The two books under review are the product of a research project on consuls and consulars in the Roman Republic, funded by the Spanish government and carried out by an international research network. Both volumes are important contributions by leading scholars to our understanding of the consulship and its role in the political order of the Roman Republic.
Consuls and Res Publica consists of four parts, dealing respectively with the consulship's creation, its powers and functions, with ‘Symbols, Models, Self-Representation’ and with ‘Ideology, Confrontation and the End of the Republican Consulship’. Part 1 begins with a sophisticated and convincing contribution by C. Smith, who investigates the reliability of the lists of early republican magistrates. While granting the difficulties involved with transmission and allowing for gaps, Smith argues that the dependence of annalistic historiography on the lists rules out their systematic and unrestrained falsification. Both antiquarians and annalists worked from the lists, the former categorising by magistracy, the latter turning it into history – but with antiquarianism one should be ‘prepared to see something … tremendously sophisticated and yet surprisingly wrong’ (p. 40). G. Urso's chapter postulates a pre-Livian antiquarian source for Cassius Dio's reconstruction of the consulship's origins and defends Dio's account of an original ‘unequal collegiality’ among Rome's chief magistrates and the introduction, first among the decemvirs of 450 and then among the consuls of 449, of ‘equal collegiality’. In his chapter on the development of the praetorship, A. Bergk argues for a college of three superior magistrates after 366. Hence, Praetors must be thought to have become subordinate to the consuls only during the third century. B. adduces Val. Max. 2.8.2 against a clear hierarchy between consul and praetor down to the First Punic War. The passage, however, apart from its very dubious historicity, surely provides ground for the assumption of the praetor's minor potestas vis-à-vis the consul's when in the same prouincia.
Part 2 starts with B.'s reconsideration of imperium. He advances the view that the ‘principal link between imperium and social hierarchy was never questioned’ (p. 96). B. unfortunately does not engage at length (cf. nn. 5, 55) with F. Drogula's provocative and forcefully argued views concerning the exclusively military nature of imperium (Historia 56 [2007], 419–52). B. rejects with Giovannini et al. the lex Cornelia de provinciis ordinandis, but still credits the Sullan era with the differentiation, in time and space, between urban magistracies and pro-magistracies overseas. The differentiation, however, existed already (Cic. Leg. 1.53; cf. E. Badian, Gnomon 51 [1979], 792–4), and neither it nor prorogation in general are to be equated with extraordinary commands bestowed by the assembly on priuati. P. P.'s contribution on the religious tasks of consuls is almost identical with Chapter 2 of his monograph (see below). F. Marco Simón puts forward the view that the celebration of the Latin spring festival on Mons Albanus was a crucial element of the consuls' authority, providing divine sanction for their office. In what is this part's most original chapter, N. Rosenstein inquires into the limits of consuls' ability to profit from the wars they waged. Drawing on the distinction between praeda and manubiae, R. concludes that the demand for repayment of tributum, the need to finance public monuments and soldiers' demand for the remaining praeda did not leave much to be diverted into the generals' own pockets – at least not until the victories in the East. The spoils from the defeat of Perseus and the suspension of the tributum allowed generals more leeway to pocket the manubiae themselves, as wars paid for themselves. Most importantly, this changed the ‘relationship between a general and the res publica’, leaving generals with ‘only their peers in the senate and their soldiers to answer to’ (p. 149) – a very important implication. Generally, however, rather than profiting from wars, extortion of provincials seems to have been the route to riches of choice for most consuls and proconsuls. One quibble: it is odd to call the tributum a progressive tax (p. 139), given that only the amount, but not the tax rate, rose with increasing wealth.
Opening Part 3, K.-J. Hölkeskamp insists on interpreting the Roman Republic symbolically as a ‘theatre of power’, building on previous work on republican political culture. Traditions such as the lowering of the fasces before the populus are analysed sensitively as symbolic rituals which contributed to the stability of the republican system. Less convincingly, pivotal institutions such as prouocatio and consular imperium are also interpreted as, and sometimes reduced to, mere symbols and ‘performances’. M. Roller provides an interesting and lucid inquiry into the exemplum of Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus ‘Cunctator’. The Fabian exemplum was used to attach gloria to the long-term benefit of the commonwealth, rather than narrowly to uirtus in battle, resulting in a novel, broadened normative perspective. J. credits the censors of the 230s or 220s with the creation of a hierarchical list of senators, which established the consular as a rank. He argues convincingly that with the growth of senatorial business, especially the growing number of Greek embassies from the early second century onwards, consulars started to become full-time politicians. As prorogation increasingly replaced iteration, senatorial support became crucial for consuls, resulting in a ‘victory of the consulares over the consules’ (p. 231). J. admits Marius as an exception, but thinks that in general after the Second Punic War iteration became scarce and was in any case not tightly linked with military emergencies. However, emergency legislation such as occurred in 217 allowing for iteration, even continuation (Liv. 27.6.7), may have covered not only M. Claudius Marcellus (cos. III 152) and Marius, but, looking beyond the second century, also cases during the Social War as well as Cinna's continuatio. And with the rise of extraordinary imperia bestowed on priuati by the assembly in the first century, the fact that consulares were ‘free to look after the interests of the res publica’ (p. 231) must have mattered less. M. Fronda explores the relationship between Roman aristocrats and local Italian elites from the Italian viewpoint. He argues convincingly that local aristocrats derived from their personal relationships with Roman nobiles advantages in their own local political settings. By the end of the second century, however, ‘many members of the Italian elite were essentially clients of the great Roman noble houses’. F. concludes that ‘resentment and perceptions of unfulfilled obligations’ provided the context for the coming of the Social War (p. 255).
R. Morstein-Marx at the beginning of Part 4 proposes to take seriously the idea that Sulla in 88 and Marius and Cinna in 87 had acted iure (Cic. Att. 9.10.3). Attention to claims of legitimacy provides insight into ‘central strands of republican political culture that have been lost in the “frozen wastes” of much of twentieth-century republican historiography’ (p. 262). This highly stimulating chapter demonstrates the importance and normative weight of appeals to legitimacy in general and of Sulla's and Cinna's appeals to their troops in particular. M.-M. argues that these appeals, especially Cinna's as portrayed by Appian, undermine the traditional view of a professional, mercenary ‘client’ army ushered in by the Marian reforms. Cinna appeals to his troops as politai, and M.-M. interprets this the way he previously interpreted contiones in Rome. Arguing in favour of a Weberian concept and against a narrow, legalistic interpretation of legitimacy, terms such as ‘illegal’ (p. 263), ‘questionable legality’ (p. 265) or ‘constitutional rights’ (n. 31) are none the less liberally used – acknowledging implicitly the specifically Roman, juristic flavour of our sources whenever issues of legitimacy were at stake. It could be added that arguments about mos maiorum and, especially, ius (publicum) were usually specific arguments about constitutional validity rather than mere features of ‘political culture’ (iure at Att. 9.10.3 means arguably ‘constitutionally’; cf. Caecin. 95–6; Att. 9.9.3; 9.15.2; Phil. 8.7; Asc. 65C). D. investigates consuls related with the popularis movement, defined broadly both in substantive terms as favourably disposed towards prouocatio, agrarian reformation and grain legislation and in procedural terms as working through the popular assembly. D. convincingly argues that the rise of consules populares resulted in ‘the balance of power shifting and the senate finding itself powerless against a determined consul popularis’ (p. 297; cf. P. P.'s monograph, p. 299). V. Arena in an original paper investigates the arguments made by Catulus and Philippus against Lepidus and Pompey in 78/77 and 67/66, suggesting that these arguments were framed in a political language that rested on a ‘philosophical substrate’ (p. 317) that was predominantly Stoic. This is convincing, especially when it comes to the use of Stoic doctrine on emotions and the ascription of ambition and fear to the populares. More caution, however, would have been in order when using Cassius Dio for Catulus' alleged speech in 67 (see B. Saylor Rodgers, GRBS 48 [2008], 295–318). F. Hurlet looks ahead to the consulship under Augustus. He agrees with Ferrary that a law depriving the consul's imperium of its military component never existed under Augustus. However, the re-establishment of a five-year period between consulship and the proconsulships of Africa and Asia in (probably) 27 amounted to the same. H. interprets the reappearance of the suffect consulship in 5 b.c. as a sign of the continuing attraction of the magistracy, while it could equally plausibly be read as its inflationary devaluation. H. concludes, with understatement, that with Augustus, ‘political history can no longer be limited to an examination of institutional machinery bound by strict rules’ (p. 335).
P. P.'s important monograph has a narrower focus than the edited volume of essays, dealing exclusively with the consuls' civil functions, most of which were performed in Rome. Given the consuls' predominant function as a military commander for most of the republican period, this makes for a somewhat lopsided focus, remedied to a certain extent by the contributions to the accompanying edited volume of Rosenstein, B., Morstein-Marx and others dealing with the military aspects of the consulship. ‘Civil functions’ are understood broadly to include not only religious, legislative and diplomatic tasks exercised within the city, but also the exercise of extraordinary investigations or the promotion of public works outside of Rome as well as the presiding over the elections by consuls wearing the paludamentum. F. Drogula's arguments concerning imperium are only briefly touched upon (pp. 5, 217). The book is in two parts, the first dealing with the period from 367 to Sulla's dictatorship and the second focussing on the period from 80 to 50. Part 1 is heavily indebted to the surviving parts of Livy, in particular Books 21–45 and their differentiation between consular activities within and without the city.
P.P. starts by discussing the taking of office, which took place on the Ides of March from 217 onward and on the Calends of January from 153 for the rest of the republican period. The taking of the auspices, the sacrifice to Jupiter and the vows pro salute rei publicae were followed by the first session of the senate and the allotment of the provinces to the consuls. The next chapter (slightly more extensive than the contribution to Consuls and Res Publica) deals with the consuls' religious tasks, which consisted in their maintaining the pax deorum. The expiation of prodigies, the celebration of the feriae Latinae, the performing of the ritual of the clauus annalis and the sacrifices in Lavinium (both of dubious historicity), the presiding over the games and the celebration of the uer sacrum are all discussed, and P.P. concludes that notwithstanding the religious nature of these tasks, their ultimate function was political (i.e. the preservation of the state). The following chapter shows the important role of the consuls in the diplomatic field by discussing the reception of foreign embassies at the beginning of the consular year. The consuls emerge as ‘spokesmen for the senate’ (p. 81), although from an investigation of a campaigning consul's diplomacy much more consular autonomy might have emerged. Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the consuls' role in communicating with the people and their legislative activities. Consular edicts announced in contiones as well as speeches in front of the people served to inform, rouse or appease the people, or indeed recruit them for war (an example for the difficulty of separating civil and military tasks). Due to campaigning, however, the participation of consuls in contiones as well as their legislative activities were limited before the last century b.c. P.P. argues convincingly, pace K. Sandberg, that consuls did in fact present bills, mostly declarations of war, to the people. However, P.P. admits that civil legislation by consuls and many laws attributed to consuls by Rotondi are much more questionable. Still, while consular civil legislation was rare, it did exist, especially in domains of vital interest to the senate (whether it took place in the comitia tributa rather than the comitia centuriata in the pre-Sullan period however is not established by P.P. and remains dubious). The next chapter discusses pre-Sullan consular jurisdiction. Consuls carried out extraordinary investigations by virtue of their imperium. P.P. counts eleven such quaestiones between the late fourth century and the Gracchi, with the investigation of the Bacchanalia being merely the most famous. In the second century, consuls emerged as the main public road builders (the assumption of a ius publicandi here for the Republican period is questionable); they were, from the late fourth century onwards, major promoters of temples and sanctuaries; they also promoted monuments in the city of Rome, and contributed to the draining of marshlands and the construction of canals, as P.P. shows with great acuity in Chapter 7. Acting on behalf of the senate, consuls could be called upon to control the boundaries of public land and to distribute it (S. Roselaar's monograph on ager publicus in the Republic [2010] must have appeared too late to be taken into account). Consuls at times played a role in the foundation of new colonies and at least sometimes recruited colonists. P.P. thinks it ‘plausible that the consuls were also in charge of the constitution of at least some’ (p. 185) of the known fora, linking them to the construction of roads. There follows an interesting chapter on the appointment of a dictator, a traditional constitutional prerogative of the consul. Exceptional elections of dictators by the people illustrate according to P.P. ‘constitutional flexibility’ (p. 189), but the rarity of the phenomenon testifies rather to the rigidness of certain rules – pace P.P., there was not ‘no problem in changing the traditions’ (n. 8) when Sulla and Caesar were appointed dictators, as Cicero's bitter irony at Att. 9.15.3 goes to show. Consuls presided over the elections (Chapter 11) of consuls, praetors and censors. Electoral presidency was not held by the consul prior factus in the pre-Sullan time, but was allotted or agreed upon. Part 1 concludes by summarising the pre-Sullan consular year.
The second part, on post-Sullan consular functions, opens with a discussion of the supposed lex Cornelia de prouinciis ordinandis. P.P. follows Balsdon, Valgiglio and Giovannini in arguing convincingly that there was no such thing and thinks that Q. Mucius Scaevola (cos. 95) set a precedent in renouncing his province and staying at Rome during his term of office, followed by Cinna; but what about Marius in 100? The practice of severing promagistracy from urban magistracy, first exhibited by praetors as a consequence of the development of permanent quaestiones (Marius, pr. 115, went to Spain in 114; L. Gellius, pr. 94, pro consule in the East in 93), was in any case already in existence before Sulla's dictatorship. P.P. thinks, sensibly, that the new career pattern developed in response to ‘possible seditious actions by the tribunes’, against which the consuls could provide a balance (p. 247). There follows a dense chapter on consular functions in the period 80–50, where the increase in legislative activity and a decrease in participation in public works are emphasised. More attention could have been paid to contentious constitutional aspects such as Lepidus' request for continuatio of his consulship, Pompey's extraordinary commands, the accumulation of powers under the lex Trebonia in 55ff., Pompey's sole consulship in 52 (and the presence of troops in the city: Cic. Mil. 2–3), or to the consuls' role in implementing senatus consulta ultima, but P.P.'s exceedingly empirical focus makes it difficult to see the normative pull of the protagonists' arguments about constitutional legitimacy. The last chapter and the conclusion establish the development of the consulship from supreme military command to a civil legislating magistracy.
The volumes under review seek to shift the focus from constitutional to cultural history and to political practice. There are limits to this approach – the consulship and the concept of imperium presuppose higher-order constitutional norms more firmly entrenched than, and controlling, mere legislation. None the less, these two books, both beautifully produced and solidly proofread, contribute significantly to our understanding of the republican consulship and of the political culture, the political history and the constitutional order of the Roman Republic.
