The lex Claudia () also known as the plebiscitum ClaudianumAubert, Jean-Jacques. "The Republican Economy and Roman Law: Regulation, Promotion or Reflection?" from Flower, Harriet (ed.) Cambridge Companion to Roman History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) or the lex Claudia de nave senatoris,Bringmann, Klaus. "The Roman Republic and its Internal Politics between 232 and 167 BCE" from Mineo, Bernard (ed.) A Companion to Livy. (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2015). was a Roman law passed in 218 BC. Proposed at the start of the Second Punic War, the law prohibited senators and their sons from owning an "ocean-going ship" (maritimam navem)D'Arms, John, H. Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981), p. 5. which had a capacity of more than 300 amphorae. It was proposed by the tribune Quintus Claudius and supported by a senator Gaius Flaminius (consul 223 BC and 217 BC). There are no surviving contemporary sources for the law; the only ancient source to explicitly discuss it being the historian Livy.Livy, History of Rome, 21.63.3 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Liv.+21.63&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0144 While Cicero (consul 63 BC) does mention the law in his prosecution of Verres in 70 BC,Cicero, Against Verres, 2.5.45, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.+Ver.+2.5.45&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0018 this is only an indirect reference. As such, the ancient evidence is limited and only dates from nearly two centuries later. Nonetheless, modern scholarship has continued to debate the purpose and significance of the lex Claudia.
Historical context
Third Century naval expansion After Rome's expansion during the First Punic War (263–241 BC), Roman imperialism around the Mediterranean Sea saw the beginnings of economic exploitations of newly formed provinces. This naval activity increased throughout the third century.D'Arms p. 34–37 The passage of the lex Claudia, designed to restrict shipping, is indicative of this increased naval activity.D'Arms p. 34 For if there was no naval merchant activity, there would have been no need for such a law. The development of coinage and credit systems as well as the advancement in communication through roads, rivers and harbours, meant that long-distance trade became a significant aspect of the empire's economy.D'Arms p. 34–35 Imported goods included food, slaves, metals and luxury goods, while exports consisted largely of pottery, gold and silver.Aubert p. 167 Rome's commercial interests were further expanded after Sicily and Sardinia become a province at the end of the First Punic War.Aubert p. 174 Commercial ships were expensive and costly to maintain, meaning that only members of the upper classes (senators and equestrians) were able to invest in long-distance shipping. However, little is definitively known concerning the exact circumstances that led to the creation of the lex Claudia.D'Arms p. 31
Second Punic War influence Although the law was proposed at the start of the Second Punic War, it is difficult to say what impact this new war would have had, if any, on the passage of the law. After all, the Romans were nearly always at war during the third century BC. However, it is of course possible that the advent of the new war made an impact. The lex Claudia's ulterior purpose might have been to secure private ships for use in the war.Bringmann p. 396 The targeted ships were probably large enough to carry the troops and supplies needed for warfare. If so, the law would then serve to aid the equestrians' merchant ambitions, limit the influence of senators and provide commanders with ships large enough to carry troops and supplies.
Conflict of the Orders The third century BC may have also seen the resurgence of conflicts between the patrician and the plebeian classes. When the Roman Republic (res publica) was founded in 509 BC, it attempted to readjust the balance of power in favour of the people. However, the patrician class, made up of elite families, quickly began to dominate the political scene at the expense of the majority, the plebeians. The conflicts between the patricians and plebeians came to be known as the Conflict of the Orders. By 290 BC these conflicts largely came to an end when plebeian consuls were introduced. However, patrician/plebeian issues still surfaced from time-to-time in the later Republic. Although the most well-documented example of this conflict arose around the Gracchi (133/123 BC), it is possible that the passage of the lex Claudia may also be an example of this continuing theme.
Proposed by a tribune of the plebs and aimed at senators, the lex Claudia may be seen as an example of the plebeian order struggling to get ahead. However, by 218 BC there were plebeian consuls and senators. The plebeians were in the senate and were able to obtain the consulship. The ultimate beneficiaries of the lex Claudia were probably the equestrian class, rich citizens not in the senate.Aubert As rich traders, equestrians would not have been affected by the law and so would have been able to continue trading. If so, then the proposal for and then the passage of the lex Claudia would indicate a struggle not so much concerning patricians and plebeians, but senators and non-senators.
Reasons for the law Warfare contributed to a significant portion of Rome's income.Bleckmann, Bruno. "Roman War Finances in the Age of the Punic Wars" from Hans Beck, Martin Jehne and John Serrati (eds.) Money and Power in the Roman Republic. (Brussels: Editions Latomus, 2016), p. 84 As a result, war generals and their goods, including their ships, were needed. These war entrepreneurs usually came from higher-status men of the nobility, especially ranking officers.Bleckmann p. 88 Rome needed to fund these wars and so often required financial help from affluent people and their private fortune. In fact, some of these wealthy citizens had profitable currency manipulation schemes that helped supply the war effort with revenue.Bleckmann p. 86 An example of how personal wealth played a role in Roman governance was in the year 217 BC, a year after the lex Claudia was passed. The senate, which controlled the finances of Rome, refused to pay the ransom of a captured Roman citizen Fabius Maximus. Disappointed, but not deterred by this, Fabius Maximus paid his ransom from his own wealth.Bleckmann p. 91 This example, from a similar time as the lex Claudia, demonstrates that private wealth could be used in public affairs. It tells us that the public and private were intertwined. If a man was wealthy enough to pay his own ransom, then there were probably enough elite males with ample wealth and goods to contribute to war expenditure.
Money was also needed to pay soldiers.Bleckmann p. 96 The financial support of elites played a crucial role in supporting Roman desires to wage wars. They provided more than money though as they also served as privateers and ship owners in the First and Second Punic Wars.Bleckmann p. 96 They were the backbone with their financial investments which helped pave the way for Rome to introduce its precious metal currency to the empire.Bleckmann p. 96 The lex Claudia would be the solution to the corruption of Roman governance and prevent private investors from forcing further taxes from ordinary Roman citizens to increase private profit.Bleckmann p. 96 It was also a way of preventing senators from having any involvement in the transport of grain that was obtained through taxes.Tchernia, Andre. The Romans and Trade. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).
It is possible that the Second Punic War as well as profiteering influenced the passage of the lex Claudia. Many affluent Romans were involved in business as well as war, and an example of this is conflict over Saguntum.Rosenstein, Nathan. Rome and the Mediterranean 290-146BC: The Imperial Republic. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012) p. 21Scullard, H.H. "The Carthaginians in Spain" from A. E. Astin, F. W. Walbank, M. W. Frederiksen, R. M. Ogilvie (eds) The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 8: Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 BC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 25–26 This conflict foreshadowed the Second Punic War and the lex Claudia in a number of ways. Firstly, elite citizens profited from supplying provisions overseas for the war effort.Bleckmann p. 93 Secondly, it tells us about the links between Roman warfare and shipping. For when the Romans fought the Carthaginians in Spain and Africa for their lands, the commands were given to the consuls of 218 BC. One of the consuls, Sempronius Longus, was provided with 160 ships and the other consul, Cornelius Scipio, was provided with a fleet of 60 ships.Bleckmann p. 93 Both consuls had previously gained wealth during the First Punic War.Bleckmann p. 93 Furthermore during the Saguntum conflict, the two consuls may have also invested their money into their fleets to save for the potential wars to come and therefore were profiteering from their shipping, the kind of behaviour the lex Claudia would prohibit.Bleckmann p. 93 This could have been a reason why the lex Claudia came about – particularly as it was in the same year (218 BC). Many investors also appeared to play a major role in influencing the Second Macedonian War as well.Bleckmann p. 95 Indeed as these war entrepreneurs were potentially dissatisfied with the spoils of the First Punic War and the subsequent peace treaty, they pressed for another.
Provisions and passage Provisions of the law A significant aspect of the lex Claudia was its specificity about the size and quantity of goods. The law stipulated that senators could not own ships that were large enough to carry 300 amphorae (or more). 300 amphorae was the size limitation that would still allow goods to be transferred from farming estates to the markets.Aubert p. 174 Assuming that full-sized amphora weighted approximately 38 kilograms, the maximum dead weight was just under 11.5 tonnes. This limit was a concrete way of preventing quaestus (which broadly refers to profit that does not derive from agriculture). To operate a vessel in quaestum was considered dishonourable for a senator.Tchernia Indeed Livy states that this size limitation reinforced the patrician distaste for making a profit through trade activity.Livy 21.63.3 This implies that long-distance trade was primarily dictated by the senatorial class's domination of the sea. Furthermore, Livy describes the lex Claudia as a means to weaken the economic interest of the elite.Livy 21.63 The lex Claudia aimed to minimise the distraction from the life of leisure that was necessary for the political affairs of senators, as well as prevent corruption and conflicts of interests.Aubert
It is noteworthy that the law restricted senators' sons from owning large ships as well. This aspect undermines the principle of the hereditary advantage of elites, particularly patricians, which was a fundamental element of Roman society. Senators, the top of society in a culture obsessed with status, were restricted by this law in their ownership of ships. Therefore, those who benefited from the lex Claudia were the equestrian order, who were rich enough to invest in the ships and were not senators.
Passage of the law