1
Factio (Roman Republic)
W. JEFFREY TATUM
The fourth-century grammarian Nonius
defined factio as, first and foremost, a collusion
or conspiracy of wicked men (Non. 304 M). In
by far its commonest usage, factio refers to the
exercise of influence through concerted action
by some combination of individuals who,
owing to their collective clout, are able to get
done what they seek to see done (factio derives
from facere, meaning to do). But the word signals disapproval. In this way, factio contrasts
with the respectable influence gained through
gratia (gratitude) or through partnerships
associated with the honorable institutions of
AMICITIA (friendship) or kinship or other virtuous unions, such as the collaboration of
responsible men who join together under rubrics like boni (the good men) or OPTIMATES (the
best men). Thus SALLUST’S Gaius Memmius (tr.
pl. 111 BCE) can insist that, when men pursue
the same political interests in close cooperation, among good men this association reflects
friendship, whereas among the wicked it is a
factio (Sall. Iug. 31.15). CICERO, too, contrasts
the political exertions of the boni with those
of a factio, observing that a factio is a specimen
of tyranny (Cic. Rep. 68).
When describing non-Roman communities
divided over a political issue, Roman writers
occasionally turn to factio without obvious
prejudice. But in discussing Rome, factio is
invariably pejorative, and the habit is animadversion against not several or even two factiones, but only one: “not a faction but the
faction” (Seager 1972: 57). The polarity was
useful in propaganda: JULIUS CAESAR, when he
invaded Italy in 49 BCE, claimed that he did
so “in order to liberate the Roman people from
the oppression of a factio formed by a few powerful men” (Caes. B.Civ. 1.22), a slogan appropriated in the opening of the RES GESTAE OF
AUGUSTUS, when Caesar’s heir claimed that he
“liberated the republic when it was oppressed
by the despotism of a factio” (Mon. Anc. 1).
For the Romans, then, factio was not a neutral word denominating a recognized political
organization, one of several engaged in a legitimate competition for leadership in the state.
Nevertheless, factio has often been taken up
by modern historians of Rome in referring
to what they view as cohesive, enduring, and
recognized political associations, entities
deemed the approximations of factions if not
actual political parties (although it is universally recognized that republican Rome did
not have political parties in any modern sense).
This is an approach that traces itself back to the
influential work of Friedrich Münzer. Factions
and their exertions, according to this methodology, can be discovered through observations
of aristocratic ties of kinship or friendship, and
moments of cooperation or conflict. Prosopography is essential to the enterprise, with the
result that nearly any personal or public relationship supplies an explanation for an individual’s political behavior as a reflection of his
participation in a faction.
This approach to the ancient evidence,
although successful in throwing up many
important facts, has been shown to be unreliable in its assumptions, largely through the
critiques of Christian Meier and Peter Brunt,
which is not to say that relationships like
kinship or friendship were trivial in Roman
politics. Rather, it appears increasingly clear
that politics in Rome were always fluid,
alliances were frequently transitory, and aristocratic egoism was too robust to be restrained by
the conflicting obligations confronting all
Roman political figures. This matter cannot
be said to be wholly settled, but readers should
be aware that, in modern discussions of ancient
Rome, the word factio is not always used in
accordance with Roman practice, where it
had nothing whatsoever to do with the neutral
denomination of institutionalized political
organizations.
The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30247
2
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS
Brunt, P. A. (1988) The fall of the Roman republic
and related essays. Oxford.
Hölkeskamp, K.-J. (2001) “Fact(ions) or fiction?
Friedrich Münzer and the aristocracy of the
Roman republic.” International Journal of the
Classical Tradition 8: 92–105.
Meier, C. (1980) Res Publica Amissa: Eine Studie zu
Verfassung und Geschichte der späten römischen
Republik, 2nd ed. Wiesbaden.
Münzer, F. (1999) Roman aristocratic parties and
families, trans. T. Ridley. Baltimore. German original: F. Münzer (1920) Römische Adelsparteien
und Adelsfamilien. Stuttgart.
Seager, R. (1972) “Factio: some observations.” Journal of Roman Studies 62: 53–8.