POWER AND POLITICS IN FIFTH CENTURY BC ROME The Censorship and Consular Tribunate in Context Jeremy Armstrong (University of Auckland) The issues addressed in this paper have been addressed numerous times before. The most recent in-depth studies were by Holloway and Richard, but subject was also investigated in the 1980s by scholars like Ridley and Drummond, in the 1970s by Pinsent, in a spurt of activity in the 1950s, and of course even earlier by scholars like De Sanctis, Mommsen, and others. 1 Indeed, the origin and nature of Rome’s early magistracies have fascinated historians, both ancient and modern, since our first extant histories of the period, in large part because there is so little information about them. In particular, the purpose and original nature of the consular tribunes, those enigmatic figures who seem to have taken over the duties of the consuls (albeit on an irregular basis) during the period from 444 to 367 BC, is an issue which vexed even our earliest extant Roman historians (most notably Livy), who presented more than one possible reason for their creation and seem to have been more than a bit confused as to their power and purpose. 2 The reason for this uncertainty is easy to understand. While Rome’s first historians, writing in the final two centuries of the Republic, could at least see later examples of most early magistracies (consuls, praetors, censors, etc.), by the late Republic the military tribunes with consular power had not existed for over 150 years, or at least not in a form which in anyway resembled their 5 th century BC incarnation. Consequently, our sources, and indeed many modern scholars, are hazy on even their basic role, power, and function. In this paper I will therefore endeavour to offer a slightly different interpretation of the office of the consular tribune by viewing it in the context of the larger set of constitutional reforms within which its creation takes place, and most notably its likely association with the office of the censorship which was created in the year after. This idea is not new, and indeed most scholars have readily admitted that the consular tribunate and the censorship are likely linked. 3 But the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ have so far eluded us, limiting how useful this link might be. Indeed, the creation of the censorship has traditionally been seen as an administrative development, more the result of the duty of the census becoming too cumbersome for the consuls than a true reform or innovation. 4 Conversely, the creation of the consular tribunate stands so far outside of normal Roman practice up to this time that there is no way it could be seen as anything but revolutionary. What I will suggest in this paper is that the reforms of the mid 5 th century BC (and particularly the creation of these two offices) are in not only linked, but are equally revolutionary because they represent a means by which Roman society was able to unify two previously disparate segments of the population. Rome in the mid 5 th century BC was a city in transition. In the 7 th and 6 th centuries BC, Latium (and Rome in particular) had experienced a period of dramatic growth driven largely by the trade passing through the region between the Greek communities of Magna Graecia in the south and Etruria in the north. Often acting as ‘middle men’, 1 See Mommsen (1868), De Sanctis (1907-1923), Staveley (1953), Adcock (1957), Boddington (1959), Sealey (1959), Pinsent (1975), Drummond (1980), Ridley (1986), Richard (1990) and Holloway (2008). 2 Liv. 4.6, Diod. 12.32, Dion. Hal. 11.56; 60-61, Zonar. 7.19. 3 See Suolahti (1963) esp. 20-25 and 166-188, and Ridley (1986) 448 for discussion. 4 Suolahti (1963) 20-25.