Comitia

At the present time the contio - a type of political meeting in ancient Rome - attracts close attention of scholars. It is difficult but important to determine exactly which meetings were considered as contiones. Possible solution to this problem is a key part in understanding the specificity and role of contiones. Fortunately we have a few direct contiones' definitions offered by ancient authors (Marcus Valerius Messalla Rufus, Verrius Flaccus, Sextus Pompeius Festus and others). Through the study of these definitions the paper attempts to ascertain criteria for the identification a meeting as a contio. The aim of the research is to find universal essential features, i.e. those which described not some, but any contio: its audience, convener and general purpose. Therefore attention is paid to the criteria which are the least strict, noted in most definitions, and do not contradict the descriptions of particular contiones. It is concluded that definitions found in the Roman sources provide important information which is, however, insufficient for understanding what meetings were considered by the Romans as contiones. A strategy of subsequent study of the issue is also suggested.

During the last decades scholars have criticized severely the traditional view that Roman nobility exercised its control over comitia through their obedient clients, and that the political system of the Roman republic in the 3rd-1st cc. BC was oligarchic in its essence. According to F. Millar, the most consistent critic of the traditional views, at that time Roman state system was a republican one with definite democratic traits. Its political life had its centre not at the Curia, but in the Forum, where comitia and contiones were held. Adopting laws, comitia exercised power over political life. The key figure of Roman political life was not the patron in command of obedient clients, but the orator trying to convince the crowd in the Forum. This crowd, representing «the Roman people», was the only sovereign ruler of the Roman state, and in some respect an efficient government body. Power and influence of this crowd were especially strong in the last decades of the Republic, but at that very time it began to lose its connection with the majority of the people and to express the interests of city mob or to serve as an instrument in the hands of influential politicians. Thus, popular politics degenerated into crowd politics, and republic was succeeded by monarchy. In the author's opinion, F. Millar's conception is not free from contradictions. E.g. he seems to underestimate political influence of the aristocracy and the role of the senate in state government. Still, his ideas are more in line with modern view of Roman history, and its very existence helps to overcome the obsolete concepts.

This paper aims to examine Richard Bauman’s interpretation of the suspension of the Roman consul L. Cornelius Cinna from magisterial duties in 87 BC. According to Bauman, Cinna was deprived of his authority by the senate that declared him a public enemy (hostis publicus). There are a number of general objections against this view. The sources do not report explicitly that Cinna was declared a hostis. In Appian, Cinna complained to the soldiers (whom he tried to win over to his side) about the senate’s attempt to suspend him from the consulate but did not mention his being deprived of citizen rights, which was a key element of the hostis-Erklärung. Finally, the formal grounds were lacking for declaring Cinna an enemy since he had not yet marched on Rome when the senatorial decree was being discussed. Yet, there remains some scope for understanding the episode as a case of the hostis-Erklärung. In his 1966 and 1968 articles, Bauman points out that Cinna’s virtual disfranchisement by this act practically resulted in his loss of the magisterial status as well. However, in the 1973 paper, Bauman argues that the senate, in effect, interpreted “its own hostis declaration” whereby Cinna was deposed directly (this same assumption is thought to explain the absence in this case of the terminology usually applied in other instances of the hostis-Erklärung). At the same time, the senatorial decree is not considered by Bauman as self-sufficient because the scholar holds that it was meant to be “put to probouleutic use for the purposes of a rogatio to the people” concerning the abrogation of Cinna’s consular imperium (abrogatio imperii), even though in reality the vote in the comitia never happened. According to Bauman, “Cinna may have decided to forestall this”: he voluntarily abdicated in a meeting at the military camp where he arrived after having left Rome. He then secured a reelection at an “assembly militiae”. Bauman’s idea is that Cinna thus avoided his deposition by the decision of the comitia in Rome because the people’s “purported abrogation of the original imperium” could not apply to its “reconferred version”. In this paper, I aim to demonstrate the internal contradictions of this interpretation and to argue that there is no support for Bauman’s propositions. At the same time, I conclude that an analysis of this scholar’s views may help to come closer to a new understanding of the controversial episode of 87 BC because Bauman rightly draws attention to a rather important detail that needs to be understood and explained: whatever the assessments of the legality and legitimacy of Cinna’s suspension, his position as a consul was indeed undermined. Cinna could not ignore the senatorial decree and must take initiative if he hoped to proceed with exercising his consular powers.

The paper presents a critical analysis of L.L. Kofanov's conception of Roman jurists of the Republican period. Kofanov argues that republican jurists were most active and influential public figures, always hanging around at people's gatherings, authoritative orators, whose common opinion helped to maintain peace and accord in the civic community. The author of this paper considers such view to be one-sided and, as a whole, erroneous. In his opinion, this view finds no support in the sources and disagrees with the achievements of modern scholarship.

The article proposes a typology of Roman contiones based on the following factors: participants — military and civil; organizers' status — official and unauthorized; connection of civil contiones with comitia — precomitia and independent; issues discussed at precomitia contiones — legislative, electoral, and judicial. The author points out contiones functions, gives examples of the functions realization at each type of contiones.

Ni sanction financiere, ni exclusion de la communaute, l’aerarium facere et le tribu mouere etaient des mesures complementaires prises par les censeurs dans le cadre du regimen morum servant a classer les citoyens. Le citoyen indigne etait rejete de son rang et relegue avec les humillimi, les affranchis et les citoyens de fraiche date dont la parole etait suspecte, l’avis negligeable et les possibilites de servir la cite moindres. Pour cela, on l’inscrivait dans une tribu urbaine (tribu mouere) et une centurie defavorisee de la cinquieme classe (aerarium facere), mesures humiliantes. Les censeurs lui refusaient de la sorte le droit de participer activement a la vie civique et incitaient ses concitoyens a se mefier de lui. Ils exigeaient neanmoins qu’il continue a s’acquitter des devoirs fiscaux et militaires dus a ses capacites financieres. Jamais les censeurs ne priverent du droit de vote qui etait un element bien trop important de l’identite civique romaine.