• M.H. Hansen, The mixed constitution versus the separation of powers:
monarchical and aristocratic aspects of modern democracy, «History of
Political Thought», 31 (2010), 3, pp. 509-531 [website].
• R.T. Ridley, Machiavelli and Roman history in the Discourses, «Quaderni
di Storia», 9 (1983), 18, pp. 197-219 [Ancient History 4th floor].

112
 Other suggested readings
• C.J. Richard, The Founders and the Classics. Greece, Rome, and
American Enlightenment, Cambridge (Mass.) – London 1994
[Ancient History TRAD ANT 84]
• U. Roberto, Roma e la libertà degli antichi nella riflessione di
Montesquieu, «Mediterraneo Antico», 5 (2002), 1, pp. 101-116
[Ancient History 4th floor].
• M.N.S Sellers, The Roman Republic and the French and American
Revolution, «The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic»,
ed. by H.I. Flower, Cambridge 2004, pp. 374-364 [website].
• N. Wood, Sallust's theorem: a comment on «fear» in western
political thought, «History of Political Thought», 16 (1995), 2, pp.
174-189 [website].
113