The patrician Lucius Papirius Cursor was consul five times, served once as dictator, and once as magister equitum. Another patrician, Marcus Valerius Corvus, was consul six times and dictator twice; he is known to have held office twenty times. The plebeian Quintus Publilius Philo served as consul four times, and he also was chosen dictator, magister equitum, and censor. These repeated electoral victories are clear signs that such successful individuals possessed enduring prestige and popularity in the citizen assemblies, and it may well be that especially prominent officeholders would have faced few checks on their actions beyond the need to maintain popularity among the voters. By contrast, less fortunate members of the elite would have faced all the greater difficulty in reaching high office and in asserting themselves against their more powerful competitors.

Such concentration of power in a very few hands did meet resistance. In 342, Lucius Genucius, a tribune of the plebs, had a law passed that prohibited the holding of more than one office at the same time, or of the same office more than once in any ten-year period, a practice known as “iteration.” For two decades or so, this law proved effective, with few men holding the consulship more than once; but in the 320s, when Rome was under pressure from war, some again held further consulships within ten years. The goal of restricting iteration would ulti¬mately be attained, showing that opposition to the practice was strong, at least among the Roman elite. After 290, Romans who achieved success in their political careers were rarely consul more than once, only a few gained the office twice, and no more than a handful more than twice.

This limitation on multiple officeholding had important consequences. First, it spread the available offices over a slightly larger group, enabling some individuals to rise higher now than they had previously been able. Then, it meant that virtually every holder of an office was now inexperienced in it, and thus in need of advice. Finally, it lessened, although it did not eliminate, the importance of popularity; for anyone to court popularity in the hope of staying in office over an extended period was now pointless. As a result, in the course of their career polit¬ically active individuals were more likely to focus their attention on the senate; its importance rose as a result, and senators were more prone than ever to be very supportive of its claims to privilege.

Underpinning offices and senate were assemblies of citizens who chose new office-holders and authorized important public actions. Roman assemblies, however, were not representative bodies of the kind found in modern states. Instead, adult male Roman citizens listened to debates personally, and voted directly and openly not only to elect new leaders every year, but also to approve (or reject) proposed laws. Elections, the enactment of laws, decisions on war and peace, trials for public crimes, and discussions of other state business all took place in large public meetings where citizens, by their votes, chose officeholders, accepted (or rejected) policies and laws, and issued verdicts in trials. These gatherings were open to any citizen who wished to come, so that attendance could vary markedly from one occasion to another, and the composition of no two assembly meetings would ever have been exactly the same. Assemblies were also a focus for competition and con-flict. In later, better-documented periods, we find ambitious members of the city’s elite seeking popularity among the citizens and alliances with individuals who could influence votes. In addition, assemblies, and the preparations for them, served as opportunities for citizens as a body to voice their discontents. In public meetings, the officials of the city kept a firm control over the agenda. Articleteller