Analogous to the transitio ad plebem is the elevation of a plebeian to the patrician rank. The Romans believed that eminent plebeians, including foreigners of distinction newly admitted to citizenship, were sometimes granted the patriciate not only through the regal period but also in the opening years of the republic. For the republican age they represented the bestowal as a double act, a resolution of the people followed by coöptation into the senate.[947] In stating that the first consuls chose the best men from the commons, made them patricians, and with them filled the senate to the number of three hundred, Dionysius[948] apparently has in mind the consuls’ function of recruiting the senate before the Ovinian legislation,[949] together with their initiative in granting the patriciate. The Roman view that the bestowal required a vote of the people is further proved by the procedure of Julius Caesar and of Octavianus in creating new patricians; for in this function they doubtless followed tradition as nearly as possible. In 45 a plebi scitum,[950] proposed by L. Cassius Longinus and supported by a senatus consultum,[951] empowered Caesar to recruit the patrician rank. Octavianus proceeded in a similar manner except that a consular law,[952] approved also by a senatus consultum,[953] was passed for the purpose. As the object was religious, we may suppose that the qualifications of the candidates were previously examined by the pontifical college. On the analogy of the transitio ad plebem it may be assumed further that the candidate abjured his plebeian rank in the calata comitia, which then confirmed his declaration by vote.[954]
But whether the Romans were right in supposing patricians to have been created in the early republic has been doubted. Mommsen[955] takes the ground that when the curiae ceased to be exclusively patrician, elevation to the rank became impossible, and that therefore no cases of the kind occurred after the fall of the kings. But in such a matter it is absurd to speak of impossibilities; everything was possible which the governing power approved, and the argument falls when its basis, the purely patrician state, has been removed.[956] The cessation was in fact due to the growing exclusiveness of the patricians, who as they came to supplant the king in the government, learned to value their privileged position so highly they were unwilling longer to share it with others. Just when the closing of their rank was effected has not been ascertained, but there is no good reason for rejecting the Roman view that for a time after the fall of the kings plebeians continued to be admitted: in reality the indications are strong for a relatively late closing.[957]
We may next inquire how patricians were created in the time of the kings. As the history of the regal period is in general a reconstruction with material drawn from later time, so in this particular case ancient writers sometimes date back to the age of the kings the usage of the republic. Dionysius[958] accordingly states that “the Romans by vote transferred Servius Tullius from the plebeian to the patrician order, just as they had previously transferred Tarquin the Elder and still earlier Numa Pompilius.” But the Romans preferred to reconstruct the process on an entirely different principle. Regarding the kings as the founders of all the fundamental institutions, the patricians looked upon their superior rank as a gift of these monarchs. The patriciate depended upon senatorial membership, which was at the disposal of the kings.[959] This view is well adapted to explain the creation of the senate; but for the period after its establishment Livy[960] adds to the adlectio of the king a coöptatio by the patres (senators). Livy’s account of the usage here given is reasonable; the king indicated his preference as to the choice of advisers, but a powerful council, such as the senate must have been, at least in the later regal period, would have the final decision on the question of admitting a new member. The conclusion is that toward the end of the monarchy, if not from the beginning, plebeians were admitted to the senate, and through it to the patriciate, by the coöperation of the king and the senate, the people having nothing to do with the matter.[961] But after the overthrow of the monarchy the vote of the people was substituted for the will of the king, coöptation by the senate continuing as before.[962]
The patriciate was acquired not only through bestowal by the state, but also through the adoption of a plebeian into a patrician family. Several cases of the kind have been ascertained.[963] The act took place before the praetor[964] and did not concern the comitia. Probably a preliminary examination by the pontiffs was necessary to adoptions as well as to arrogations.[965]
Rubino, J., Röm. Verfassung, 241-53; Mommsen, Röm. Forschungen, i. 123-7, 397-409; Röm. Chronologie, 241 ff.; Röm. Staatsrecht, ii. 33-41; iii. 38-40; Lange, L., Röm. Altertümer, i. 131-4, 177 f., 356 f., 362, 398-401, 459, 795; ii. 518, see also indices s. Adrogatio, Calatores, Detestatio sacrorum; Transitio ad plebem, in Kleine Schriften, ii. 1-90; Madvig, J. N., Verf. u. Verw. d. röm. Staates, i. 222-6; Herzog, E., Röm. Staatsverfassung, i. 108-11, 1062-4, 1075; Mispoulet, J. B., Institutions politiques des Romains, i. 202 f.; Willems, P., Droit public Rom. 53 f.; Drumann-Gröbe, Gesch. Roms, ii. 187 ff.; Wissowa, G., Religion und Kultus der Römer, 440 f.; Hallays, A., Comices à Rome, 16-9; Mercklein, D. L., Coöptation der Römer, 11-44 (of the gentes and of the senate); Helbig, W., in Comptes rendus de l’acad. des inscr. et belles-lettres, xxi (1893). 350-3; Büdinger, M., Cicero und die Patriciat, in Denkschr. d. Kaiserl. Akad. d. Wiss. Phil.-hist. Cl. xxxi (1881). 211-73; Der Patriciat und das Fehderecht in den letzten Jahrzehnten der röm. Rep., ibid. xxxvi (1888). 81-125; Baudry, F., Adrogatio, in Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. i. 83 f.; Saglio, E., Calator, ibid. i. 814; Humbert, G., ibid. i. 1375 f.; Detestatio sacrorum, ibid. ii. 113; Leonhard, Adrogatio, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. i. 419-21; Samter, Calatores, ibid. iii. 1335 f.; Kübler, Calata comitia, ibid. iii. 1330-4; Ruggiero, E., Diz. ep. ii. 1185; Smith, Dict. i. 26 f.; Nettleship, Contrib. to Lat. Lexicog. 400.
CHAPTER IX.
THE COMITIA CURIATA
The primitive European assembly, of which the Roman is a variety, may be reconstructed in broad outline by a comparison of the forms and functions of the institution as found among the earliest Italians, Greeks, Celts, Germans, Slavs, and kindred peoples, among whom it differed in detail while possessing the same general features. The usual tendency of development was toward the abridgment of popular powers to the advantage of the nobles or of the king;[966] but in some instances may be discovered a growth in the opposite direction.
Generally the assembly did not have fixed times of meeting but convened only when called by the king or chiefs. This is known to be true of the Homeric Greeks,[967] of the Slavs,[968] and of the Romans,[969] and may be regarded as the more primitive condition. In addition to extraordinary sessions the German assembly acquired the right to meet regularly twice a month at fixed times[970]—a right which gave the people a valuable political advantage. In like manner the Lacedaemonians met once a month;[971] the Athenians probably once a prytany (tenth of a year) after Cleisthenes, and certainly four times a prytany after Pericles.[972] The Celtic assemblies convened annually or triennially at fixed seasons.[973] Among all these peoples, however, subjects for consideration were presented by none but the king or chief, the assembly itself being wholly without initiative. Such subjects were as a rule previously discussed in a council of chiefs or nobles.[974] The person who summoned the assembly naturally made the first speech, which explained the purpose of the meeting and the character of the subject to be considered. If it was an enterprise in which he desired the support or coöperation of the community, he attempted to rouse for it the enthusiasm of his hearers.[975] The discussion might then be continued by the chiefs or any others distinguished for age, military prowess, or eloquence.[976] Among the Germans, who possessed more than the average degree of liberty, any one spoke who could gain a hearing; in the Homeric assembly a commoner who dared lift up his voice against king or noble was liable to severe chastisement as a disorderly person;[977] and conditions at Rome, as well as in Etruria,[978] seem to have been equally unfavorable to the ordinary freeman.