Trade Law and Senators in 218 BC. Motives for the Lex Claudia De Nave Senatorum

Table of Content

Introduction

Lex Claudia de Nave Senatorum
The Source
Historical Context
Rationale
Effects

Conclusion

Bibliography
Sources
Secondary Literature

Appendix

Introduction

This proseminar paper has its purpose in outlining the main points of the Lex Claudia de nave senatorum, that was passed on through the writings of Titus Livius, also known as Livy. The Lex Claudia leaves us many questions and can be seen as one of the most controversially discussed ancient laws by modern historians.¹

This paper will not try to outline all the different views of modern historians as this would not fit its given frame. Much more it will focus on several main points of the discussions and follow the leading question: “What were the main motives of the Lex Claudia de nave senatorum ?”

The outline of the paper follows the structure to first have a short introduction to the given source and its author Livy followed bya layout of the given historical context of the discussed Law. Furthermore, the origin of the Lex Claudia will be presented and its effects will be examined. The paper ends with a conclusion that will try to answer the leading question in a short summary.

Lex Claudia de Nave Senatorum

The Source

Livy is known today as one of the big Roman historians. He was born 59 BC in Patavium (current day Padua) and died around 17 AD in Patavium as well.² Livy grew up in an urban middle-class family which gave him access to higher school education in Rome. He never followed any political or military career. After Octavian's victory over Marcus Antonius around 30 BC Livy dedicated himself to the writing of his books about Roman history until he died. At this time Livy already lived through many years of civil war in Rome and has experienced the division of the Roman Empire into the Western and Eastern part. These books about Roman history are known today as: Ab urbe condita (‘From the Foundation of the City').³ 142 books were written on this topic while only 35 of those remained fully accessible into modern time while having fragments of others. He was continuously publishing these books over 40 years and it is assumed that he planned a total number of 150 books, which he did not achieve before his death. Ab urbe condita was the longest historical work so far in either Latin or Greek. His writings were well appreciated by the ruling family of Augustus which gave Livy the right to tutor the emperor's grandson Claudius.⁴ The great appreciation of his work also led to a widespread duplication to the West and East which makes his source very accessible to us today.⁵ The relevant part where the Lex Claudia de nave senatorum is mentioned is found in the parts where Livy wrote about the First and Second Punic Wars of which Livy himself describes his writings as so immerse as if he lived himself through these wars in the chapter 63 in the 21st book.⁶ The only other recorded writings of Livy have been philosophical dialogues that were written before the Ab urbe condita.⁷

The modern knowledge of this the Lex Claudia de nave senatorum bases solely on this source which was written around 160 years after the plebiscite passed. Which sources Livy relies on for the Lex Claudia is not clear as he does not state his source for this law. The wide range of available sources he mentions throughout his books shows the accessibility of sources at his time which he also consults.⁸ Livy mentions once Polybius as a source not to be disregarded which gives us a hint that Polybius of Megalopolis, a Greek historian, probably has been used as a main source in the 21st book.⁹ Polybius showed in his Histories little interest in Roman politics and showed a dislike towards demagogues such as the homo novus Gaius Flaminius.¹⁰ As Livy mentions to recite from contemporary Senator Lucius Cincus Alimentus we can assume that such sources have given him insight into the Senate's discussions and maybe even an additional dislike towards Gaius Flaminius.¹¹ The most suitable way for Livy must have been to choose one source for each subject and follow that author to write his history.¹² Through this method, he also copy pasted certain mistakes from old authors which results ina variety of false statements.¹³ Nonetheless Livy proves as a more reliable source than many others which Livy himself relied on.¹⁴ Especially in the field of Roman political life Livy offers the modern reader a great insight.¹⁵

The content of Livy's source describes that the Lex Claudia was brought forward by Plebeian Tribune Quintus Claudius in 218 BC and passed against the will of the Senators.¹⁶ The law contained the rule that Senators or children of Senators cannot possess a ship that has the capacity to transport more than 300 amphoras. Livy describes this amount to be enough to transport the output of the owned lands. Gaius Flaminius is described as the only Senator who was in favour of Claudius' plebiscite.¹⁷ These circumstances led to a turmoil between Flaminius and the other Senators which impacted the course of the Second Punic Wars.¹⁸

Very interesting is that the Lex Claudia is not mentioned in the chronological order of the book in the year 218 BC which is one of very few exceptions in Livy's annalistic layout.¹⁹ The actual description of the Lex Claudia consists in two Latin sentences and finds its main purpose in explaining the turmoil between the Senators which lead to a defeat of the Romans against Hannibal in the year 217 BC.²⁰

In certain passages, Livy seems to use dramatic impact rather than neutral factual narration. This becomes obvious when seeing the creation of enemies such as Hannibal who swears an oath as a child to become an enemy of Rome.²¹ Such narratives which Livy uses can also be considered for the creation of the opposition Flaminius and the rest of the Senate which also serves the purpose of more dramatic effects.²² Not only is Livy drawing a picture of the opposition between Flaminius and the Senate but also between the common people and the nobles while Flaminius serves the common people and is denounced by Livy as populist blowhard.²³ Although, Flaminius is honoured by Livy when he mentions the failed effort to find the Roman commander's body for a proper burial.²⁴ It seems impossible to define where Livy stands ideologically.²⁵

The two characteristics Livy expects his writings to be judged by are accuracy and the style of a historical narrative that distinguishes itself from other styles.²⁶ Livy still follows the common conception at his time that history is a source of most emphasised and useful analogies with great significance and value. This leads to inclusion of mythical and divine narratives which are seen as non-factual in modern history.²⁷ A clear preference of what is seen as worth being told and a selective Roman history according to contemporary interests can therefore be expected.²⁸ We cannot read Livy's Ab urbe condita as a clinical repetition of history but rather as a re-enactment of such. Therefore, statements include assumptions to offer explanations and causality of certain events.²⁹

As Livy itself seems to be a reliable author we can assume that Lex Claudia de nave senatorum has been passed on by Livy according to his best of knowledge. The credibility of the statements Livy makes about the law and its intentions are questioned from several historians which will become evident in the following chapters.

Historical Context

The Lex Claudia that passed in 218 BC must be looked at in its historical context for further analysis. Through the expansion of the Roman Republic outside of the Italic island and the colonisation of Sardinia, Corsica and Sicily through the military encounters with Carthage in the second half of the 3rd Century BC the trade business has moved into focus. Especially since the Greek trade cities have come into Rome's zone of influence the trade importance enforced the importance as economic factor and Rome gained the status of being a commercial centre.³⁰ The most influential class in Roman society, the Senators, tried to monopolise the trade power.³¹ Until up to the start of the 3rd Century BC the Senators were limited to owning agricultural land as the absent of employment was crucial for the independency and financial stability when holding a political position.³² Before the Second Punic Wars the trade with war materials and transport of animals, goods and men became very lucrative for private investors, which might have also motivated the Senators to invest.³³

The law came into existence immediately before the Second Punic Wars broke out. In the year 227 BC two new Praetors positions have been created of which to one Flaminius was assigned to, where he seemed to have been a popular person.³⁴

If we ought to believe Livy, the Lex Claudia passed against the will of the Senators, while Flaminius was the only Senator supporting the plebiscite.³⁵ This statement is controversially discussed in the historical study field. The turmoil caused between Flaminius and the rest of the Senate might be found in his activities of redistributing lands during his mandate as Tribune and not necessarily in his favour of the Lex Claudia.³⁶ The word ‘polemic' was also used in this context to argue against the statement of Livy to be true.³⁷ It seems unlikely in the prospect of war against Carthage that this law caused a bigger inner political conflict when more pressing matters are to be discussed in such context even though it's difficult to tell which inner political situation predominated. Additionally, if looked at the career of Flaminius being a homo novus and climbing up the cursus honorum without notable hurdles it appears as if he was a popular person and not a lone wolf. The same applies in the prospect of being elected as Consul for a second mandate.³⁸ Such a career seems rather unlikely if the Senators have seen an opponent in Flaminius. It is more likely that the resistance against the law and the turmoil with Flaminius has been an incident between some individual Senators.³⁹

When compared with other occasions, the passing against the will of the Senate seems possible again. In 217 BC a plebiscite that was aimed against Q. Fabius Maximum passed which seemed to have been against the will of the Senators as well.⁴⁰ Under which inner political circumstances the Lex Claudia actually passed is highly debated and therefore historically not resolved. The plausible reason why a law would pass against the will of the Senate would lie within seeing a bigger picture and therefore taking this compromise.⁴¹

Rationale

It seems rational to first instinctively assume that the rationale behind the Lex Claudia consisted in restricting the superior economical influence of the Senators.⁴² The main economical competitors in trade would have therefore been the Equites.⁴³ It is possible, that Flaminius hoped, by supporting the plebiscite or even by being behind its creation, as one could assume, to be perceived as an ally of the Equites in the Senate.⁴⁴ This can be contradicted as we cannot see any economic interests being pursued politically and therefore influence the political decision making during this period. Additionally, the Equites have not been perceived as economical counterweight to the Senate at this time and this law would not have made any bigger impact on that matter.⁴⁵

It cannot be ignored that the measures of the law have a great direct impact of the trading power of the senate which might justify the reasoning of economic interest behind the Lex Claudia. The biggest standard trading ship was having the capacity of 10'000 amphoras which equates to 450 tons of goods.⁴⁶ If we look into other ancient law texts or compare it with the data given from ship wrecks found in under water archaeological excavations we have a minimum goods capacity of 50-80 tons.⁴⁷ We can therefore assume that one Amphora holds 0.045 tons. 300 Amphora, as it is given as a maximum according to the Lex Claudia, would therefore equate 13.5 tons. A ship, that holds a capacity of 13.5 tons is even questionable to be able to go into open sea. Now the rationale given by Livy here is that 300 amphoras are enough for the transport of the crops being harvested from their own lands.⁴⁸ This statement can also be seen as very questionable, as the output of an example vineyard of 25 hectare is estimated to be 8'000 amphoras which is already a rather small land for a Senator at this time.⁴⁹ The limitation of ships seem to be clearly aimed against sea trade as a river transport boat often held the capacity of 13-15 tons.⁵⁰ The sea trade restriction for the Senators is rather high due to this law which gives them no other option than giving the transportation of their goods into other hands to benefit from. As the production of the owned lands for Senators is never seen as to fulfil only the own needs but also to make a profit to sustain neutral in their political work, it leaves no space for them to even be able to sell their own goods without any middle man. Livy's statement does not seem to hold up in itself.⁵¹ The law causes an even bigger impact in economical restriction than Livy states. It fits though the statement which Livy makes when he says that “all commerce was considered unbecoming for senators.”⁵²

[...]

¹ Baltrusch 1988, 33.

² Henderson 2019, xii. Mineo challenges these dates: Mineo 2015, xxxiii.

³ Henderson 2019, xii-xiii.

⁴ Henderson 2019, xii-xiii.

⁵ Mineo 2015, xxxi.

⁶ Livy 31.1.

⁷ Henderson 2019, xiii. DNP online: Livius (Titus Livius) Ab urbe condita. https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/der-neue- pauly-supplemente-i-7/livius-titus-livius-ab-urbe-condita-COM_000038 (last visited 26.06.2020)

⁸ Henderson 2019, xiii-xxvi. Luce, 1977, 147-151.

⁹ Livy 30.45.5. & 33.10.10. Von Ungern-Sternberg 2015, 201.

¹⁰ Henderson 2019, xix.

¹¹ Livy 21.38.3-5.

¹² Von Ungern-Sternberg 2015, 167.

¹³ Von Ungern-Sternberg 2015, 196.

¹⁴ Mineo 2015, xxxii. Ungern-Sternberg 2015, 197.

¹⁵ Von Ungern-Sternberg 2015, 201.

¹⁶ Livy 21.63.2-3.

¹⁷ Livy 21.63.3-4.

¹⁸ Livy 21.63.5-15

¹⁹ Henderson 2019, xxix. Ungern-Sternberg 2015, 197.

²⁰ Bringmann 2003, 312.

²¹ Henderson 2019, xxxv-xxxvi.

²² Henderson 2019, xlii-xliii.

²³ Henderson 2019, xlviii.

²⁴ Livy 22.7.5.

²⁵ Mineo 2015, xxxii.

²⁶ Miles 1995, 13-15.

²⁷ Miles 1995, 19.

²⁸ Miles 1995, 76-79.

²⁹ Miles 1995, 110-111.

³⁰ Finley 1977, 64.

³¹ Heuss 1998, 71-73.

³² Finley 1977, 65.

³³ Bringmann 2003, 319.

³⁴ Livy 33.42.8.

³⁵ Livy 21.63.3-4.

³⁶ Schleich 1984, 48.

³⁷ Bringmann 2003, 314.

³⁸ DNP online: Flaminius. https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/der-neue-pauly/flaminius- e412090?s.num=0&s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.der-neue-pauly&s.q=flaminius (last visited 26.06.2020)

³⁹ Bringmann 2003, 313-314.

⁴⁰ Kunkel 1995, 612-613.

⁴¹ Bleicken 1975, 332.

⁴² Bleicken 1975, 182.

⁴³ Bleicken 1975, 183.

⁴⁴ Gelzer 1962, 32. Yavetz 1962, 325-327.

⁴⁵ Schleich 1984, 48.

⁴⁶ Höckmann 1985,66-70.

⁴⁷ Bringmann 2003, 314.

⁴⁸ Livy, 21.63.254.

⁴⁹ Shatzman 1975, 48.

⁵⁰ Houston 1988, 556-557.

⁵¹ Bringmann 2003, 314-315. Feig Vishnia 1996, 38.

⁵² Livy, 21.63.254.