Priests and Senators: The Decemviri Sacris Faciundis in the Middle Republic (367 – 104 BCE) (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Roman Senate as arbiter during the Second Century bc Two exemplary case studies: the Cippus Abellanus and the Polcevera Tablet, 2019
In the wider context of the border conflicts that involve Rome as a third authority super partes, for which there is already evidence in the second century BC, two epigraphic documents stand out for the peculiarities distinguishing them from all others: the so-called tabula of Polcevera (concerning a dispute between Genuates and Viturii Langenses) and the cippus Abellanus (related to a border dispute between Nolani and Abellani and written in Oscan). They make us aware of the political and municipal dynamics underlying the complex principle of Roman arbitration, often required to resolve territorial disputes, which were gradually evolving as Rome opened up to the East. What role did the Rome senate play in such disputes? What exactly was the function of the referees sent by the City to settle the disputes with a super partes judgment? What was the importance of the agrarian reform of the Gracchi and the realisation of road axes in the acuity of such antagonisms? These are the questions to which this work tries to provide an answer.
« The Curiate Law and the Religious Nature of the Power of Roman Magistrates »
in O. Tellegen-Couperus (éd.), Law and Religion in the Roman Republic, Leiden-Boston, Brill (Mnemosyne Supplements, 336), 2012, p. 57-84.
The purpose of this article is to point out the close links between the Curiate law on the one hand – which is voted when new magistrates have been elected by the citizens’s assemblies of Rome (comitia) and then invested – and the religious nature of the magistrates’ power on the other hand. In this matter, we shall point out the consubstantial links between Roman public law and the religion of the city at the time of the Res Publica. In spite of the common belief, the sole concern of Curiate law is not about the power of command of superior magistrates (imperium). On the contrary, it applies to all magistrates, be they major – elected by centuriate comices – or minor – elected by tribute comices, except those of the Plebs, who were not really regarded as magistrates. It is thus wrong to mention a “lex curiata de imperio.” The Curiate law is in fact an investing law of a republican origin – it cannot date back to the regal period – that would entrust the newly-elected magistrate with the right to seek advice from the auspices (auspicium, i.e. the ius auspiciorum), in other words, consult Jupiter in order to have him approve of public actions he was about to undertake in his field of competence (potestas). The Curiate law would vest a superior magistrate (maior magistratus) with “major auspices” (auspicia maxima) that would enable him to obtain the imperium – the power of absolute command – at the time of his investiture. Likewise, the power of military command (imperium militiae) would not be confered by Curiate law, but by “starting auspices” taken by a magistrate or commander in chief before he would depart from Rome to join his army. So, the power of command of a superior magistrate was not confered by the citizens electing him, but rather by Jupiter himself. The principle of the sovereignty of the people and the coming of a true democracy in Rome might have been bridled for that very reason.
Power and Politics in Fifth Century BC Rome. The Censorship and Consular Tribunate in Context
ASCS 32 Selected Proceedings, edited by Anne Mackay, 2011
The issues addressed in this paper have been addressed numerous times before. The most recent in-depth studies were by Holloway and Richard, but subject was also investigated in the 1980s by scholars like Ridley and Drummond, in the 1970s by Pinsent, in a spurt of activity in the 1950s, and of course even earlier by scholars like De Sanctis, Mommsen, and others. 1 Indeed, the origin and nature of Rome's early magistracies have fascinated historians, both ancient and modern, since our first extant histories of the period, in large part because there is so little information about them. In particular, the purpose and original nature of the consular tribunes, those enigmatic figures who seem to have taken over the duties of the consuls (albeit on an irregular basis) during the period from 444 to 367 BC, is an issue which vexed even our earliest extant Roman historians (most notably Livy), who presented more than one possible reason for their creation and seem to have been more than a bit confused as to their power and purpose. 2 The reason for this uncertainty is easy to understand. While Rome's first historians, writing in the final two centuries of the Republic, could at least see later examples of most early magistracies (consuls, praetors, censors, etc.), by the late Republic the military tribunes with consular power had not existed for over 150 years, or at least not in a form which in anyway resembled their 5 th century BC incarnation. Consequently, our sources, and indeed many modern scholars, are hazy on even their basic role, power, and function.
Ex senatu eiecti sunt Expulsion from the Senate of the Roman Republic, c.319 50 BC
PhD Thesis, 2013
One of the major duties performed by the censors of the Roman Republic was that of the lectio senatus, the enrolment of the Senate. As part of this process they were able to expel from that body anyone whom they deemed unequal to the honour of continued membership. Those expelled were termed ‘praeteriti’. While various aspects of this important and at-times controversial process have attracted scholarly attention, a detailed survey has never been attempted. The work is divided into two major parts. Part I comprises four chapters relating to various aspects of the lectio. Chapter 1 sees a close analysis of the term ‘praeteritus’, shedding fresh light on senatorial demographics and turnover – primarily a demonstration of the correctness of the (minority) view that as early as the third century the quaestorship conveyed automatic membership of the Senate to those who held it. It was not a Sullan innovation. In Ch.2 we calculate that during the period under investigation, c.350 members were expelled. When factoring for life expectancy, this translates to a significant mean lifetime risk of expulsion: c.10%. Also, that mean risk was front-loaded, with praetorians and consulars significantly less likely to be expelled than subpraetorian members. In Ch.3 and 4 we discuss the mechanics of the lectio and review legislative and personal responses to expulsion, including the observations that censors were sensible to a number of societal constraints, among them the opinions of outside actors; also, that expulsion was not necessarily an insuperable setback. Part II comprises a single chapter, a catalogue of all known named praeteriti. An Appendix presents all source testimonia that allude to each praeteritus’ expulsion. The chronological range is bookended by the promulgation of the plebiscitum Ovinium (which gave censors the responsibility of performing the lectio) and the final censorship of the functioning Republic.