Added PARA folder structure

6_areas/books/SPQR_ A History of Ancient Rome - Mary Beard.org

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+* SPQR_ A History of Ancient Rome - Mary Beard
+:PROPERTIES:
+:NOTER_DOCUMENT: ../../../library/books/Mary Beard/SPQR_ A History of Ancient Rome (13617)/SPQR_ A History of Ancient Rome - Mary Beard.epub
+:END:
+** A republic combines the best of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy
+:PROPERTIES:
+:NOTER_PAGE: (13 . 37326)
+:END:
+#+BEGIN_QUOTE
+At the heart of Polybius’ argument, however, lay bigger questions. How could you characterise
+the Roman political system as a whole? How did it work? There was never a written Roman
+constitution, but Polybius saw in Rome a perfect example in practice of an old Greek
+philosophical ideal: the ‘mixed constitution’, which combined the best aspects of monarchy,
+aristocracy and democracy. The consuls – who had full military command, could summon
+assemblies of the people and could give orders to all other officials (except the plebeian tribunes)
+– represented the monarchical element. The senate, which by this date had charge of Rome’s
+finances, responsibility for delegations to and from other cities and de facto oversight of law and
+security throughout Roman and allied territory, represented the aristocratic element. The people
+represented the democratic element. This was not democracy or ‘the people’ in the modern
+sense: there was no such thing as universal suffrage in the ancient world – women and slaves
+never had formal political rights anywhere. Polybius meant the group of male citizens as a
+whole. As in classical Athens, they – and they alone – elected the state officials, passed or
+rejected laws, made the final decision on going to war and acted as a judicial court for major
+offences.
+#+END_QUOTE
+** Notes for page (13 . 46009)
+:PROPERTIES:
+:NOTER_PAGE: (13 . 46009)
+:END:
+#+BEGIN_QUOTE
+So what kind of political system was this? The balance between the different interests was
+certainly not as equitable as Polybius makes it seem. The poor could never rise to the top of
+Roman politics; the common people could never seize the political initiative; and it was
+axiomatic that the richer an individual citizen was, the more political weight he should have.
+But this form of disequilibrium is familiar in many modern so-called democracies: at Rome too
+the wealthy and privileged competed for political office and political power that could only be
+granted by popular election and by the favour of ordinary people who would never have the
+financial means to stand themselves. As young Scipio Nasica found to his cost, the success of the
+rich was a gift bestowed by the poor. The rich had to learn the lesson that they depended on the
+people as a whole.
+
+#+END_QUOTE
+** Notes for page (14 . 33835)
+:PROPERTIES:
+:NOTER_PAGE: (14 . 33835)
+:END:
+#+BEGIN_QUOTE
+The clash in 133 BCE revealed dramatically different views of the power of the people. When
+Tiberius persuaded them to vote out of  office the tribune who opposed him, his argument went
+along the lines of ‘if the people’s tribune no longer does what the people want, then he should be
+deposed’. That raised an issue still familiar in modern electoral systems. Are Members of
+Parliament, for example, to be seen as delegates of the voters, bound to follow the will of their
+electorate? Or are they representatives, elected to exercise their own judgement in the changing
+circumstances of government? This was the first time, so far as we know, that this question had
+been explicitly raised in Rome, and it was no more easily answered then than it is now. For
+some, Tiberius’ actions vindicated the rights of the people; for others they undermined the rights
+of a properly elected official.
+#+END_QUOTE