Debt Democracy: on Debt, Representation, and freedom (via Livy)

But a war with the Volscians was imminent, and the State was torn with internal dissensions; the patricians and the plebeians were bitterly hostile to one another, [2] owing mainly to the desperate condition of the debtors. They loudly complained that whilst fighting in the field for liberty and empire they were oppressed and enslaved by their fellow-citizens at home; their freedom was more secure in war than in peace, safer amongst the enemy than amongst their own people. The discontent, which was becoming of itself continually more embittered, was still [3] further inflamed by the signal misfortunes of one individual.

An old man, bearing visible proofs of all the evils he had suffered, suddenly appeared in the Forum. His clothing was covered with filth, his personal appearance was made still more loathsome by a corpse-like pallor and emaciation, his unkempt [4] beard and hair made him look like a savage. In spite of this disfigurement he was recognised by the pitying bystanders; they said that he had been a centurion, and mentioned other military distinctions he possessed. He bared his breast and showed the scars which witnessed to many fights in which he had borne an honourable part. The crowd had now almost grown [5] to the dimensions of an Assembly of the people. He was asked, ‘Whence came that garb, whence that disfigurement?’ He stated that whilst serving in the Sabine war he had not only lost the produce of his land through the depredations of the enemy, but his farm had been burnt, all his property plundered, his cattle driven away, the war-tax demanded when he was least able [6] to pay it, and he had got into debt. This debt had been vastly increased through usury and had stripped him first of his father's and grandfather's farm, then of his other property, and at last like a pestilence had reached his person. He had been carried off by his creditor, not into slavery [7] only, but into an underground workshop, a living death. Then he showed his back scored with recent marks of the lash.

On seeing and hearing all this a great outcry arose; the excitement was not confined to [8] the Forum, it spread every where throughout the City. Men who were in bondage for debt and those who had been released rushed from all sides into the public streets and invoked ‘the protection of the Quirites.’ Every one was eager to join the malcontents, numerous [9] bodies ran shouting through all the streets to the Forum. Those of the senators who happened to be in the Forum and fell in with the mob were in great danger of their lives. Open violence would have been resorted to, had not the consuls, P. [10] Servilius and Ap. Claudius, promptly intervened to quell the outbreak. The crowd surged round them, showed their chains and other marks of degradation. These, they said, were their rewards for having served their country; they tauntingly reminded the consuls of the various campaigns in which they had fought, and peremptorily demanded [11] rather than petitioned that the senate should be called together. Then they closed round the Senate-house, determined to be themselves the arbiters and directors of public policy.

.....

Negotiations were then entered upon for a reconciliation. An agreement was arrived at, the terms being that the plebs should have its own magistrates, whose persons were to be inviolable, and who should have the right of affording protection against the consuls. [2] And further, no patrician should be allowed to hold that office. Two ‘tribunes of the plebs’ were elected, C. Licinius and L. Albinus. These chose three colleagues. It is generally agreed that Sicinius, the instigator of the secession was amongst them, but who the other two were is not settled. Livy, 2.23-33,  Translation by. Rev. Canon Roberts

A familiar story about the origins and nature of representative democracy  suggests that it is rooted in a kind of bargain involving taxation. The sovereign or government gets to tax and the representatives get to vote on how much and, in the more subtle version of the story (recall Stasavage) in which the relevant voters are creditors and tax-payers, monitor the expenses. This is the story that connects the rise of the House of Commons, the Dutch revolt, and the Boston tea party. Liberals and Marxists conspire on this story because it makes representative democracy a bourgeois enterprise.

The passages from Livy quoted above suggest an alternative. David Graeber loves this material, of course, because of Livy's representation of  "the secession of the plebs," (Debt: 230) but he misses its contribution to the generation of representation. By contrast, the moral of today's digression is that an indebted class can also give rise to representation. Of course, for this too occur it is necessary for this class to be the backbone of the army, and war the main business of state (which fits a larger feature of Graeber's story).

Before you howl 'anachronism' to me; despite my liberal interpretation of Roman initial freedom (as presented by Livy), I am not claiming the Roman republic was a liberal democracy. The Senate is, while deliberative, not a representative body. It is a complex matter whether the consuls represent or whether, as seems more likely, they are best viewed as temporary sovereigns/kings (as (recall) Livy himself suggests at first). I am claiming, however, that the tribunes are instituted and, in fact, elected, in terms of representing a distinct class: the non-slave, non nobility male citizens, who are likely to be enrolled in the military. (In Livy's account many, but not all nobility are creditors.)

I put it like that because, of course, where debt-bondage (something afflicting a large number of the military) turns into outright slavery is part of the underlying issue.* I return to that below. But I think it is fair to say that in so far as there is a representative element in the Roman republic, it is a kind of debtor democracy. Of course, I use that term because it sounds good. The reality is more messy (even in Livy's stylized depiction). But the gist of the representative nature of the tribunes is made clear enough by the proposals of Volero for the plebs to elect their tribunes/magistrates through the tribes/tribal assemble [plebeii magistratus tributis comitiis fierent.]+ (2.56) So, I think one may tell a neat narrative about the intrinsic connection between indebtedness and representative democracy with a standing army.** 

Okay, this was my main point today. I do want to to say something more about the nature of freedom in Livy. I argued earlier in the week that at the start of Book 2, Livy represents freedom as submission to (rule of) law not men. This proto-and-partial-liberal conception of freedom is the perspective of Livy and the nobility he describes. Today, I'll suggests the plebs treat freedom as submission to the laws overseen by their own elected magistrates. Livy is useful guide because he is by no means wholly sympathetic to the plebs and the existence of the tribunate (see 2.34 [12]).

Let's return to he first passage quoted above (now giving my own favored translation: that whilst fighting in the field for liberty and empire [libertate et imperio] they were captured and oppressed [captos et oppressos], by their fellow-citizens at home; their civic freedom [civis libertatem] was more secure in war than in peace, safer amongst the enemy than amongst their own.)* It's true that there is a rhetorical contrast between slavery and freedom that makes the plebs' claim effective. But even here civic liberty is not understood as the opposite of slavery in the neo-republican sense. For, to be a soldier was, ultimately, to be at the mercy of one's commander, and to be subject to quite arbitrary domination (see Fabius' actions at 2.59).

Rather, even the plebs' conception of freedom is associated with something more abstract that is only indirectly connected to slavery. This is made clear in a passage where the institutional and political gains that they have made are at risk of being overtuned. In the aftermath of an assassination of one of the tribunes, which cow the rest, the plebs  become "more angry at the silence [silentio] of the tribunes than at the exercise of power/empire [imperio] on the part of the consuls. They said that it was all over with their liberty [libertate], they had gone back to the old state of things." (2.55) This makes it clear that the plebs associate freedom with what is now known as voice.  And what they decry is that is the part of the state structure that they could shape is now again under control of the consuls. 

Now, clearly the plebs do worry about being dominated by the consuls (and, so, indirectly, by the nobility), and clearly debt-bondage is what they fear. But I also think it it is pretty obvious that how they are represented as conceiving freedom is to have effective representation (that is, uncowed tribunes) who can articulate and defend their point of view.

So, to sum up: I am not claiming that by the end of book 2, the nobility and plebs agree on what freedom is. Livy represents it as contested and, in part, itself a function of class perspective. But at the same time, I am claiming that both sides are articulating elements of freedom that are more liberal than (for lack of a better term) neo-republican.* 

 

*On the complex relationship between debt-bondage and republican freedom, I warmly recommend this article by Daniel Kapust, which Chris Brooke suggested I read after my post on Livy earlier in the week. Kapust anticipates my reservations about Skinner's treatment of neo-republican freedom, although he is less interested than I am in Livy's treatment at the start of book 2. 

+Interestingly, enough the latin root of 'tributis' has a connection with taxation (a 'tribute'). So, the bourgeois story may well be vindicated indirectly.

**It's pretty clear that if the Roman nobility has relied on mercenaries as auxiliaries there would be no tribunes, but possibly no empire.