Ancus reigned twenty-four years, unsurpassed by any of his predecessors in ability and reputation, both in the field and at home. His sons had now almost reached manhood. Tarquin was all the more anxious for the election of the new king to be held as soon as possible. At the time fixed for it he sent the boys out of the way on a hunting expedition. He is said to have been the first who canvassed for the crown and delivered a set speech to secure the interest of the plebs. In it he asserted that he was not making an unheard-of request, he was not the first foreigner who aspired to the Roman throne; were this so, any one might feel surprise and indignation. But he was the third. Tatius was not only a foreigner, but was made king after he had been their enemy; Numa, an entire stranger to the City, had been called to the throne without any seeking it on his part. As to himself, as soon as he was his own master, he had removed to Rome with his wife and his whole fortune; he had lived at Rome for a larger part of the period during which men discharge the functions of citizenship than he had passed in his old country; he had learnt the laws of Rome, the ceremonial rites of Rome, both civil and military, under Ancus himself, a very sufficient teacher; he had been second to none in duty and service towards the king; he had not yielded to the king himself in generous treatment of others. Whilst he was stating these facts, which were certainly true, the Roman people with enthusiastic unanimity elected him king. Though in all other respects an excellent man, his ambition, which impelled him to seek the crown, followed him on to the throne.--Liviy, 1.35.
It is rarely remarked that the two greatest empires the Mediterranean basin has seen -- the Roman and the Caliphate -- originate in a succession of (nearly) unanimously elected kings. And while the the "Rightly Guided Caliphs" had some tribal connections to each other, the Roman version is more astounding in that the Romans are presented as willing to elect foreigners (Numa) and immigrants (Tarquin). The last king, Lucius Tarquinus (the proud), not to be confused with the Tarquin (his grandfather or father) mentioned in the quote above, is together with Romulus, the only king who was not elected; he was a murderous usurper.*
In fact, ethnic or tribal mixing and the welcome to asylum seekers is a key characteristic in the presentation and self-understanding of the early history (and pre-history) of Rome. This mixing is, in fact, in addition to elected kingship, one of the key social constants throughout the initial period of kingship, which saw the development of various state religious cults, social hierarchy (including institution of census), the increasing prevalence of slavery, land distribution, new political alliances, etc.
That this openness to foreigners is a new form of nationhood is, in fact, thematized in the reported of Tarquin's stump-speech. Tarquin is clearly addressing concerns about his provenance and citizenship. Even in Rome, we might say, Tarquin risks looking like a carpetbagger. And he offers us an interpretation of citizenship in which what one does (and has) is more important than where one originates. We might call this an activist conception of citizenship: bringing in wealth, obeying and knowing the laws, participating in religious and military life, loyalty to the royal house, and liberality are clearly marks of such active citizenship. This clearly anticipates the conception of citizenship in which the republic develops into a multinational empire.
At the death of Servius Tullius, Livy makes an explicit point of remarking that elective kingship, which is just and legitimate, and can be glorious, came to an end: [ceterum id quoque ad gloriam accessit quod cum illo simul iusta ac legitima regna occiderunt.]+ I think it is pretty clear that for Livy the legitimacy resides in the popular acclaim/consent.** It is not obvious that this is so; legitimacy can also reside in religious sanction or in the (good) effectiveness of the rule. But I think from context it's clear Livy thinks the legitimacy is ground in the people's acclaim.
At the start of book 2, once the republic is founded, Livy re-starts his narrative with the claim that he is embarking on "The new liberty enjoyed by the Roman people, their achievements in peace and war, annual magistracies, and laws superior in authority to men will henceforth be my theme." (LIBERI iam hinc populi Romani res pace belloque gestas, annuos magistratus, imperiaque legum potentiora quam hominum peragam.) And while the people still elect their rulers (for short terms) a striking claim is that their new freedom consists in part in being subject to the rule of law than subject to men. Part of the point is that on their conception of freedom, too, the early Romans are innovative. This abstract feature that the roman people enjoy (and will lose) is the great theme of the book. Livy notes later down the page, that limiting the duration of consular rule is a necessary condition on the birth of freedom. Laws and rules increase in significance once rulership rotates regularly (they help smooth out, we might say, individual arbitrariness) and, thereby, create stable expectations.
So, we can sum up: elected kingship and republican rule are both legitimate. I think, thus, it a mistake to over-emphasize the contrast between the two. Their legitimacy is ground in the consent of the people. (Yes, I am skipping over complication related to the franchise.) And while undoubtedly place of birth is crucial element of membership among the people which are intrinsically hybrid, this is complemented with a conception of active citizenship for worthy foreign born. But while elections are necessary conditions for freedom; they are not sufficient.
And while I do not deny that Livy eventually develops a conception of freedom in terms of a contrast to slavery (and analyzed by republicans today in terms of independence or non-domination), the initial, new freedom of the Romans is conceived, even celebrated, in terms of submission to the law, even rule of law.++ This is so even if one grants that Livy is anachronistically projecting backwards (and I, in turn, etc.) in order to say something to his contemporaries.
*Servius did not win power through election, but his kingship was ratified, eventually, by unanimous consent (tantoque consensu quanto haud quisquam alius ante rex est declaratus).
+This leaves the status of Romulus ambiguous!
**
Comments