Download pdf - Szemler, G.J.: The Priests of the Roman Republic

& ^ 4k, .i\sn^ cv

COLLECTION LATOMUS VOLUME 127

THE PRIESTS OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC A Study of Interactions Between Priesthoods and Magistracies

LATOMUS REVUE D'TUDES LATINES

60, rue Colonel Chaltin, B. 1180 Bruxelles

Fonde en 1937, la revue Latomus, que dirigent MM, Lon Her rmann et Marcel Renard, publie des articles, des varits et discussions, des notes de lecture, des comptes rendus, des notices bibliographiques, des informations pdagogiques ayant trait tous les domaines de la latinit : textes, littrature, histoire, institutions, archologie, pigraphie, palographie, humanisme, etc.

Les quelque 1000 pages qu'elle comporte annuellement con-tiennent une riche documentation, souvent indite et abondam-ment illustre.

Montant de l'abonnement au tome XXXI (1972) : Abonnement ordinaire : 750 FB Abonnement de soutien : 1.500 FB Port et expdition : Belgique : 20 FB tranger : 50 FB Prix des tomes publis avant Tanne en cours : 800 FB Les quatre fascicules d'un tome ne sont pas vendus

sparment .

Compte de chques postaux 7526-46 de la Socit d'tudes latines de Bruxelles.

Pour Tacht des tomes I XII, s'adresser : Johnson Reprint Corporation, 111, Fifth Avenue, New York 3, New York.

Correspondants : ARGENTINE: M. le Prof. Fr. NVOA,

Laprida, 1718, Buenos-Aires. BRSIL : M. le Prof. Vandick LONDRES

DA NBREGA, 32, Rua Araucaria, Jardim Botanico, Rio-de-Janeiro.

TATS-UNIS ET CANADA : M. le Prof. J. R. WORKMAN, Brown University, Providence 12, Rhode Island.

FRANCE : M. J. HEURGON, Prof, la Sorbonne, Le Verger, rue des Bois, 78, La-Celle-St-Cloud.

GRANDE-BRETAGNE : M. le Prof. Fergus MILLAR, Queen's College, Oxford.

ITALIE : M l l e M. L. PALADINI, 13, Via Bellotti, Milano.

PAYS-BAS : M. le Dr. K. H. E. SCHUT-TER, 6, Sloetstraat, Nimgue.

SUDE : M. le Prof. G. SAEFLUND, 52,1 tr. Vasagatan, 11120, Stockholm.

SUISSE : M. A. GATTIN, 14, Grand-Rue, Cormondrche (Neuchtel), Suisse,

IMPRIMERIE UNIVERSA, WETTEREN (BELGIQUE)

COLLECTION LATOMUS VOLUME 127

G. J. SZEMLER

The Priests of the Roman Republic

A Study of Interactions Between Priesthoods and Magistracies

LATOMUS REVUE D'TUDES LATINES

60, rue Colonel Chaltin BRUXELLES

1972

o arrie

D/1972/0415/43

Droits de traduction, de reproduction et d'adaptation rservs pour tous pays. Toute reproduction d'un extrait quelconque, par quelque procd que ce soit et no-

tamment par photocopie ou microfilm, est strictement interdite.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Following in the footsteps of C. Bardt, this book is a prosopogra-phical study of all known priests to the death of Julius Caesar. In a revised and expanded form, the work is essentially the author's Promotionsarbeit which was presented at the Institut fr alte Geschichte at the University of Innsbruck.

For advice and encouragement, I wish to thank primarily Profes-sor F. Hampl of Innsbruck, my friends at the Institut, esp. Dr. Ingo-mar Weiler, as well as Professor M. Chambers of Los Angeles, whose lectures inspired the writing of this study. Needless to say, for any and all inconsistencies, interpretative curiosities and/or factual errors I alone am responsible. Thanks are due to Messrs Chr. Murphy and Geoffrey Miller for aid during stages of the research, Miss J . Valen-tine for professional assistance in typing the manuscript, and the kind personnel of Cudahy Memorial Library, who often solved ap-parently insurmountable problems in providing the nesessary research material. Chapter I appeared in a more expanded form in NUMEN, Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic , 18, 1971, pp. 103-131. Professor C. J . Bleeker, the editor of this

journal, kindly allowed me to use this article in the present work. Apologies are extended to the reader for Magyarisms which

might occur in the text in spite of the efforts of Dr. R. R. Dolezal and Dr. C. A. L. Jarrott .

Finally, the book is affectionately dedicated uxori meae carissi-mae, without whose patience and encouragement this endeavour would have been impossible.

Wilson Hall, Chicago, Illinois. September, 1970.

P R O L O G U E

In Roman history, the functions of the state cult were inseparably connected with affairs of the state. A glance at the available data indicates that the administration of the cults was always in the hands of the governing circles. The magistrates, who celebrated the great games for the gods, also performed the sacrifices and took the auspicio,, while at the same time a great number of them served as members of priestly colleges. Although magisterial and priestly functions were distinct and never overstepped the boundaries of their estab-lished spheres of action, they seemed to interact in the careers of known priests. The priests belonged to the same classes to which belonged those individuals who, year after year, contended for, and often held, the magistracies. They were, and continued to be members of the great consular families. Novi homines seldom achieved priesthoods or consulships. Specifically because priests belonged to the same classes and consequently espoused the same interests, an investigation of these class-bound aspects of priesthoods and magis-tracy seems to be warranted, in view of the fact that such aspects have not received comprehensive attention in recent years.

There are a number of works in which priests were treated. L. Mercklin (}) presented a list opontifices and augures, utilized by Momm-sen (2), who included also Mercklin's list of Xviri (3). In 1871, G. Bardt compiled the membership of the major colleges during the Republic, to the death of Caesar (4). He presented evidence for the indi-vidual priests and attempted to establish by conjecture priestly succes-sions after the lex Ogulnia (he did not list the /famines, nor the minor priesthoods). His work was incorporated by T. Robert S. Broughton and

(1) Die Cooptation der Rmer, Mitau-Leipzig, 1848, pp. 215/216. (2) Rmische Forschungen, 2 vols., Berlin, 1864, 1879 (repr. G. Olms, Hildesheim, 1962),

1, pp. 83 ff. (3) MERCKLIN, op. cit., p. 101. (4) Die Priester der vier grossen Collgien ans rmisch-republikanischer Zeit, K. WILHELMS-

GYMNASIUM in Berlin,XL Jahresbericht,i$&c\in, 1871. Bardt presented the Illviri, the later Vllviri epulones, as the fourth major college, but it is under Augustus that we first hear of the four major colleges (SUET., Aug. 100, Dio, 53.1,5; MARQUARDT, p. 221, RKR, pp. 483 ff.), as against CICERO'S three (har. resp., 9,18, nat. d., 3.2,5).

PROLOGUE 7

M. Patterson (1), who presented names of magistrates and priests from available literary tradition as well as non-literary evidence. M. Hoff-man Lewis treated the priests of the Julio-Claudian period (2), of whom twenty fall within the limit of 44 B.C. Besides the above, diverse, partial and/or topical studies offered additional views of Roman priest-hoods (3).

Therefore, in the following study, an investigation will be under-taken in which an attempt will be made to present available names, to establish as far as possible with exactitude times of cooptation and death, as well as identification with known personalities, and to interrelate these data to an analysis of the priesthoods' role in the Roman Republic. As complete a list as possible will be given of all priestly colleges, including the sodalitates, to the time of Julius Caesar. In this study only those data can be emphasized which per-

(1) T. ROBERT S. BROUGHTON and M. PATTERSON, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 2 vols., New York, 1951/52, Suppl., 1960. As will be shown, their listing of data, primarily based upon literary tradition, necessitated the elimination of a number of priests due to inconsistencies, assumptions, or annalistic interpolation.

(2) M. HOFFMAN LEWIS, The Official Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians, Am. Ac. in Rome, Papers and Monographs, 1955, basing her material on P. HABEL, De Pontificum Romanorum inde ab Augusto usque ad Aurelianum condicione publica, Breslau, 1888 ; and G. HOWE, Fasti sacerdotum P. R. publicorum aetatis imperatoriae, Leipzig, 1903, D. Halle.

(3) Partial lists are presented in the following works : V. SPINAZZOLA, Augur, in E. DE RUGGIERO, Dizionario epigrafico di antichit Romana, Rome, 1895-1950 ; A. KLOSE, Rmische Priesterfasten, 1, D. Breslau, 1910 ; J . GAG, Apollon Romain, Paris, 1955, pp. 698 ff., (the Xviri with inaccuracies) ; G. RADKE, Quindecimviri, in RE, 24, pp. 1114, 53 ff., for lists cf. pp. 1142, 64 ff.

Some monographs and articles considered priests from politico-social points of view : F. MNZER, Rmische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien, Stuttgart, 1920, (list for pont. max. on p. 414) ; the pontifices in the first century B.C., L. R. TAYLOR, Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College in AJPh, 63, 1942, pp. 385 ff., (list on pp. 411/412) ; D. E. HAHM, Roman Nobility and the three Major Priesthoods, 218-167 B.C. in TAPhA, 94, 1963, pp. 73 ff., basing his material entirely on MRR, without source analysis, and without lists ; J.-Cl. RICHARD, Sur quelques grands pontifes plbiens, in Latomus, 27, 1968, pp. 786 ff. As will be shown below the last authors tend to overemphasize family and political contacts, as well as "party" ambitions ; thus they present a clouded and not fully acceptable view of the role of priesthoods in the Republic. While such contacts could be assumed, without evidence they cannot mean a concerted and relentless line of political action. Often individuals, through the perspicacity of their views, and not "party" or family connected leadership, could exercise influence and carry out their plans. (The problem will be dis-cussed below in the analysis of the role of personalities in the priestly colleges of the third century).

8 PROLOGUE

tain to priesthoods ; so references will be made to other works only when it is necessary to establish identification and priestly function.

The study will be divided into four parts. A general background of the priesthoods (*) will be presented, with a summary of those priestly functions which interacted with magistracies, in the frame of the Roman concepts of aristocracy and religio, as reflected in the functions of the priesthoods of the Roman Republic. Subsequently, those problems will be analyzed which are connected with identifying individual priests from the beginning of the Republic to 300, followed by a list to the year 211. After a discussion of the leading personalities in the priestly colleges of the third century, as well as the apparent division in the priesthoods between politically compatible and detri-mental ones, the last chapter will present the priests from 210 to the death of Julius Caesar (2). In establishing the lists, Mommsen's

(1) J . MARQUARDT and Th. MOMMSEN, Handbuch der rmischen Alterthmer, 7 vols., 2nd ed., 1876-1886, esp. vol. 6 (i.e., vol. 3 of Rmische Staatsverwaltung, 2nd ed. by G. Wissowa) ; A.BOUCH-LECLERCQ, Manuel des Institutions Romains, Paris, 1886 ; G.WISSOWA, Religion und Kultus der Rmer, 2nd ed., Mnchen, 1912 (Handbuch der klassischen Alter-tumswissenschaft, v. 4) ; K. LATTE, Rmische Religionsgeschichte (Handbuch der Altertums-wissenschaft, V. 4), Beck, Mnchen, 1960.

The following works were consistently used for background information : The Cambridge Ancient History, ed. by S. A. COOK, F. E. ADGOCK and M. P. CHARLESWORTH, vols. 7, 8 and 9, Cambridge, 1928-1934 ;J . VOGT, Rmische Geschichte (Erste Hlfte), Die rmische Republik, Herder, Freiburg i.B., 1932 (3rd. ed., 1955) ; The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. by M. GARY and others, Oxford, 1949 ; M. CARY, A History of Rome, 2nd ed., Macmillan, London, 1965 ; Th. MOMMSEN, Rmisches Staatsrecht, 3 vols., 1887, unchanged reprint of the 3rd ed., Ak. Druck-u. Verlags., Graz, 1952 ; ID., Gesammelte Schriften, repr. of the edition, 1903-1913, Weidmannsche Verl., Berlin /Zrich ; also ID., Rmische Chronologie bis auf Caesar, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1859 ; W. K. A. DRUMANN, Geschichte Roms in seinem Uehergange von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, re-edited by P. Groebe, 6 vols. (1,1899; 2,1902; 3,1906; 4,1908/1910; 5,1919; 6,1929), reprint Olms, Hildesheim, 1964; PAULY-WISSOWA, Real-Encyclopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, edited in succession by KROLL, MITTELHAUS and ZIEGLER, 1894 ;Der kleine Pauly, Lexikon der Antike, auf Grund-lage von Paulys Realencyclopdie, ed. K. ZIEGLER and W. SONTHEIMER, Stuttgart, to the present only three vols., 1,1964; 2,1967; 3,1969.

(2) The priests of the earliest period will not be numbered since, with few exceptions, their priesthood and identification appear to be questionble. Those from the lex Ogulnia to 211, are numbered in chronological order, regardless of priesthood. Thus, Ti. Corun-canius, cos. 280, is n l l , M. Claudius Marcellus, cos. 222, is n19 (cf. pp. 68 and 70). In the third group, the priests will be numbered according to chronological order in their individual college or sodality. Thus, P. Licinius Crassus Dives, cos. 205, is P. 5 (p. 105), C.Claudius Pulcher, cos. 177, is Aug. 9 (p. 141), M'.Acilius Glabrio, cos. 191,

PROLOGUE 9

technique will be followed (RF, 1, loc. cit.), i.e., cooptation, or death (or the year to which the priesthood can be ascribed) will determine an individual's position in the chronological order (1).

is Xvir 10 (p. 160), L. Valerius Flaccus, cos. 131, is Fl. 8 (p. 169), and similarly, with the epulones, salii, and luperci, numbers will follow abbreviated forms of the college or sodality, Ep., Sal., Lup.

(1) The decuriate system (seen in CIL, 6, 1976, 1984), as attempted by Bardt, is im-possible to recreate because of the nonavailability of sufficient data, with the exception of three years, as will be shown.

SOURCES

Our main source for the republican priests is Livy (1), who pre-sented priestly data and names with some degree of consistency. In his work he described personal and national affairs, the life and cha-racter of a great people in their origin, both as an example for individuals and for the state of his own time.

It has been pointed out that Livy's purpose in writing was to give Rome a history, based upon his own conception (2) and ends, as expressed in his praefatio. Yet, in the evaluation of the material concerning priests, the question has to be asked : what sources did the author use, and did he also deliberately change his sources as warranted either by the historical narrative, the convenience of his topic, or his general purpose ? A reflection upon his extant books shows that some doubt can be raised as to historical reliability, especially in the first decade.

Many scholars correctly pointed out the failure of Livy to use and evaluate available documentary evidence. "Er ist nicht Geschichts-forscher, sondern Geschichtsschreiber", writes Klotz, "und so erklrt es sich, dass er Urkunden und Denkmler nicht selbstndig herangezogen, dass er die reiche antiquarische Literatur wie ganz vernachlssigt... " (3). Taine is extremely critical for the same reason :

(1) Because of the scarcity of non-literary sources, especially inscriptions and coins, they will be treated in the following chapters, whenever they occur.

(2) On Livy, cf. KLOTZ, RE, 13 (9), pp. 816,37 ff., esp. 831,42 fF. and 851,33 ff. ; P. G. WALSH, Livy, His Historical Aims and Methods, Cambridge, 1963, esp. pp. 10/11. Furthermore, he presents and convincingly evaluates Livy's historical method (pp. 138 ff.). Different aspects of the problem are treated in E. BURGK, Die Erzhlungskunst des T. Livius, Problemata 11, Berlin, 1934; F. HELLMANN, Livius-interpretationen, Berlin, 1939, esp. paragraph on purpose, pp. 23 ff. ; G. STBLER, Die Religiositt des Livius, Stuttgart-Berlin, 1941 ; I. HOCH, Die Darstellung der politischen Sendung Roms bei Livius, Frankfurt, 1951 ; J. P. V. D. BALSDON, Some Questions about Historical Writing in the Second Century B.C. in J RS, 44,1954, pp. 30 ff. ; d. T. A. DOREY, Latin Historians, Routledge and Kegan, London, 1966 esp. article on Livy by P. G. WALSH, pp. 115 ff., 129 ff. ^ W. LIEBSGHUETZ, The Religious Position ofLivfs History in JRS, 57, 1967, pp. 46 ff. ; Fifty Years, pp. 477/478 (article by A. H. MCDONALD).

(3) KLOTZ, in RE, pp. 835, 51-55.

SOURCES 11

"On ne trouve pas l'amour infatigable de la science complte et de la vrit absolue" (x). Walsh outrightly states that Livy does not use anywhere documentary evidence : "When he quotes from ancient documents, he has read them in a literary source" (2). Ogilvie is specific that "Livy was not interested in research" (3), and comments that he did not use the original tabulae dealbatae or the annales, as published by thepontifex, P. Mucius Scaevola, in 123.

Yet, according to the author's statement, he was not indifferent to original documents. He apologizes at the beginning of the sixth book (4) for the scarcity of documentary material with which he had to contend : ... turn quodparvae et rarae per eadem tempora litterae fuere, una costodia fidelis memoriae rerum gestarum, et quod, etiam si quae in comrr;.mtariis pontificum aliisque publias privatisque erant monumentis, incensa urbe pleraeque interiere. It is clear from his statement that he is aware of the fact that not all sources were demolished and might have been available for consultation. He assured the reader : Clariora deinceps certioraque ab secunda orgine velut ab stirpibus laetius

feraciusque renatae urbis gesta domi militiaeque exponentur (5). It is evident that documentary evidence existed in Livy's time.

The annalesmaximi,(e) published around the end of the second century, could be viewed by anyone on the walls of the Regia. It is generally accepted that the source for these annales was the tabulae pontificum, which were set up annually by the pontifices and contained notations

(1) H. TAINE, Essai sur Tite Live, Paris, 1896, 6th ed., p. 64. (2) WALSH, Livy, op. cit., p. 110. (3) R. M. OGILVIE, Commentary on Livy, Books 1-5, Oxford, 1965, p. 6, especially note 1. (4) LIVY, 6.1,2-3. (5) Ibid., 3 ; J. BAYET, Tite-Live, Histoire romaine, Paris, 1966, vol. 6, pp. 79 ff., takes

Livy's statement and asks "ne se fait-il pas illusion ?" He compares Livy's Book VI with Diod. Sic. and suggests that one cannot expect better information than in the preceding books. For a detailed analysis of Livy's sources, cf. WALSH, Livy, op. cit., pp. 110-137, on historical authorities and pp. 138-172 on method.

(6) HRR, 1, pp. iii-xxix ; W. S. TEUFFEL (new ed. W. KROLL and F. SKUTSCH), Geschichte der rmischen Literatur, 3 vols., Teubner, Leipzig (1, 6th ed., 1916 ; 2, 7th ed., 1920 ; 3, 6th ed., 1913) ; 1, par. 76, pp. 135 ff. ; for more recent bibliography, cf. HRR, pp. 385-387 ; also, (pubi. O. REVERDIN) Fondation Hardt, Les origines de la Rpublique romaine, in Entretiens, Tome XIII, 1967, pp. 135-169. Gabba follows P. FRAGGARO'S excellent evalua-tion of the problem : The History of Rome in the Regal Period, (transi. U. Erwins), in J RS, 47, 1957, pp. 59-65. Gf. also L. PARETI, Storia di Roma, Torino, 1952,1, pp. 56-57 ; A. ALFLDI, Early Rome and the Latins, Jerome Lectures, Seventh Series, Ann Arbor, 1964, pp. 165 ff.

12 SOURCES

on items of interest to the pontifical college (x). (It is also well known that other colleges maintained similar collections) (2). Cato was familiar with these tabulae, as seen in his not very complimentary reference to them : Non lubet scribere, quod tabula apud pontificem maximum est, quotiens annona cara, quotiens lunae aut solis lumine caligo aut quid obstiterit (3). Acceptable degree of reliability is credited to these tabulae, from ca. 300 on, from the well-known passage in Cicero, de r.p., 1.16, 25 (4). Yet, one has to assume the possi-bility that even before this time memorable occasions, official functions, and magistrates connected with the affairs of the recorders were duly noted without lengthy descriptions upon the tabulae, and thus provided the chronological frame into which a later editorial hand could include the annales maximi (5).

Whether the much discussed libri lintei (6) were contributing

(1) Gf. LAQUEUR, RE, 13, pp. 1089, 50 ff., quotes Serv., ad Aeri., I, p. 273, and suggests that they contained notes which were of importance to the pontifices and were stacked together in a caudex or codex. That they remained in the Regia is clear from CATO, HRR, fr. 77 (cf. below) and DION. HAL., 1,74,3, and could be inspected by the public. Laqueur cites example of the fr. Arv. who maintained records in this manner. R. WERNER, Der Beginn der rmischen Republik, Oldenburg, Mnchen-Wien, 1963, pp. 39-41, in contending that besides the tabulae other sources have to be accounted for in the annales maximi, seems to be correct, i.e., private family documents, tituli imaginum and laudationes, (TEUFFEL, op, cit., 1, par. 81, 82, pp. 139 ff.), as well as the writings of the earliest annalists, esp. Cn. Gel-lius. M. I. HENDERSON'S objection, J RS, 52, 1962, p. 277, to accept the possibility of stacking the tabulae is well taken since it is difficult to imagine that such wrooden tablets were preserved from generation to generation. Admittedly, Cicero's de or., 2,12,52 usque ad P. Mucium pontificem maximum merely implies that it was so. Yet, the recent discovery of writing tablets in London, E. G. TURNER and O. SKUTSCH {JRS, 50, pp. 108-11), would contradict Henderson. At a depth of 15 feet, a tablet has been found with easily decipherable writing, well preserved and dates from about 80-100 A.D.

(2) The libri augurum, saliorum, comm. XVvhorum, the fasti sac, and the Etr. disc, libri (cf. Teuffel, op. cit., 1, par. 77, p. 137).

(3) HRR, 1, fr. 77. (4) K.J. BELOCH, Griechische Geschichte, 2nd ed., 4 vols., Gruyter, Berlin, 1967, reprint of

1912-26 edition, 4.2, p. 271 ; according to him the Ciceronian passage ought to read anno quinquagesimo et quadringentesimo. ALFLDI, op. cit., p. 166, n. 6, neglects the emenda-tion and applies deliberate obfuscation on Cicero's part. To the problem, cf. WERNER. op. cit., p. 40, n. 1.

(5) Werner's argument appears to be correct when he states that the tabulae must have been the chronological source for Q. Fabius Pictor (p. 39, n. 1).

(6) LIVY, 4.7,12; 13,7; 20,8; Lie. MAC, HRR, fr. 13,27,15; also LIVY, 4.23,2,3; Lie. MAC, HRR, fr. 14, and LIVY, 10.38,6 ; SCHN, RE, 6, pp. 2025,19 ff. ; TEUFFEL, op.

SOURCES 13

factors in the compilation of the annals cannot be decided for certain Ogilvie projects them as probable collation of lists of magistrates from the beginning of the Republic downwards (1).

Concurrently with these one must also consider the fasti, ori-ginally notations of the pontif ices (2), which later evolved into records of annual accounts of the most important affairs connected with the annual magistracies, triumphs, and sacerdotal affairs (3). They have to be separated from the notations of the eponymous magistrates, the so called libri magistratum (4). The time of the individual collec-tions varies, but they were edited and available by the end of the first century (5). Most recently, Alfldi and Gabba emphasized (6)

cit., 1, par. 79, p. 138. Purpose and value, cf. OGILVIE, (Livy, Licinius Macer and the Libri Lintei, in J RS, 48, 1958, pp. 40 ff. ; BADIAN, in DOREY, Lat. Hist., op. cit., p . 22.

(1) The reliability of the libri lintei is questioned owing to the impossibility of main-taining such material for lengthy periods (TEUFFEL, loc.cit., note 2) and the inconsistency offered in the magisterial lists in 444 and 434, cf. MRR, 1, pp. 42/53, nn. 1 and 2 ; pp. 61/ 62, nn. 1 and 2, for detailed information ; critically evaluated in OGILVIE, Commentary, op. cit., pp. 544, 563/64.

(2) Separation has to be made between dies fasti, i.e., the days on which it is permitted to engage in any public affair in opposition to dies nefasti (VARRO, /./., 6,29/30). Whether they contained lists of magistrates cannot be determined. (The problem of the pre-300 fasti is controversial, especially the interpolation of material favorable to plebeians, cf. E. STEIN, Wiener Studien, 37, 1915, pp. 4 ff.).

(3) Inscr. Ital., XIII, I (1947); C. CICHORIUS, De fastis consularibus antiquissimis, in Leipz. Stud., 9, 1886, pp. 171 ff. ; G. COSTA, I fasti consulari romani delle origini alle morte di Giulio Cesare, 2 vols. Milano, 1910 ; SCHN, RE, 6, pp. 2015-2046, 9 ; R. STIEHL, Die Datierung der Kapitolinischen Fasten in AIIAPXAI, Untersuchungen zur klass. Phil, und Gesch. des Altertums, vol. 1, 1957, esp. pp. 1-24, and 61 ff.

(4) TEUFFEL, op. cit., I, 178, pp. 137 - 138 ; The problem is presented in great detail by WERNER, op. cit., pp. 219 ff., and, most recently, in Fond. Hardt, op. cit., passim, especially, by Hanell, pp. 178-191, also the statements of A. ALFLDI, pp. 36-38 ; HEURGON, p. 123, and GJERSTAD, pp. 3-30.

(5) It is of no particular interest to us when exactly the fasti were compiled. STIEHL has shown (op. cit., loc. cit.) that Degrassi's early dating is unlikely. She accepts L. R. Taylor's suggestion of ca. the second decade before the end of the first century. SCHN, loc. cit., pp. 2037, 59 ff., has shown that the most important are the fasti Cap. : "In ihr haben alle jene Beamten einen Platz gefunden, welche fr die Chronologie Roms zur Zeit der Augustus von Bedeutung waren..." (2037,40-43).

(6) ALFLDI and GABBA, Fond. Hardt, op. cit., p. 172, in an exchange of opinions : "Alfldi : ' Concerning the Annales maximi, I think their publication in the age of the Grac-chi included all the accounts of the Annalists, and contained nothing more of the original authentic annotations to the Fasti, than in the Annalist tale'. Gabba 'Sono molto grato, della consideratione... sono pure d'accordo nel pensare che la redazione finale degli Annales Maximi abbia tenuto largo conto del materiale annalistico'".

14 SOURCES

that the final form of the fas ti > just like the annales maximi, were built on the records of well-known historidal and sacred affairs, such as the leges (1), senatus consulta (2), consular and dictatorial triumphs (3), treaties (4) and individual data, collected from diverse sources and put into a chronological frame which followed the initial method of these records (5). Admittedly, upon publication, the fasti could not cover the earlier periods, fundamentally because data were not consistently kept, and, for various reasons, were not readily available. It seems feasible, therefore, to assume that vacua were filled from diverse records by the editor or editors. Yet, they appear to be part of the Roman tradition, and, in general, the information seems to be reliable (6). Thus, one has to consider the possibility that at the

(1) In this instance I think especially of lex de davo figendo, (LIVY, 7.3,5-9) and the X I I Tables. The problem rests in the connection between eponymous magistrates and chrono-logical order, recently attested by the remarks of Hanell, as cited above. Cf. also, F. WIEAGKER in Fond, Hardt, op. cit., pp. 293-356 : Die XII tafeln in ihrem Jahrhundert ; WERNER, op. cit., pp. 27-34.

(2) O 'BRIEN MOORE, in RE, Suppl. 6, pp. 800, 61-812, 44, esp. lists of the sen. cons., pp. 808, 10 ff. ; MOMMSEN, RSR, 3, p. 1004; Ges. Sehr., pp. 5, 339 ff.

(3) RSR, 1, pp. 126-136, 6371 ; R. LAQUEUR, ber das Wesen des rmischen Triumphs, in Hermes, 1909, p. 214.

(4) RSR, 1, pp. 246-257. (5) Relevant material is conveniently collected and discussed in WERNER, op. cit.,

pp. 3-215, in which Werner bases early Republican chronology upon all available infor-mation, especially upon the dedication of the Capitoline Temple and the Gallic catastro-phe, in juncture with PL. , n.h., 33,18. Opposing point of view is expressed by OGILVIE, CI. Rev., loc. cit., pp. 84-87, and similar, but not basically chronologically-based views, in GSCHNITZER'S review, Gnomon, 39,1967, pp. 709-714. To this has to be added the accounts of Greek and possibly Etruscan sources (A. ALFLDI, Early Rome, op. cit., pp. 56 ff. ; M. SARDI, / rapporti Romano-Ceriti e l'origine della civitas sine suffragio, Rome, 1960), as well as archaeological evidence.

(6) SCHN in RE, loc. cit., esp. pp. 2039, 35 ff. According to the well-known statement of CICERO, de or., 2.12,52, records existed from the earliest times. They must have con-tained, at least partially, certain names and pertinent data concerning the magistrates. Kr. HANELL (Das altrmische eponyme Amt, Lund, 1946) espoused the idea that they were connected not with the magistrates but rather with a calendar reform and with the dedi-cation of the Capitoline Temple. Difficulties connected with Hanell's postulations are caused by the problem of the praetor maximus and the interpolation of every second name on the lists (Ernst MEYER, MUS. Helv., 9, 1952, pp. 176 ff.) as well as with the chronological problems in the struggle between the plebeians and patricians, which would fall in this case during the time of the last two kings (A. MOMIGLIANO, An Interim Report on the Origins of Rome in J RS, 53, 1963, p. 103, and Fond. Hardt, op. cit., "Osservazioni sulla distinzione fra patrizi e plebei", pp. 199-221, in which he states that the causes of all troubles between

SOURCES 15

time of Livy's activity, such data were available and could have been perused by an historian.

That Livy, or his literary predecessors, occasionally used or could have used these documentary sources appears to be evident from many of Livy's own statements. He uses the term annales often, but it refers to the work of the annalists, either by name or by impli-cation, 25.39, 12 : Auctor est Claudius, qui annales Acilianos... vertit, 21.25, 4 : M\ Acilium et C. Herennium habent quidam annales, 42.11, 1 : plurium annales... tradunt, 32.6, 8 : Graeci Latinique auctores, quorum quidem ego legi annales... He even refers to his own work as annales : 43.13, 2 : in meos annales referam. Nevertheless, in the First Decade, he uses the term somewhat differently. In 8.30, 7, a distinction is clearly drawn between auctores, antiquissimi scriptores and annales, which is not solved by Peter's and Klotz's suggestions that the term antiquissimi scriptores refers to Q,. Fabius Pictor (1). He refers to veteres annales, in vetustioribus annalibus and in annalibus prisas; yet a closer analysis of the passage shows that he relies upon second-hand information (2).

the classes originated during the monarchy). Nevertheless, even Werner's thesis (op. cit., passim) does not change the assumption about the reliability of the fasti (K. J. BELOGH, Rmische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der Panischen Kriege, Berlin, 1926, p. 15 ; A. ALFLDI, Der frhrmische Reiteradel, Baden-Baden, 1952, pp. 21 fi, and p. 78; F. CORNELIUS, Untersuchungen zur frhen rmischen Geschichte (Mnchen, 1940), pp. 105 ff. ; opposing view by W. HOFFMANN, Gnomon, 1943, pp. 80 ff. (and MOMIGLIANO, JRS, 35, 1945, pp. 127 ff.) ; cf. also, HANELL, op. cit., p. 173 ; A. ALFLDI, Early Rome, op. cit., pp. 167 and 168, esp. note 1. In the discussion in Fond. Hardt, op. cit., pp. 192-196, following the conclusion that the fasti cannot give us reliable answers earlier than the middle of the fifth century, Hanell admits that at this moment he cannot hold that only one eponymous magistrate was established in the first years of the Republic (p. 193), which is in contrast to his thesis.

(1) LIVY, 8.30,7 ; Q,. FABIUS PICTOR, HRR, fr. 18 ; A. KLOTZ, Limas und seine Vorgnger, Leipzig-Berlin, 1940, 41, pp. 205/206, identifies antiquissimi scriptores with Fabius, as PETER HRR, l,p. Lxxxviii. Nevertheless, they fail to provide an adequate solution for auctores, as well as annales, which Klotz identifies "wahrscheinlich Piso, oder Claudius" (p. 206) ; yet, building on probabilities, Klotz assumes "Piso ist also stets nur zur Nachprfung herange-zogen, scheidet demnach als Quelle fr die Erzhlung aus" (p. 207). In contrast to this, it should be pointed out that only once is a source identified in a similar context, i.e., when Livy describes Piso as vetustior annalium auctor (10.9,12) ; L. CALP. PISO, HRR, 1, fr. 28* ; WALSH, Livy, op. cit., p. 142, n. 1, points out : "Livy distinguishs between the oldest (Greek writing) annalists and the middle annalists, such as Piso, whom he calls vetustior (10.9,12). There is no hint that Livy used any Greek-writing annalist other than Fabius (who may not have been consulted directly) in the first decade".

(2) LIVY, 4.20,8, 7.9,5, and 4.7,10 ; identifiable as originated from LIGINIUS MACER in HRR, 1, fr. 15, 16, and 13 ; cf. ibid., notes to Q,. CLAUDIUS QUADRIGARIUS, fr. 10b ; to

16 SOURCES

References to magistratuum libri and magistratuum fasti do not provide evidence for having been directly consulted by Livy (*), although his boasting in 9.18, 12 : Paginas in annalibus magistratuumque fastis percurrere licetcovld be taken as an indication of such a use. Obviously, he must have been aware of monuments and information of ar-chaeological value, but inconsistency in his historical method elimi-nates any serious consideration of lasting value (2).

Therefore, Livy's inference to clariora and certiora gesta appears to be mired in his perusal of available works in early Roman his-toriography. Innumerable references show that the author greatly depended upon literary sources as his guideline, from Graeci annales, the "ktiseis" of Gelzer, through the elder and more recent annalists (3).

Systematic research for the past hundred years, usually through the comparative method, has shown that most of his literary sources

Lie. MAGER, fr. 16, cf. comments on p. GGGLVII ; KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., p. 209. LIVY in 4.7,10 uses the same source as DION. HAL., 11,62. Gf. OGILVIE, Commentary, op. cit., pp. 543-545. Ogilvie rejects the consulship of Papirius and Sempronius on account of "the omissions of the names from the annales prsci ... from which the libri magistratuum, the libri lintei, and other lists were derived". To LIVY, 40,20, cf. KLOTZ, RE, loc. cit., pp. 836,5 ff., and Lrvius, op. cit., p. 202 ; underlined and analyzed by OGILVIE, Commentary, op. cit., pp. 563-567.

(1) LIVY, 4.20,8, cf. above, and 9.18,2 : the great oratorical passage from 9,17 or., filled with the more elevated patriotic sentiments of Livy {e.g., the embellishment of the power of the Roman soldiers, 9,19,7). WALSH has shown {Livy, op. cit., pp. 137 and 256 ff.) that the passage is under oratorical and poetical influence.

(2) KLOTZ, RE, loc. cit., pp. 835, 67 ff. (3) WALSH, Livy, op. cit., pp. 114-137 (cf. E. BURCK'S remarks in Gnomon, 35, 1963,

pp. 780 ff., esp. p. 783). On various types of evidence, the summary of A. MOMIGLIANO, loc. cit., J RS, 53, 1963, pp. 95-121, esp. 96-108, is indispensable. Usually the three-partite division provides the following writers as predecessors to Livy : (a) the Graeci annales, not annalists according to GELZER, Rmische Politik bei Fabius Pictor, in Hermes, 68, 1933, p. 129, now in Kleine Schriften, ed. Chr. MEIER, 3 vols., Steiner, Wiesbaden, 1962-1964, 3, pp. 51-52 ; also, Der Anfang rmischer Geschichtsschreibung, in Hermes, 69, 1933, pp. 46 ff, Kl. Sehr., op. cit., 3, pp. 93 ff. ; (b) the Gato-follower elder annalists ; and (c) the younger annalists of Sulla's time. Gf. also, K. W. NITSCH, Die rmische Annalistik von ihren ersten Anfngen bis auf Valerius Antias, Berlin, 1873. For further information, be-sides the individual articles in H RR, cf. KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., pp. 201 ff. ; to this, Gelzer's fundamental review in Gnomon, 18, 1942, pp. 220 ff. ; KL Sehr., op. cit., 3, pp. 270 ff. ; also, DOREY, Latin Historians, op. cit., E. BADIAN'S article, The Early Historians, pp. 1 ff., which gives six different classifications, Graeci Annales ; Cato, the Creation of Latin History ; The Expan-sion of the Past ; The Gracchan Historians ; The Later Annalists ; Autobiography and Contemporary History.

SOURCES 17

can be identified, or at least alluded to. In the first decade, Licinius Macer and Q. Tubero appear to have been his sources, whose ac-counts he counterbalanced with the writings of Calerius Antias, and the earlier Fabius Pictor and L. Calpurnius Piso. In the second pen-tade Claudius Quadrigarius' name, as source, appears as well (1).

The scarce information about Tu bero (2) shows that he was, per-haps, Cicero's friend, a writer of history (3), who was a combiner, or a copier of the same material which was used by Antias and Macer (4). Licinius Macer wrote a history from Roman beginnings (5) and collated material from the libri lintei, in preference to the annales maximi. His source seems to be Gellius (6), a senatorial predecessor and example to maintain the Popularis line. Livy also used Valerius Antias extensively (7) but critically, as shown in his constant referen-ces to his source's ureliability (8), as well as Q. Claudius Quadriga-rius (9). Among Livy's sources in the first decade, in a reverse chronological order, L. Calpurnius Piso, cos. 133 (10), as well as the

(1) Gf. OGILVIE, Commentary, op. cit., pp. 1-22, and specific passages below. To this, add A. MOMIGLIANO's criticism concerning Ogilvie's neglect of the possible Greek sources, JfRS, 57, 1967, p. 287.

(2) HRR, 1, pp. GGCLxvi ff. ; OGILVIE, Commentary, op, cit., pp. 16/17. (3) CICERO, add.fr., 1.1,10 ; Lrw mentioned him twice, 4.23,1 (iff,fr.6*),andl0.9,10

(HRR, fr. 7). As emerges from Ogilvie, much legal and antiquarian interest was submitted through him to livy.

(4) KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., p. 209 ; WALSH, op. cit., p. 116, esp. n. 1. (5) HRR, 1, pp. GCCL ff. ; MNZER in RE, 13 (112), pp. 419,66 ff. ; OGILVIE, Commen

tary, op. cit., pp. 7-12. Livy mentioned him by name only in 4.7,10, 23,1, 20,5, and 7.9,3 ; 9.38,15, and 46,1 ; 10.9,10; (HRR, frs. 13-19) NITSGH, op. cit., p. 267; KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., loc. cit., accepts that Livy most likely consulted him directly.

(6) HRR, 1, pp. ccrv ff. ; MNZER in RE, 7 (4), pp. 998, 53 ff. (7) HRR, 1, pp. cccvff. ; VOLKMANN in RE, 7A (98), pp. 2313,33 ff. ; OGILVIE, Commen

tary, op. cit., pp. 12-16. LIVY used him in the first pentade only twice, 3.5,12 and 4.23,2 (HRR, frs. 19* and 20), and very often in the later decades, esp. 38.5,4-55.7 ; 58.-60. (HRR, fr. 45).

(8) Gf. references in HRR, 1, pp. cccxi, n. 3 : "Raro occasionem Livius praetermisit, quin aliquot salte verbis mentiendi impudenter crimen in Antiatem coniceret."

(9) HRR, pp. ccLxxxv ff. ; NIESE, RE, 3 (308), pp. 2858,67 ff. ; M. ZIMMERER Der Annalist Q,. Claudius Quadrigarius, Mnchen, 1937 ; WALSH, Livy, op. cit., pp. 89,90/120. Livy mentioned him by name fifteen times (if we consider the Orosius passages in HRR). In the first decade specifically in the second pentade, four times : 6.42,3, 8.19,13, 9.5,1, 10.37,13 (HRR, frs. 10a*, 14*, 18, 34*; in later books especially frs. 63*, 64*, 65**, 66*, 67*).

(10) HRR, pp. CLxxxi ff. ; MNZER and GICHORIUS, RE, 3 (96), pp. 1392, Uff.;

18 SOURCES

doyen of early Roman historians, Q. Fabius Pictor, has to be inclu-ded (i).

The remaining twenty-five books reflect better sources as well as a greater abundance of available facts. Evidently, they are superior to the previous ones as an historical document, since possibly the affairs described were more readily, and in greater detail, available to Livy as well as to his sources.

In this third decade (2), he relied on Polybius in the Sicilian, African campaigns and the first Macedonian War ; on L. Coelius Antipater (3), on Valerius Antias and Claudius Quadrigarius as well, besides other occasionally quoted authors (4) ; in the fourth and fifth decades, mainly on Polybius, Valerius Antias, and Claudius Quadrigarius (5).

Evidently, only relative accuracy can be implied when one dis-tinguishes the authors whose works he used, complicated further by

K. LATTE, Der Historiker L. Calp. Frugi in KL Schriften, Mnchen, 1968 (ed. O. GIGON, W. BUCHWALD, W. KUNKEL), pp. 837 fF. (repr. S.-Ber. DAW, Berlin, 1960).

(1) HRR, pp. Lxixff. ; MNZER, RE, 6 (126), pp. 1836, 66 ff. ; HANELL, Zur Problematik der lteren rm. Geschichtsschreibung in Entretiens (Fondation Hardt), 4 (1956), pp. 147 ff. ; A. MOMIGLIANO, Linee per una valutazione di Fabio Pittore in RAL, s. 8, 15, 1960, pp. 310 fF. ; A. MOMIGLIANO, Timeo, Fabio Pittore e ilpirmo censimento di Servio Tullio, Mise. Post., Torino, 1963, pp. 180 fF. ; A. ALFLDI, Early Rome, op. cit., pp. 123 fF.

(2) W. SOLTAU, Livius" Geschichtswerk, seine Komposition und seine Quellen, Leipzig, 1897, pp. 47 fF. ; U. KAHRSTEDT, Geschichte der Karthager von 218-146, Berlin, 1913 (vol. 3 of MELTZER : Geschichte der Karthager), esp. pp. 360/361 ; KLOTZ, RE, loc. cit., pp. 841,64 ff, and Livius..., op. cit., pp. 101 fF. ; G. DE SANCTIS, Storia dei Romani, 4 vols. Torino, 1907-1923, 3.2 ; A. LIPPOLD, Consules, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des rmischen Konsulates von 264 bis 201 v. Chr., Habelt, Bonn, 1963,gives'an excellent evaluation of sources in the introduction, pp. 1 fF. ; WALSH, Livius, op. cit., pp. 124 fF., pp. 139/140.

(3) HRR, pp. ccxi fF. ; GENSEL, RE, 4 (7), pp. 185, 24 fF., esp. pp. 191, 10 fF. (4) To the sources oFthe authors mentioned in Livy's third decade, cf. GELZER'S review

oF KLOTZ, loc. cit., Kl. Sehr., 3, p. 277 : "Im brigen muss wiederholt werden, dass fr den Quellenkritik treibenden Historiker mit einem Namen wie Valerius wenig gewonnen ist, wenn dabei nicht sein Verhltniss zur echten berlieferung klargestellt wird. Unter * echter berlieferung' verstehe ich eine letztlich auf zeitgenssischer Berichterstattung beruhende im Gegensatz zu den der Phantasie spterer Erzhler entflossenen Zutaten". He warns, nevertheless, that contemporary material can also be manipulated and, con-sequently, false.

(5) N. NISSEN, Kritische Untersuchungen ber die Quellen der vierten und fnften Dekade des Livius, Berlin, 1863 ; M. HOLLEAUX, CAH, 8, pp. 138/139, but only partially; SOLTAU, Livius* Geschichtswerk, op. cit., pp. 21 fF. ; KLOTZ, RE, loc. cit., pp. 841,16 fF., and Livius, op. cit., pp. 1 fF. ; WALSH, Livy, op. cit., pp. 133 fF.

SOURCES 19

the haze which surrounded these authors' sources. What these were cannot be established with certainty, but Livy's authorities could have used the earliest writers as well as the previously mentioned records (x).

One cannot suggest that such records were consistently used by Livy or his authorities, but because of their availability, one could assume a relative degree of reliability in presenting names of higher magistrates, priests, triumphs, foundations of colonies, dedications of temples, or, specifically for our topic, priestly deaths and coopta-tions, as they occur with regularity in the third, fourth, and fifth de-cades of Livy (2). A part of our evidence will be culled from such information, as seen on the priestly lists from 300-211 and 210-44.

A great amount of information is derived from Cicero (3), whose rhetorical and philosophical treatises, speeches, and occasional letters contain references to priests. As a member of the augural college and apprentice under the tutelage of Q . Mucius Scaevola, cos. 95 and pontifex maximus, he was imbued with the necessity and importance of maintaining Roman religio as part of the Roman sys-tem (4). He often referred to his colleagues in his speeches and letters, as well as to earlier great personalities who were members of one priestly college or another.

That he was familiar with extant literature is evident from his

(1) Admittedly, at least in the first century, some doubt was expressed concerning the historical reliability of those records by Cicero, who seriously questioned their accura-cy : Brut., 16,62, ... Multa enim scripta sunt in eis, quae facta non sunt, falsi triumphi, plures consulatus, genera etiam falsa et ad plebem transitiones, cum homines humiliores in alienum eiusdem nominis infunderentur genus... We know that family historians did not necessarily maintain a completely detached point of view toward their kin, e.g., Postumius Albinus, Valerius Antias, La., (cf. references above). Also, tampering with sacerdotal data cannot be exclud-ed as a possibility, especially in view of the fact that certain families consistently provided members for the priestly colleges ; cf. lists below.

(2) KLOTZ (Livius, op. cit., pp. 44 ff.) presents data concerning ludi, annonae and deaths and cooptations of priests. He credits these references to the late annalist, Valerius Antias. GELZER (review of Klotz's Livius, op. cit., loc. cit., Kl. Sehr., 3, esp. pp. 270/271) points to earlier sources, while Badian considers the archival material the mere invention of Va-lerius Antias (DOREY, Latin Historians, op. cit., p. 21).

(3) M. GELZER, RE, 7A (29), pp. 827, 31 ff. ; W. KROLL, for rhetorical works, ibid., pp. 1091, 11 ff. ; PHILIPPSON, for philosophical works, ibid., pp. 1104, 1 ff. ; and K. BCHNER, for letters and fragments, ibid., pp. 1192, 49 ff.

(4) To religio in general and to Cicero's attitude toward priests and religio in particular, cf. below on pp. 36 ff., and Epilogue.

20 SOURCES

references to innumerable authors (x). He has read available speech-es (2), was aware of the annales maximi (3), and utilized the expert advice of Atticus (4).

Many of his references to priests merely state that an individual was a member of a priestly college ; thus, exactitude in dating coop-tations or deaths is practically impossible. Since many of the person-alities were well-known, one should assume that error, or deliberate manipulation, was avoided (5) ; consequently, a great deal of relia-bility can be ascribed to the Ciceronian evidence.

One report in har. resp., 6,12 (6), provides us with a complete list of membership in the pontifical college in the year 57 ; another is found in Macrobius (7) (sat., 3.13,11). Together they provide the majority of available data for the first century.

Other writers, both Greek and Roman, supply occasional informa-tion, which will be listed in the chapters below. The non-literary sources are comparatively fewsome late elogiativa the four tablets of the fasti sacerdotum (ILS, 9338), which offer nine priestly names. They are possibly augures, or augures and pontifices combined. Coins also provide information, although often it cannot be determined whether the symbols (8) refer to the monetales> own or their ancestors' priesthood. Hence, in the following all dates will refer to the period B.C.

(1) While complete citation of references would be prohibitively lengthy, the following should suffice : POLYBIUS, de off, 3.32,113 ; adAtL, 13.30,3, where he also speaks oLibonis annali, (cf. HRR, 1, pp. GGGLXXVI ff., L. SCRIBONIUS LIBO) ; CATO THE ELDER, Brut., 17.65 ff., passim ; C. ACILIUS, de off., 32.115 ; Gn. GELLIUS, dediv., 1.26,55, where Cicero mentions the FABII and GOELIUS ; G. FANNIUS and A. POSTUMIUS ALBINUS,Brut.,21,81 ; SEMPRONIUS ASELLIO, with others, de leg., 1.2,6.

(2) Brut., 25,94 ff. (3) De leg., 1.2,6; de or., 2.12,52. (4) E.g., ad Att., 12.20,2 ; 22,2 ; 23,2 ; 24,2 ; 13.4,1 ; 5,1. (5) With few exceptions textual inconsistency causes difficulty, as in the case of Cato

the Censor, according to de sen., 18,64, toc. cit., on p. 180, with additional discussion. (6) Loc. cit., cf. below on pp. 127 ff., with further discussion. (7) WESENER, RE, 14 (7), pp. 170, 6 ff. ; for his sources, cf. esp. pp. 182, 44 ff. ; loc. cit.,

pp. 154 ff., where the passage is discussed. (8) The simpulum for the pontificate, lituus for the augurate, tripod for the decemvirate,

and the patera for the septemvirate. The dating of the coins, often without possibility of precision, will be based upon E. BABELON, Monnaies de la Rpublique romaine, Paris, 2 vols., 1885/1886; H. A. GRUEBER, Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum, 3 vols., London, 1910 ; E. A. SYDENHAM, revised by G. G. HAINES, ed. L. FORRER and G. A. HERSH, The Coinage of the Roman Republic, Spink, London, 1952 ; to this, cf. MRR, 2, pp. 429 ff.

CHAPTER I

Priesthoods in General

According to Roman tradition, major sacrifices were performed by the yearly magistrates, preferably by the consuls. As part of this duty they were responsible for the direction of community affairs pertaining to man and gods. The magistrates took the auspicio, (1), while general supervision of religious functions was in the hands of the quattuor amplissima collegia (2) : the three major ones were the pontif tees, the augures, and the quindecemviri sacris faciundis, as well as the fourth, in a more or less subordinate position, the tresviri, later septemviri epulones (3). Membership in all these colleges was valued for the prestige it gave to the holders and their families,

(1) It is not our purpose to analyze the thorny problem of auspicio, and spectio, cf. the very detailed description in RSR, 1, pp. 87 fF. To auspicium : WISSOWA, RE, 2, pp. 2580, 26 fF. ; to spectio : MARBACH, RE, 3A, pp. 1570, 20 fF., who defines the similarity between the two, except that in case of spectio the meaning is action and the right to action. He makes the distinction between the rights of magistratus majores and magistratus minores and suggests that in special cases even the augures could have had the right. As far as spectio is concerned, three categories are to be distinguished : (1) the augures, in possession of nuntiatio concerning ausp. oblativa (cf. below), (2) the magistrate in possession of spectio for ausp. impetrativa and oblativa, and (3) private persons. To this, cf. A. MAGDELAIN, Recherches sur /' imperimi, la loi curiate et les auspices d'investiture, Paris, 1968, in which the author considers the legal problems in the interrelation between Imperium and auspicia. Also, E. MEYER, Rmischer Staat und Staatsgedanke, 2nd. ed., Darmstadt, 1961, pp. 85, and 123 fF. When and how the distinction evolved cannot be said ; yet, at the end of the Repulic, it was quite precisely delimited, as seen inCic , Phil., 2.32,81 : Quidenim ? Istuc, quod te sacerdotii iure facer e posse dixisti, si augur non esses et consul esses, minus facer e potuisses ? Vide ne etiamfacilius. Nos enim nuntiationem habemus : consules et reliqui magistratus etiam sped-ionem. Also, VARRO, de l.L, 6, 82 : in auspiciis distributum est, qui habeat spectionem qui non habet. The passages are analyzed in RSR, 1, p. 89, n. 3.

(2) SUET., Aug. 100 ; Mon. Ane, 2,16 ; cf. KORNEMANN'S article on Collegium, RE, 4, pp. 380, 14 fF., esp. 382, 21-383, 47.

(3) For bibliography regarding history, organization and activity of priesthoods, cf. RKR, pp. 479-549 ; MARQUARDT, 3.234-415 ; RSR, 1, pp. 104-116 ; 2, pp. 18-73 ; 3, pp. 110-111 and 1049-1062; BOUCH-LECLERCQ, pp. 510-562; RRG, pp. 195-212 and 394-411 ; HOFFMANN-LEWIS, op. cit., p. 8.

22 CHAPTER I

but especially in the college ofpontifices and augures, since they were consulted by the senate in most controversial issues regarding reli-gion (1). They could always insist that the sacred matters be taken by the senate before profane ones (2), and in such cases, the senate regularly discussed the problem in a probuleutic manner with one of the four colleges under whose competence the case might have fallen. The decision remained always with the senate ; yet, since the priestly colleges consisted mostly of snatoriales, their advice should be considered as that given by a permanent committee of the senate.

In historical times, among the priestly colleges the most important was that of the pontifices (3). To them fell the duty of advising with the senate concerning the gods (4), the supervision of ceremonies according to the prescribed ritual, and the appeasement of the gods when prodigies appeared (5). They held the indigitamenta, the proper and precise words with which the gods could be approach-ed (6), the very words which were pre-announced by the pontifex maximus, their chief, in any religious affair, to the magistrate (7). Most importantly, the pontifices were the custodians of the libri pontificii {pontificales, pontificum), a, treasure trove of acta, indigitamenta, ritualia, commentarii, fasti, and annales, which were to be consulted by the college of pontifices only. Also, they guarded the commentarii, i.e., the responsa and decreta, which pertained to the sacred rites (8).

In the last stages of the Republic, Cicero described these annales

(1) MARQUARDT, pp. 235 ff. ; RKR, pp. 479 ff. ; RSR, 3, p. 1000. (2) Ibid., p. 999. (3) Besides the pontifices, the rex sacrorum, the J"lamines (3 majores and 3 minores), the Vestal

virgins constituted the membership of the pontifical college. They were ranked according to a strictly established hierarchical order. Among the occasional dual priesthoods held by one person, the above-mentioned priesthoods were never combined (cf. p. 190). This fact would tend to prove the essential unity of the college's membership (RKR9 p. 504).

(4) RRG, pp. 195-212 ; 400-402 ; J. BLEIGKEN, Oberpontifex und Pontifikalkollegium in Hermes, 85, 1957, pp. 345-366.

(5) Ibid., p. 259. (6) H. USENER, Gtternamen, Versuch einer Lehre von der religisen Begriffsbildung, Bonn,

1896, passim; M. KRETZER, De Romanorum vocabulispontificabulis, Diss. Halis. Sax., 1903, pp. 44-81 ; Richter, RE, 9, pp. 1334, 57 ff.

(7) BLEICKEN, Oberpontifex..., loc. cit., describes the pontifex maximus as a spokesman for the college, p. 364.

(8) PETER, HRR, 1, pp. iv ff. ; L. CANTARELLI, Origine degli Annales Maximi, in RFIC 26, 1898, pp. 209 ff, identifies the acta (cf. HRR, 1, pp. vu ff), or the annales pont, with the commentarii. Gf. also p. 11 ff.

PRIESTHOODS IN GENERAL 23

as the ius religionum, vetustas exemplorum, auctoritas litterarum monu-mentarumque (1), and the pontifices as their interpreters (2). In his-torically ascertainable times, the head of this college was the pon-tifex maximus, who eventually emerged as the most important priest in Rome (3). He was not a primus inter pares-, according to Wissowa (4) ; rather, the whole college of pontifices formed a unit at the head of which, for the sake of bureaucratic expediency, stood the pontifex maximus. This was perhaps the reason why the po?itifices were not nominated by the pontifex maximus ; rather, they were coopted in the whole college (5). Thus, we should see the pontifex maximus as the spokesman for the decision of the entire college con-cerning piacula, vota publica, consecrationes, adoptions, wills, marriages, funeral rites, as well as deletions from and additions to the official calendar (6).

Among their responsibilities, perhaps the most significant was the regulation of the calendar. The lex Acilia gave them undisputed right to determine the days when meetings could be held, sacrifi-ces offered, votes cast, and valid decisions of the senate brought forth (7). Decisions were conveyed to the magistrates through decretum

(1) CICERO, de domo, 2, 4. (2) Ibid., 1, 1 ff. (3) RKR, pp. 504 ff. ; RRG, pp. 117 ff. and 195 ff. The pontifex maximus did not become

the head of the Roman state cult immediately after the regifugium ; rather, the position was held by a specially created priesthood, the rex sacrorum. He eventually lost his pre-eminence because of the limitations on his functions, while the pontifices maximi could em-brace new trends, could satisfy demands for religious activism when adverse conditions of the Hannibalic War developed religious fervor among the population, aided by the outstanding leadership of some strong personalities among them.

(4) RKR, p. 509 ; BLEIGKEN, Oberpontifex..., loc. cit., p. 364. (5) Gf. WISSOWA, RE, 4, pp. 1208, 25 ff.

(6) To the sphere of competence, cf. RKR, pp. 511 ff. ; RRG, pp. 197 / 198 ; adpiacula, W. EHLERS, RE, 20, pp. 1179, 56 ff. ; ad consecrationes, WISSOWA, RE, 4, pp. 896, 29 ff.

Concerning magisterial functions of the pontifex maximus, cf. BLEICKEN, Oberpontifex..., loc. cit., where he has shown that separation between priests and magistracies always existed and remained.

(7) MARQUARDT, 3, p. 286, 6 ; RKR, p. 513 ; MAGR., sat. 1,13,21 ; 14,1 ; AMM. MARC.,

26, 1, 12 ; G. ROTONDI, Leges publicae populi Romani, Milano, 1912 (repr. Olms, 1962), p. 273. In a recent note {Hermes, 95, 1967, pp. 383/384), T . J . LUCE, jr., suggested that the interpretation of LIVY'S (9.9, 2) : ... intercalatae poenae usuram..., could signify that the pontifices maximi were in a position to manipulate monthly interest rates. His theory will re-main an assumption because evidence cannot be offered that the pontifices maximi ever deliberately used intercalation for this purpose.

24 CHAPTER I

or responsum (1),for which three members of the college were sufficient. These three could even overrule the pontifex maximus (2).

Several spheres of the pontifex maximus9 legal competence became important in the political and legal framework of the Roman state. Firstly, it was his duty to give advice for an adrogatio in the comitiis calatis (3). Secondly, he had the right of multa (4) and the discipline of the Vestal virgins (5), as well as priests. Lastly, even against the will of the person whom he selected, he had the right ocaptio (6). For this very reason the law of formal inauguration and the undatable lex Papia were passed in order to regulate this power of the pontifex maximus (7). In fact, one can see in the duties and privileges of the pontifices and pontifices maximi nothing but interaction between reli-gious and public affairs, which, through the parallel duties and privi-leges of the pontifices, most of whom held the highest magistracies, were inseparably bound and thus dependent upon each other.

The historical origin and development of the second college, the augures, is mired in pseudo-history. Yet, the study of auspicia, which was their main preoccupation, was so closely connected with Roman society that, without them, Rome would be unimaginable.

(1) RKR, p. 514; decretum, HESKY, RE, 4, pp. 2289, 21 ff. ; esp., pp. 2302, 21 ff. pointing out that these are not binding but will become effective through the decree of the magistrate.

(2) LIVY, 31.9, 7 ff.

(3) RRG, op. cit., p. 400 ; LEONHARD, RE, 1, pp. 419, 45 ff. The pontifex maximus never had the right to call together the assemblies, nor was he their presiding officer (cf. RRG and BLEICKEN, loc. cit., against RKR, p. 511 and RSR, 2, p. 37).

(4) W. HELLEBRAND, RE, Suppl. 6, pp. 556, 8 ff. ; J . BLEICKEN, Kollisionen zwischen Sacrum und Publicum, in Hermes, 85, 1957, pp. 446 ff. ; cf. pp. 197 ff., below.

(5) LIVY, 4.44, 11 and OGILVIE, Commentary, p. 602 ; also, L r w , 8.15, 7. Later inter-polation and potential political misuse is shown by MNZER, Die rmische Vestalinnen bis zur Kaiserzeit, in Philol., 92, 1937, pp. 47 ff. and 199 ff. G. KOCH (Religio, Studien zu Kult und Glauben der Rmer, Nrnberg, 1960, pp. 2 ff.) points out that it is a criminal process because for breach of religious law such a process was not initiated by the community.

(6) L rw, 27.8, 4, 5 ; GELL., n.a., 1, 12, 1-5 and 11, concerning the Vestal virgins. (7) GELL., loc. cit., 11. Evidently, it must have come later in the Republic in view of the

fact that the pontifices maximi, as a directing force in politico-religious affairs, did not emerge until the third century. Two possibilities exist, either through a C. PAPIUS, tr. pi. in 65, or the trib. Papius in 253, the year when Ti. Goruncanius was elected a pontifex maximus. ROTONDI, op. cit., pp. 376, 377, holds to the later date, which seems to be feasible, although the earlier date is not impossible because "potrebbe anche trattarsi di una legge di un'epoca intermedia e di autore ignoto".


In historically approachable later stages of the Republic, their main concern, as a priestly college, was the auspicia, through which they claimed to ascertain the will of Jupiter (1). In most cases the magis-trates took the auspicia and the augures gave interpretation according to strictly established formulae. Their ritualistic act of interpreting called augurium agere (2), was not connected with the performing of sacrifices in any way because such performances fell under the sphere of pontifical competence (3). The augures did not offer a glance into the future (4), nor did they determine the causes of con-temporary misfortune ; rather, from signs, according to well-estab-lished laws of augury (5), they have indicated or interpreted the agreement or disagreement of the gods. Therefore, their priestly duties in no way clashed with those of the members of other col-leges. Yet, the importance of these duties seems to be evident.

The college was always in a parallel position to the pontifical college, as seen in the selection, number of members, and personali-ties in the membership. It is presumed that the augures had a presi-dent, most likely the oldest member (6). In their archives were collected the augural fasti, acta, libri, and/or commentarli^), which were divided into the decreta (8) and responsa (9), that is, records of augural decisions concerning the magisterial auspicia, as opposed to the libri which described the science of augury. Exactly in these interpretations is it possible to see the importance of the augural college. Roman law demanded that certain state occasions, e.g., magisterial entry into office, decisions of assemblies, and departures for wars, could be performed only after auspicato (10), i.e., after the

(1) RSR, 1, pp. 76 ff. ; WISSOWA, RE, 2, pp. 2313, 41 ff. (2) VARRO, de l.l, 6, 42 ; CICERO, de div., 1.17, 32 ; cf. also, K. LATTE, op. cit., Kleine

Schriften, Mnchen, 1968, p. 103 Philolog., 97, 1948, pp. 143 ff. (3) RKR, p. 524. (4) CICERO, de div., 2.33, 70. (5) BOUCH-LECLERCQ, pp. 524-539 ; MARQJARDT, pp. 401-409 ; good, brief review in

Der Kleine Pauly, I, pp. 735, 31 ff., by W. EISENHUT. (6) Cic , de sen., 18, 64, the controversial passage concerning Porcius Cato's augurate.

Cf. notes on p. 144 ; cf. WISSOWA, RE, he. cit., pp. 2322, 31 ff. (7) MARQUARDT, p. 400. (8) Cic, de div., 2.15, 35 and 35, 73 ; leg., 2.12, 31 ; LIVY, 4.7, 3. (9) Cic, de domo, 15, 40.

(10) To this, cf. JULICHER, RE, 2, pp. 2580, 26 ff. ; cf. also, spectio, MARBACH in RE, loc. cit., and obnuntiatio, WEINSTOCK, RE, 17, pp. 1726, 48 ff.

26 CHAPTER I

good will of the gods has been ascertained. If the auspicia indicated displeasure or disapproval of the gods, the function was automatically suspended or cancelled (1). In fact, any influence of the augural college would emanate from these interpretations, since all doubts or difficulties which might have manifested themselves in taking the auspicia impetrativa were put to the augural college for study and decision.

As Wissowa pointed out (RE, loc. cit., p. 2333, 67 ff.), originally their capacity was advisory, which through the centuries acquired a great deal of politically expedient formalism. He specified that most likely in the last century of the Republic one can see that the magistrate was not obliged to accept the augural interpretation (2). Yet, after the assembly was over, the augural college could be consulted, especially if auspicia ottativa, like thunder or lightning (3), were reported, or a procedural mistake occurred, because of which Vitium could be pro-claimed (4). Thus, the validity, or the permissibility of the political ac-tion depended on their decision. Specifically, through this process, in Cicero's time (5),they could (1) grant or refuse permission to hold an assembly ; (2) stop a proceeding in the middle ; (3) adjourn assem-blies, although called to order by the highest magistrate ; and (4) force the consul to resign. That a magistrate could not ignore such power is evident, although it would be presumptuous to generalize that the same precise system existed from the earliest phases of the Republic.

The third college was the quindecemviri (originally duumviri, later decemviri) sacris faciundis (6). Originally consisting of two, by 367 the number of priests was raised to ten (7), equally divided amongst plebeians and patricians (8). Thus, in the third century, the college was construed similarly to the pontifical and augural colleges. I t is

(1) RSR, 1, p . 76. Among the auspicia, the impetrativa were sought on demand from the gods by the magistrate. Yet, the augures, or for that matter any person, could declare the sighting of other, not demanded auspicia, which were called oblativa (WISSOWA, RE, loc. cit., pp. 2330, 44 ff.) ; cf. material on pp. 45-46.

(2) FESTUS, p. 268. L. ; PLINY, n.h., 28,4,17 : neque... auspicia pertinere ad eos,quicumque... observare se ea negaverint.

(3) CICERO, de div., 2.18, 42.

(4) E.g., LIVY, 45.12, 10; 23.31, 13. (5) CICERO, de leg., 2.12, 31.

(6) RRG, p . 160, n. 4 ; pp. 397/398. G. RADKE, RE, 24, (1), pp. 1114, 53 ff. ; cf. lists of members pp. 1142, 64 ff.

(7) LIVY, 6.37, 12.

(8) LIVY, 6.42, 12.


possible that a dual presidency was the executive organ of the college, as seen in the magistri of the saecular games in 249, one plebeian, M. Livius Salinator (n 18), and the other a patrician, M. Aemilius Lepidus Numida (n 17) (1). The major duty of the college was the guarding (2) and interpreting of the Sibylline oracles (3), which were consulted at times of great danger to the state. The consultation had to be done at the special request of the senate (4) for the following reasons : (1) in case of party strife (5), (2) great misfortune (6), or (3) prodigies which were difficult to interpret (7). Afterwards, the decemviri brought to the senate's attention the words of the oracle, and gave their interpretation, which the senate then complemented with the necessary resolutions (8). These interpretations did not presage a doomed future ; rather, they clarified and gave positive specifications of modus operandi in securing the favour of the gods in the business at hand, "to put it bluntly, to get luck on their side" (9). The oracles understandably were kept in the greatest secrecy (10), since only the decemviri constituted the competent agency to study them (u). That

(1) MRR, 1, p . 223 ; cf. notes ad n 17 and n 18 below. (2) DION. HAL. , 4, 62.

(3) GELL., u.a., 1, 19, 11 ; CICERO, de div., 1.2, 4.

(4) CICERO, de div.9 2.11, 12 ; DION HAL. , 4, 62, 5.

(5) ordcn, or, ardae xaTaaovoric rrjv nXiv in DION. HAL. ; tumultus in VAL. M A X . , 1, 1, 1 ; esp. concerning the Gracchan revolt.

(6) vGTv%ia, or, rtv jutydKrj av{X7ieaovoYj xar nKejLtov in DION. HAL. ; clades in Lrw, 40.37, 1.

(7) reQarov rivcv xat (pavraa/Aarcov in DION. HAL. , diverse terms in Latin authors. (8) RKR, p. 531. (9) H. STUART-JONES in CAH, 7, p . 430 ; RKR, p . 539, 2 ; especially, the above

cited passage of DION. HAL. , 4, 62, 5. (10) CICERO, de leg., 2.12, 30 ; LACT., Inst, 1, 6, 13.

(11) On account of their interpretations was Maler Idaea brought to Rome by 204 (LIVY, 29.10, 4 ff.). Among the many attempts to explain historically the bringing of Magna Mater to Rome, Latte's seems to be acceptable (RRG, p . 260, esp. note 3). He says that in later historical periods one hardly ever hears about the cult, "weil er hauptschlich von den rmeren Schichten getragen wurde, die naturgemss in den Inschriften weniger hervortreten. Dann hatte man gerade, als die eigentliche Gefahr des zweiten Punischen Krieges vorber war, diesen Schichten eine Konzession ge-macht". Latte admits the likelihood that the new cult could signify and attempt to introduce new methods of religious cult. Nevertheless, he reduces the possibilities to one common denominator, "Fr die Religionspolitik der rmischen Regierung in dieser Zeit ist die Rcksicht auf die Stimmungen in der Bevlkerung Roms massgebend, nicht die Aussenpolitik". R. MUTH, Rmische religio, in Serta Philologica Aenipontana, 7-8, Innsbruck,

28 CHAPTER I

these oracular interpretations and ambiguous answers could be used for other than religious benefit seems to be evident.

There seems to be some confusion in the records between the XVviri s.f. and the haruspices, yet the haruspices were never sacerdotes publici p.r. (1). In case of necessity they were invited from outside of Rome (2). They foretold the future, a fact which should indicate the essential difference between them and the augural and decemviral colleges (s). They have not constituted a special college in Rome until the time of the emperor Tiberius.

The Epulones, the latest of the four colleges, was instituted in 196 (4) because the pontifices were unable to cope with the increasing burden of religious rituals. The epulones' dependency upon the pontifices is evident, since the pontifices arbitrated in their differences (5) and substituted for them whenever they were not available to perform prescribed functions (6). These included a number of cult-oriented ceremonial duties, "tensae, curricula, praecentio, ludi, libationes epulaeque ludorum" (7). Thus, not surprisingly, only seven epulones can be found on the Republican lists below.

REQUIREMENTS AND MEMBERSHIP

Originally, all priesthoods were of the patrician order (8), but in the late Republic only the rex sacrorum and the f lamines majores were bound to patrician status (9). The college of the decemviri sacris faciundis was most likely open to the plebeians by the Licinio-Sextian law (10). The plebeians next secured the right of pontificate

1962, pp. 253-254, considers the "Magna Mater" cult as the first notable manifestation of Roman flexibility within the frame of traditional cult practices.

(1) RKR, p. 543 ; H. STUART-JONES, CAH, pp. 429-430 ; RRG, pp. 396-397. (2) CICERO, de div., 1.43, 97; LIVY, 27.37, 7. (3) RKR, p. 547. (4) LIVY, 23.42, 1 ; cf. RRG, p. 251. (5) CICERO, har. resp., 10, 21. (6) Dio C, 43, 41, 9 ; 48, 32, 4. (7) CICERO, loc. cit. (8) RKR, pp. 487 ff. (9) RKR, pp. 506, 5, 6, 7, 8.

(10) LIVY, 6.37, 12 ; 6.42, 2.


and augurate through the lex Ogulnia in 300 (1), in accordance with the gains made after 366.

The members of the colleges were chosen for life in contrast to annual magistracies (2). Technically, no priest could be dismissed ; only the salii were obliged to abdicate whenever they reached another priesthood (3). Also, the Vestal virgins were permitted to leave after 30 years of service. We know that priestly competence remained even when a priest left the city for some reason or other. The pontifex maximus was obliged to remove a priest from his position only when the priest's duty came into opposition to his other activities, especially in the case of the f lamines (4). Also, when a priest was condemned in court, he automatically lost his priesthood (5), but in the case of the augures (and thefratres arvales), even then their priestly competence remained (6). The position of the pontifex maximus could never be lost. Since the number of members was specific (7), the priestly col-leges constituted special groups of permanent functionaries whose life-long terms potentially permitted them to exercise an impact upon society through their state and society-connected duties.

The selection of the priests was originally in the hands of the mem-bers of the colleges, who chose new members through cooptation ; in

(1) LIVY, 10.6-9, 2 ; MRR, 1, p. 172 ; the membership was increased by adding four and five plebeian places to the existing colleges of four patricians each. According to BARDT (p. 32) "... die Zahl so gut bezeugt ist, wie berhaupt nur eine aus dem Alterthum bezeugt sein kann". Nevertheless, he points out (cf. LATTE, p. 197, n. 1) that the pontifex maximus was not noted in Livy's list. It is evident that the head of the pontifical college could be either a plebeian or patrician, as seen in the 7 plebeian and 6 patrician pontifices maximi between 225 and 44. There is evidence that in both colleges the patricians were restricted to about half the places. Yet, the plebeians were eligible for all the places (cf. L. R. TAYLOR, Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College, in AJfPh, 63, 1942, p. 407).

(2) RSR, 2, pp. 19 ff. (3) RKR, p. 494, note 1. (4) VAL. MAX. , 1.1, 4 ff. ; LIVY, 26.23, 8 ; cf. pp. 28-29, concerning the Jlamines, as

representatives of the divine numina, as well as the strictures used against them by some pontifices maximi, cf. below, pp. 95 ff.

(5) PLUT., quest. Rom., 99. CICERO, Brut., 33, 127 : hie (Sulp. Galba, Aug. 26) qui in collegio sacerdotum esset, primus post Romam conditam iudicio publico est condemnatus.

(6) PLUT., quest. Rom., 99. (7) Information conveniently collected in RKR : pontifices and augures, originally three

later increased to six, nine, fifteen, and through Caesar to sixteen (pp. 503, 4 ff., 523, 4) ; the epulones originally three and later increased to seven (p. 518) ; and XVviri s.f. (pp. 534-535).

30 CHAPTER I

the historically ascertainable later periods, exceptions were the rex sacrorum, flamines and Vestal virgins, who were appointed by the pontifex maximus (1). Two members of the college nominated the candidates, the number of which was limited to three (2). In Cicero's time, most likely a vote of some comitia was taken between the nomi-nation and the cooptation (3). It is certain, however, that during the third century the pontifex maximus was elected from the members of the pontifical college (4) by a special assembly of 17 tribes (). After some unsuccessful attempts (6), in 104 a plebescite of the tr. pi., Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, determined that the members of the four major colleges be elected by the vote of the 17 tribes (7). The nomination became most likely the responsibility of the augures (8). The vote of the assembly, nevertheless, obliged the presiding officer of each college formally to coopt the new member. Sulla temporarily stopped the law (9), but a lieutenant of C. Julius Caesar in 63, T. Labienus, reinstated it again (10). The result was that in the time of Cicero regular elections were held for priests between the consular and praetorial elections (n).

Some requirements for entrance into priestly colleges were specif-ic (12). An individual who wanted to become a member had to be

(1) WissowA, cooptatio, RE, loc. cit. ; RKR, pp. 487 ff. ; RRG, pp. 394-396. (2) LIVY, 40.42, 11 ; TAG., ann., 4, 16. In case of the Vestal virgins, the list of nominees

included 20 names, of which the new members were selected by lot (GELL., u.a., 1, 12, 11). In case of the others, it is generally considered that three names were proposed.

(3) Pont. : Gic, ad Br., 1.5, 3 ; SUET., Nero, 2. ; Aug. : Gic, Phil., 2.2, 4 ; 13.5, 12 ; XVviri s.f. : Gic, ad farri. 8.4, 1.

(4) L. R. TAYLOR, The Election of the Pontifex Maximus in the Late Republic in CI. Phil., 37, 1942, pp. 421 ff., esp. p. 421, note 1, for bibliography. Cf. MNZER'S evaluation in RAAF, pp. 185-186.

(5) RSR, 2, pp. 27 ff. ; RKR, pp. 495, 508 ff. (6) G. LICINIUS CRASSUS, tr.pl. 145, proposed a bill for popular vote in electing priests ;

RRG, p. 277 ; MRR, 1, p. 470. (7) Gf. Gn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (P. 34) ; RSR, 2, pp. 25 ff. ; H. LAST in CAH, 9,

pp. 163-164; RAAF, pp. 359-360; MRR, 1, pp. 561-562, n. 5. (8) Auct. ad Her. 1, 12, 20 : lex iubet augurent in demortui locum qui petat in contione

nominare. (9) LIVY, per. 89 ; Dio, 37.37, 1 ; AUCT., vir. ill., 75, 11 ; for furthr references, cf. MRR,

2, p. 75. (10) Dio, 37.37, 1-2 ; TAYLOR, The Election of the Pontifex Maximus, loc. cit., pp. 421-422. (11) CICERO, ad Brut, 1.5, 4 ; Dio CASS., 41.36, 3. (12) RSR, 2, 32 ; 3, 566 ; RKR, p. 491.


a Roman citizen (1), of free birth (2), and without bodily defect (3). Yet, unspecific characteristics must have been more exacting and more difficult to fulfill in Rome's aristocratic society, where the upper classes maintained an almost exclusive political control.

The priests were members of this segment of the population ; most of them, especially the pontif ices and augures, held higher magistracies. Thus, in their pre-selection and eventual inauguration, the same, i.e., aristocratic, criteria appear to prevail. Unfortunately, we do not have evidence of specific social norms which were used in the selection of priests. As will be shown below, most priests (at least in the four major colleges) were consulares. Thus, ancestral preeminence appears to be a pre-requisite.

EXCURSUS 1

Some aspects of interrelation between magistracies and priesthoods will be treated below (pp. 41 fF.). For the present, it is beyond the scope of this work to elucidate the norms by which Roman aristocracy maintained leadership. Nevertheless, a brief reflection upon the problem appears to be necessary (4). Studies in Roman politics attempted to define some norms, e.g., mos majorum, amicitia, virtus, from literary evidence of the late Republic and the Empire (ad mores, cf. A. Steinwenter, mores, RE, 16, pp. 290, 17 fF. ; esp. M. als Sitten, p. 296, 44 ff. ; also, P. L. Schmidt, Der kleine Pauly, 3, p. 1427, 1 ff.). The following statement, i.a., can illustrate acceptance of this tendency in Roman political life, as seen by R. Syme (The Roman Revolution, Oxford, 1939, p. 315) :

"The Romans as a people were possessed by an especial venera-tion for authority, precedent and tradition, and by rooted distaste for change unless change could be shown to be in harmony with ancestral custom, 'mos majorum' which in practice meant the sentiments of the oldest living senators".

(1) CICERO, pro Balbo, 24, 55. (2) GELL., n.a., 1, 12, 4. (3) Cf. RKR, p. 491 ; DION HAL., 2.21,3 ; SENEGA, contr. 4, 2 ; GELL., n.a., 1, 12, 3 ;

FRONTO, p. 149. Nab. ; PLUT., quest. Rom., 73 ; RKR, p. 491. (4) It should be pointed out that laudationes will be treated below. Elogia will be utilized

as they pertain to the individual careers of priests in the following lists. To the Republican nobility, i.a., GELZER, op. cit., Kl. Sehr., op. cit., 1, pp. 17 ff., were utilized, as well as for the following concepts, not essential in the consideration of requirements for priestly coopta-tion, e.g., dignitas, gravitas, pietas (C. KOCH, RE, 20, pp. 1221, 58 ff.), fides, (OTTO, RE, 6, pp. 2281, 41 ff.), labor and patientia. To these, cf. also BURCK, Gymn., 58, 1951, pp. 163 ff., and KOCH, op. cit., pp. 103 ff., for analysis of vir bonus.

32 CHAPTER I

(Ad amicitia, Oehler, amicus, RE, 1, p. 1831, 5 fF. (esp. *2) brief restatement under amicitia in Der kleine Pauly, by H. Hausmaninger, 1, p . 299, 52 ff.) ; Syme {op. cit., p. 12) illustrates the amicitia thusly :

"Three weapons the no biles held and wielded, the family, money and the political alliance (amicitia or factio...)" ; p . 157, "Roman poli-tical factions were welded together... on a favourable estimate the bond was called amicitia, otherwise Jactio". Quoting also Sallust (b.J., 31, 15) ; and Cicero (Jam., 3.10, 9) : in quo [aug. college] non modo amicitiam violariapud majores nostros fas non erat, sed ne cooptari quidem sacerdotem licebat, qui cuiquam ex collegio esset inimicus. Cf. also, D. E. Hahm, "Roman Nobility and the Three Major

Priesthoods", TAPhA, 94, 1963, pp. 80, 82, 83, who saw in priesthoods nothing but a tool in embellishing "party positions " of the aristocracy (following Miinzer's and Scullard's theories concerning family and other connections. To this, cf. below on pp. 81 ff.). D. Earl, The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome, Ithaca, New York, 1967, p . 21, sees in the relentless pursuit of certain continuously changing ideas, specifi-cally virtus, the basic goal of aristocratic rule. He says :

"Virtus, for the Republican noble, consisted in the winning of personal pre-eminence and glory by the commission of great deeds in the service of the Roman state."

(Also passim, R. E. Smith, The Aristocratic Epoch in Latin Literature, Sydney, 1947).

The emergence, and pervading interests, of Roman nobility to pursue these concepts is excellently analyzed by D. Kienast, Cato der Zensor, seine Persnlichkeit und seine Zeit, Heidelberg, 1954, esp. Chapter I I , pp. 25 ff. While the above statements contain vestiges of feasible interpretation, any generalized acceptance and unselective reliance upon one or more of such concepts will present only part of the his-torical picture. One has to consider that, especially among the pontifices and augures, a great number of strong personalities appeared, just as among the magistrates who did not hold priesthoods, who were the directing force in the creation of a milieu, in which such slogans as mos majorum, amicitia, and virtus were shaped according to given conditions and individual, rather than class-based, considerations. Furthermore, many Roman writers of the late Republic and the Empire were preoccupied with the deterioration of ancestral ideals. Thus, their opinion concerning moral and ethical probems has to be analyzed according to their individuality (if possible) and the socio-political conditions of their own time (cf. F. Hampl, Rmische Politjk in republikanischer Zeit und das Problem des Sittenverfalls, in Hist. Zeitschr., 188, 1955, pp. 497 ff.). Thus, mos majorum, amicitia, virtus, which were steadily changing vehicles of Roman aristocratic standards, cannot be considered extraordinary elements of priestly selection.


However, besides these, available ex post facto evidence in the form of elogia and laudationes offer ideal standards by which individuals in leading positions were evaluated (Vollmer, laudatio funebris, RE, 12, pp. 992, 23 ff. ; also P. L. Schmidt, Der kleine Pauly, 3, pp. 517, 60 ff.). Vollmer presents a chronological order of available laudationes, but points out their historical unreliability. Gf. to this, A. Lippold, Consules, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des rmischen Konsulats von 264 bis 201 v. Chr., Bonn, 1963, esp. chapter 2, pp. 73 ff.). In the laudationes a three-partite ideal appears which specified the area of activity for a man in the eye of the public. These three activities were government, army, and state cult, comprising the whole activity of public life in which the last was as important as the first, and separation between one and the other was not possible.

To illustrate the point, L. Caecilius Metellus, cos. 251 and 247, pont, max. 243 (n 14), was praised in this manner by his son, according to the statement of Pliny (n.h., 7, 139 ff.) : ... primarium bellatorem esse, optimum oratorem, fortissimum imperatorem, auspicio suo maximas res ger, maximo honore uti, summa sapientia esse, summum senatorem haberi, pecuniam magnam bono modo invenire, multos liber os relinquere et clarissimum in civitate esse. (Gf. to this, notes ad n 14 ; Kienast, op. cit., pp. 29-30, and Lippold, op. cit., pp. 75-76). Similarly, in the case of the not yet deceased P. Licinius Grassus Dives (P. 5), Livy (30.1, 5) writes the following : Nobilis idem ac dives erat ; forma viribusque corporis excellebat ; facundissimus habebatur seu causa oranda, seu in senatu et apudpopulum suadendi ac dissuadendi locus esset ; iuris pontificii peritissimus ; super haec bellicae quoque laudis consulates compotem fecerat. The text is a typical text of a laudatio. Apparently, it would have a better place in 39.42 than here. Almost the same char-acteristics are given in Sempr. As. (HRR, fr. 8, fromGell., 1. 13, 10) : Is Crassus... scriptoribus traditur habuisse quinque rerum bonarum maxima et praecipua : quod esset ditissimus, quod nobilissimus, quod eloquentissimus, quod iuris consultissimus, quod pontifex maximus.

Precise generalization cannot be established as far as priestly require-ments are concerned, since these statements refer to past actions which are consequently different, according to individual achievements. But in the values which are suggested, one can establish an overall frame-work as far as Roman aristocracy is concerned. Generally, the individual is described as a brave and wise man, expert in war and in counsel, an eloquent speaker, masterful in matters connected with law, forceful in mind and character, and, besides the previously mentioned characteris-tics, is also well-versed in military matters. Wealth by honourable means was considered a factor. Ultimately, he was well-equipped with congestis omnibus humanis ab natura fortunaque bonis, (Livy, 30.1,4), not an esoteric idea even in our days.

34 CHAPTER I

ADVISORY AND POLITICAL R O L E OF PRIESTS SOME ASPECTS OF MAGISTRACY AND PRIESTHOOD

The Republic was a government of the aristocracy in which after 366 plebeian and patrician familes alike maintained their position by not permitting unproven, unreliable elements to enter their ranks. Mnzer pointed to this condition when he said : "Denn nur wenige Auserlesene finden Aufnahme in die Priesterschaften. Zwar ist deren Stellenzahl grsser als die der staatlichen Behrden, doch Beamtengewalt ist durch die Verfassung in enge zeitliche Grenzen eingeschlossen, geistliche Wrde aber wird auf Lebenszeit verliehen. Um so mehr richtet sich der Ehrgeiz nicht nur auf Anteil an der Regierung, sondern auch auf Sitz und Stimme in einem Priesterkollegium, und um so mehr ist Mitgliedschaft desselben Kollegiums bald die Voraussetzung, bald die Folge von Zugehrigkeit zu derselben Partei, wie umgekehrt Wettbewerb um Staats mter und um Priestertmer zwischen denselben Gegnern stattfindet (1)". To illustrate this condition, the following fact can be offered : with few exceptions all priests held some form of magistracy. As such, their constitutional position as leaders of the community was not delimited to merely magisterial functions ; rather, it was combined with priestly duties. Thus, the priests were not merely (a) a permanent advisory body for the government, but (b) they were expounders of certain policies in the community, where they represented expertise of traditional ritualistic practices in their permanent, annually unchanging colleges. Toward the government, the priests' role was primarily consultative. In fact, the sacer dotes pub liei (2), the

(1) RAAF, p. 2. The statement is offered by way of introduction to RAAF. The term "geistliche Wrde" should be considered a euphemism, vaguely corresponding to con-temporary concepts of "religious dignity". On the question of "Partei", cf. below, pp. 81 ff.

(2) RKR, pp. 479/480 ; RSR, 2, p. 26 ; LIVY, 26.23, 7 : Sacerdotes publia eo anno demortui sunt novique suffecti, in the year 211 B.C. (MRR, 1, pp. 272 ff.) ; also, 42.28, 10, Eo anno (172 B.C.) sacerdotes publia mortui... Wissowa mentions that the priesthoods originally were connected with family names. He is quoting Arnobius, 3, 38, according to whom the oldest male member was responsible for the maintenance of the cult (cf. RKR p. 404, notes 3, 4, and 5). There is neither time nor place to consider the speculative implications of this observation, yet it is significant that in its very conceptions, priesthoods were connected with individual families, e.g., the Luperci are from the Quinctiales or Fabiani,


priests of Rome, were not representatives of a divinity in the sense that they acted in a divinity's name or brought forth legally binding decisions. Rather, as shown previously, they were advisory or interpretative organs in the maintenance of the best relations between the gods and the state. I t is impossible to establish a precise modus operandi of seeking and giving of sacerdotal advice ; nevertheless, some basic aspects appear to be the same on each occasion : (1) Before consultation with priests was sought, portents appeared (*), about which a magistrate officially consulted the senate ; (2) The senate's deliberation and decision was usually connected with officl advising with members of a priestly college (2) ; (3) After a decision had been made, the senate permitted (3) or commanded (4) the magistrate to carry out the decision. I t is problematic when and how the priests gave their advice, yet this is precisely the mte ques-tion. That they were unofficially involved in the first step of the process seems to be evident from the duties of the priestly colleges (5). The augures, e.g., were basically interested in portents, signs and prodigies, and it is inconc