Constitution of the Roman Republic

Rome never had a written constitution, and it never was a democracy in the sense of modern democracies. Rather than a single text, Rome’s constitution was a living and nimble set of legal and political norms.

The Roman constitution accommodated changing circumstances with new ideas and arguments (Cicero, De imperio Pompei 60). For this reason, the Roman constitution was inescapably controversial, intrinsically political, and always opens to testing in public debate. Romans were proud of the super­iority of their constitution because of its stability, balanced structure, clear assignment of functions, and solid discipline (Cicero, De re publica 1.70). The great Greek historian Polybius (1.1.5) associated Roman military success with the perfection and greatness of Rome’s constitution, which enabled Rome to bring almost the whole of the Mediterranean world under its dominion within a mere fifty-three years.

Polybius and Cicero understood the Republican constitution as a mixed constitution. It combined elements of aristocracy (the Senate) with democ­racy (the people) and monarchy (the consuls). According to Cicero (De re publica 1.69), such a constitution has an extensive component of equality; it provides harmony and stability, and it prevents corruption.

Populus Romanus

The English word “people” derives from the Latin word populus and conveys much of the original Latin meaning. Populus Romanus was the organized community of all Roman citizens, including both patricians and plebeians (but originally only patricians, who formed a class of privileged citizens). Between the small number of noble families (patricii) and the mass of the Roman people (plebs) was an enormous social gulf: marriages between patricians and plebeians were prohibited until 445 bce, when they were allowed by a lex Canuleia. The plebeians were also excluded from the magistracies for centuries and from some priesthoods at all times. An important, although not final, result of the long struggle between patricians and plebeians was the enactment of the lex Hortensia (287 bce), which made all resolutions passed by plebeians (plebiscita) binding on all citizens, including patricians. Over time, legal differences between the classes were mitigated through legislation.

The Romans did not elaborate a theory of the populus. As a supreme political organ of the Republic, the people legitimized with their decisions the most salient political processes (electoral, legislative, judicial, and so on). That was their political function; nothing more and nothing less. The idea of a nation-state is a modern abstraction quite contrary to the Roman spirit. For according to the Romans, power was always personal - not impersonal, as we think of it (cf.

Politically, the populus was invested with maiestas (majesty), probably the most fundamental principle of the Roman Republic. Maiestas was an original concept, with no equivalent word in Greek. Neither is it equivalent to the modern idea of sovereignty, since sovereignty presupposes the nation-state. Maiestas was inclusive, uniting people; sovereignty, on the contrary, is exclusive, uniting particular territories and therefore excluding others.

Maiestas comes from maior (greater) and expresses the idea of the super­iority and greatness of the Roman people. In virtue of its superiority, Rome demanded respect and submission from other peoples, although this requirement did not imply a rejection of others’ liberty. Indeed, liberty of other peoples was considered a necessary condition of Roman maiestas. The Romans’ talent for bringing “the whole world under their sway” while pre­serving liberty lay, according to Polybius (6.50.6; 6.5.9), in the greatness of the republican constitution. The transference of majesty from the populus to the emperor began with Augustus (see Horace, Epistulae. 2.1.258), and it was completed by the beginning of the Later Empire, at the end of the third century. consequently, as the emperor’s majesty grew, republican structure declined.

Res publica refers to the affairs and the property of the Roman people. Attribution of property to the populus did not imply common ownership, however. Res publica was not a technical description of the political commu­nity as such. Res publica meant “republic” in the modern sense only when writers used the expression in opposition to the power and authority of the emperor.