AM´BITUS
AM´BITUS which literally signifies “a going
about,” cannot be more nearly expressed than by our word
“canvassing.” After the
plebs
had formed a distinct estate at Rome, and when the whole body of citizens
had been very greatly increased, we frequently read, in the Roman writers,
of the great efforts which it was necessary for candidates to make in order
to secure the votes of the citizens. At Rome, as in every community into
which the element of popular election enters, solicitation of votes, and
open or secret influence and bribery, were among the means by which a
candidate secured his election to the offices of state. As the elections
recurred annually, there was frequent opportunity for practising the various
modes of corruption. The piece entitled “L. Ciceronis de Petitione
Consulatus ad M. Tullium Fratrem,” seems to present a pretty fair
picture of those arts and means by which a candidate might lawfully
endeavour to secure the votes of the electors, and also some intimation of
those means which were not lawful, and which it was the object of various
enactments to repress.
A candidate was called
petitor; and his
opponent, with reference to him,
competitor. A
candidate (
candidatus) was so called from his
appearing in public places, such as the Fora and Campus Martius, before his
fellow-citizens in a whitened toga.
On such occasions the candidate was attended by his friends (
deductores), or followed by the poorer citizens
(
sectatores), who could in no other manner
show their good will or give their assistance. (
Cic.
pro Mur. ch. 34）
The word
assiduitas expressed both the continual
presence of the candidate at Rome and his continual solicitations. The
candidate, in going his rounds or taking his walk, was accompanied by a
nomenclator, who gave him the names of such
persons as he might meet; the candidate was thus enabled to address them by
their name, an indirect compliment to the electors. The candidate
accompanied his address with a shake of the hand (
prensatio). The term
benignitas
comprehended generally any kind of treating, as shows, feasts, &c.
Candidates sometimes left Rome and visited the
coloniae and
munwicipia, in which the
citizens had the suffrage; thus Cicero proposed to visit the Cisalpine
towns, when he was a candidate for the consulship. (
Cic. Att. 1.1）
Ambitus as a criminal offence signifies interference with the free choice of
electors to an office by means of corrupt practices. The word for ambitus in
the Greek writers is
δεκασμός. Money was
paid for votes; and in order to insure secrecy and to secure the elector,
persons called
interpretes were employed to
make the bargain,
sequestres to hold the money
till it was paid (
Cic. Clu. 26,
72), and
divisores
to distribute it (
Cic. Att. 1.1. 6). The
offence of ambitus belonged to the
judicia
publica, and the enactments against it were numerous.
The earliest enactment that is mentioned is the Lex Pinaria tribunicia (B.C.
432: Livy,
4.25), which prohibited candidates
from “adding white to their dress.” A white dress was a sign
that a person was a candidate. Thus the object of the law was to put some
restriction on canvassing, i.e. on ambitio or ambitus. Still the practice of
using a white dress on occasion of canvassing was usual, and appears to have
been the origin of the term
candidatus being
applied to a
petitor ( “cretata
ambitio,” Pers.
Sat. 5.177;
Plb. 10.4). A Lex Poetelia (B.C. 358; Livy,
7.15) forbad candidates canvassing on market days,
and going about to the places in the country where people were collected.
The law was specially directed against
novi
homines, of whom the
nobiles were
jealous.
By the Lex Cornelia Baebia (B.C. 181) those who were convicted of ambitus
were incapacitated from being candidates for ten years (
Liv. 40.19; Schol. Bob. p. 361). The purport of the Cornelia
Fulvia de ambitu is not known, but it apparently made no change in the
penalties for the offence.
The Lex Calpurnia (B.C. 67) was intended to suppress treating of the electors
and other like matters; the penalties were fine, exclusion from the senate,
and perpetual incapacity to hold office (Die Cass. 36.21). The Lex Tullia
was passed in the consulship of Cicero (B.C. 63). It imposed a new
punishment of ten years' exile, in addition to the penalties under the Lex
Calpurnia (
D. C. 37.29;
Cic. pro Mur. 2,3; 3,5; 23, 47;32, 67; 41, 89).
This law forbad any person to exhibit public shows for two years before he
was a candidate. It also forbad candidates hiring persons to attend them and
be about their persons. In the second consulship of M. Licinius Crassus and
Cn. Pompeius Magnus (B.C. 55) the Lex Licinia de sodaliciis was passed
(
Cic.Planc. 15, 36). It was specially directed against a
particular kind of ambitus, which consisted in employing agents (
interpretes, divisores, sequestres) to mark out the
members of the several tribes into smaller portions, and by this division of
labour to carry out a complete system of corruption. The distribution of the
members of the tribes was called
decuriatio
(
Cic. Planc. ch. 18). This means of
securing votes was employed by the clubs and collegia of the aristocracy
(
Cic. ad Quint. Fratr.
2.3, 5). There were special provisions in the Lex Licinia for the
purpose of securing a fair trial of offences under it. The
judices were called
editicii, because the accuser or prosecutor nominated four
tribes; the accused was allowed to challenge one of the tribes so nominated.
The
judices were taken out of the other three
tribes; but the mode in which they were taken is not quite clear. The
penalty under the Lex Licinia was exile, as under the Lex Tullia. The Lex
Pompeia (B.C. 52), passed when Pompeius was sole consul for part of that
year, was brought about by the murder of Clodius. It was an attempt to put
down the clubs by more stringent punishments and more rapid process. The law
increased the penalties of the Lex Calpurnia and Tullia. It was made
retrospective to the date of the first consulship of Pompeius (Appian,
App. BC 2.23,
24; Plut.
Cato Min. 48; Ascon.
in Milon., p. 37, Orell.). When C. Julius Caesar
obtained the supreme power in Rome, he used to recommend
[p. 1.101]some of the candidates to the people, who, of course, followed
his recommendation. As to the consulship, he managed the appointments to
that office just as he pleased (
Suet. Jul.
41). The Lex Julia de ambitu was passed (B.C. 18) in the time of
Augustus. It appears to have consolidated earlier laws on the subject,
although with some modifications. The penalties under it were expulsion from
the senate, incapacity for holding any public office during five years, and
a fine of 100,000 sesterces, which candidates were required to deposit
before canvassing. The penalties, therefore, were milder than they had been
previously. The law only applied to offices for which a popular election was
held. If a candidate resorted to any violence by exciting a tumult or
otherwise, he was liable to be punished under the Lex Julia de vi by exile
(
aquae et ignis interdictio, subsequently
deportatio).
The popular forms of election were observed during the time of Augustus.
Under Tiberius they ceased. Tacitus (
Tac. Ann.
1.15) observes: “The Comitia were transferred from the Campus
to the Patres” --the Senate.
While the choice of candidates was thus partly in the hands of the senate,
bribery and corruption still influenced the elections, though the name of
ambitus was, strictly speaking, no longer applicable. But in a short time
the appointment to public offices was entirely in the power of the emperors;
and the magistrates of Rome, as well as the
populus, were merely the shadow of that which had once been a
substantial form. Modestinus, a Roman jurist, who wrote about the middle of
the third century after Christ, thus comments on the Lex Julia de ambitu:
“This law is now obsolete in the city, because the creation of
magistrates is the business of the
princeps, and does not depend on the pleasure of the
populous; but if any one in a
municipium should offend against this law in canvassing
for a
sacerdotium or
magistratus, he is punished, according to a
senatus consultum, with infamy, and subjected to
a penalty of 100 aurei.” (
Dig. 48, tit.
14.)
The laws that have been enumerated are probably all that were enacted, at
least all of which any notice has been preserved. Laws to repress bribery
were made while the voting was open; and they continued to be made after the
vote by ballot was introduced at the popular elections by the Lex Gabinia
(B.C. 139). It is worth remark that there is no indication of any penalty
being attached to the receiving of a bribe for a vote. The utmost that can
be shown is that the
divisores, or one of the
class of persons who assisted in bribery, were punished (
Cic. pro Planc. 23, §
55;
pro Muren. 23, § § 46, 47). Thus the
penalties were inflicted on the briber and his agents, not on the bribed.
The proposed Lex Aufidia (
Cic. Att. 1.1. 6）
declared that if a candidate promised money to a tribe and did not pay it,
he should be unpunished; but if he actually paid the money, he should
further pay to each tribe 3000 sesterces as long as he lived. This proposal
was not carried; but it shows clearly enough that the principle was to
punish the briber only. The trials for ambitus were numerous in the time of
the republic. A list of them is given by Rein. The oration of Cicero in
defence of L. Murena, who was charged with ambitus, and that in defence of
Cn. Plancius, who was tried under the Lex Licinia, are both extant. (Rein,
Criminalrecht der Römer; Rinkes,
Disp. de
crim. amb. et de sod.）
[
G.L] [
E.A.W]
