59 lines
3.6 KiB
Org Mode
59 lines
3.6 KiB
Org Mode
* 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
|