A Reconsideration on the Character of the Canuleian legislations

Abstract

In 445 BC, the plebeian tribune Canuleius carried a bill abolishing the eleventh Table prohibiting intermarriage (conubium) between the patricians and the plebeians. With his fellow tribunes, he also proposed another bill that the plebeians should be elected for one of the two annually elected consuls. To prevent the plebeians from obtaining the consulship, the patricians reached an agreement with the plebeian tribunes to create a new magistrate called the consular tribune, which was to be composed of several persons from the plebeians as well as the patricians. The lift of the ban on intermarriage and the establishment of the consular tribunate have been long regarded as a plebeian victory in the history of ‘the Struggle of the Orders’ in the early Roman Republic. It is because the former seemed to bring about a kind of formal equality before the law by breaking down the social exclusiveness of the patricians, and the latter seemed to give the plebeians a share in the administration of the state by opening the political door. Nevertheless, such a view in terms of ‘a plebeian victory’ against the patricians should be reserved for a while. It is because the ostensible purposes and results of the Canuleian bills are not in accord. Not a single case of intermarriage between the patricians and the plebeians was found, until after nearly 80 years had passed since the ban on intermarriage had been lifted. Also even though the patricians and the plebeians agreed to create the consular tribunate, its employment and memberships were not fixed. Moreover, regardless the fact that the plebeians were allowed to be elected, most of the chosen consular tribunes were the patricians. Some modern scholars regard the disagreement between the purposes and results of the Canuleian legislations as a evidence to refuse the credibility of the ancient sources. But this approach is too easy and simple. What such a disagreement means should be discussed. For this, it is necessary to reconsider the Canuleian legislations. Firstly, the legislation lifting the ban on conubium seemed to have a legal force binding the whole population not in the beginning but around the period when the patrician magistracies and priesthoods were open to the plebeians. Secondly, the new magistracy, though created, was alternated with the old existing consulship before 408 BC and at most times six consular tribunes were annually elected from 405 to 367 BC. However, the number of the plebeians who were elected as a consular tribune was very few. Disagreement between the purpose and results of the Canuleian legislations could be understood as follows. Firstly, the hard-line and purist patricians may have oppressed the plebeian movement violently as soon as it requested a share with the patricians in matters of legislation or religious and political life by breaking down the social and political exclusiveness of the patricians. In other words, the patricians probably would have tried and succeeded in preventing the plebeians from being elected as a consular tribune and refrained from giving a legal force to the Canuleian legislation on the intermarriage. Secondly. the plebeian movement itself may have lost its identity as a voluntary and conscious political group as the plebeian leaders including the plebeian tribunes sought to be allowed into the existing system ruled by the patricians. In other words, the normal plebeians probably would not have hailed the Canuleian bills as it was only in accord with the needs of its leaders. This also explains why the legislation lifting the ban on the intermarriage lacked legal power and only very few plebeians were elected as the consular tribunes. In conclusion, the Canuleian legislations could be regarded as a plebeian victory in pronouncing the equality, though formal, before the law. It also reveals the crisis of the plebeian movement in that it not only caused the patrician violent resistance but defamed its identity of its own accord. This was because they attacked the social and political monopoly of the patricians and requested that the wealthy plebeian leaders to be admitted into the existing system ruled by the patricians. This crisis would have showed the future plebeian movements the way to go. In other words, it gives a historical lesson that outcome of plebeian movements depends on the cooperation between the wealthy plebeian leaders and the normal plebeians. What is important in the plebeian movements is the real understanding and close cooperation between them rather than segregating themselves into ‘the wealthy and noble plebeians’ and ‘the masses’. It is not a coincidence that Licinius and Sextius the plebeian tribunes of 367 BC struggled to insist on passing the legislation on the revival of the dual consulate and the legislations of the public land and debt together in the assembly. It is likely that they tried and succeeded in linking the interests of the masses with those of their own small class, because they recognized the problems of the Canuleian legislations as a plebeian movement well.