while striving to produce the general impression of statesmanlike qualities, to efface his particular convictions as much as possible, and not to touch on the burning questions of the day[1] for fear of giving offence to any party or section in the State. The explanation of this strange divorce between politics and electioneering is not far to seek. In modern States there is what the French call "solidarity" between the different members of the executive government, so that votes at elections are practically given for a whole group of men united by common convictions under a common chief, who are to undertake, not only the business of administration, but the responsibility of initiative and the duty of guiding the policy of the State. But in the Roman Republic the function of the magistrate is much more limited. The Senate, and not the magistrate, advises and directs; and, while he keeps within constitutional limits, the magistrate does not use his formal power of initiative in legislation except under the Senate's instructions. It is noticeable that the revolutionary faction at Rome, which never respected the constitutional rules and always, when it was strong enough, carried through its measures on the bare initiative of a magistrate, had an organisation more resembling that of modern parties, and tried to elect magistrates in order to carry out schemes of policy and legislation by their means. But this is the exception and not the rule. The regular practice is that, as each magistrate has under the constitution
- ↑ Q. Cicero, De Pet. Cons., 13, 53.
