This thesis is concerned with a particularly interesting period in the history of the Roman Republic. The period is called the Struggle of the Orders. The epoch is characteristic by turbulent conflict of two social groups competing for political, economical and social rights in the ancient Roman state. The most prevalent source among others for this thesis is work by historian Titus Livius Patavinus, Ab urbe condita. The study is divided into three chapters, taking into account the different phases of the struggle. The aim of this work is to describe and analyze the critical points of the patrician-plebeian political fight and also illustrate how the struggle affected the constitution of the Roman Republic. The first chapter deals with a several problems in the early Roman Republic: public land, creation of two important plebeian magistrates - tribuni plebis and aediles plebis, oldest agrarian law, plebeian assembly, importance of the Law of the Twelve Tables and Valerian- Horatian laws. The second chapter focuses on Canuleian law, introduction of consular tribunes, case of Manlius Capitolinus and its consequences and finally describes Licinian Sextian laws. The third and final chapter of this study analyzes debt situation of that time, laws of Publilius Philo, Ovinian law, Ogulnian law and concludes with...

This thesis aims to discern whether cyclical history can be appropriately applied to the Ab Urbe Condita, and from these findings discern Livy's authorial implications for the contemporary political program. This process is conducted by analyzing exempla , as well as constructing a new definition of metus hostilis. Doing so allows for the detection of patterns, that when imprinted upon the existing formulaic model, examines whether the metus hostilis enhances the case for Livy writing the AUC with cyclical intent. Based on this analysis, the implications for contemporary Rome are clear in that the narrative insinuates the Augustan regime's necessity.

No description available.

This is a study of how late Republican and early Imperial authors recast different elements of episodes from the Struggle of the Orders (509-287 BCE) based on the events and circumstances of their own times and their authorial aims. The study is divided into two parts. Part I focuses on portrayals of Sp. Cassius’ third consulship in 486 BCE, when he sought to pass a lex agraria. Part II examines the treatments of Sp. Maelius’ private frumentary distributions, which purportedly occurred in 439 BCE. Both episodes seem to have been treated briefly by earlier sources; the main thread of the stories centred around Cassius’ and Maelius’ desire to acquire regnum, which led to their suppressions and deaths. Over time, the stories evolved and became more detailed. Elements were exaggerated, added, or omitted, which often spoke to what was happening during the time at which a certain author was writing. By means of a comparison of the primary sources I examine the contemporary Roman historical realities contained within our surviving narratives on the patricio-plebeian conflicts of the early period. Late Republican authors frequently recast the patrician-plebeian struggle in the context of the recent political conflicts between optimates and populares, using the political idiom of their own times to describe the Struggle of the Orders. Cassius and Maelius became embedded in the political controversy surrounding the suppression of men (reportedly) seeking kingship by the state that began with the institution of the SCU and continued long into the first century BCE. I analyze the changes that take place in the accounts of Cicero, Livy, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, our main sources on the episodes involving Cassius and Maelius. Different authors reinterpret, emphasize, and omit various elements of the events of 486 and 439 BCE. A single author might, as is the case with Cicero, reimagine the episodes differently at different times based on his immediate aims. While the ways by which the sources reimagine elements of these episodes has led to harsh criticisms of these authors, especially Livy and Dionysius, I argue that our sources were engaging with the material at their disposal and shaping it in ways that were acceptable to ancient audiences. This historical interpretation helped the Romans to make sense of their own past and derive meaning from it, which, in turn, helped them to engage with and make sense of their present. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)