|
Articles on Roman Government - XIII - Consul
This text is provided here with cultural and educational purposes
only. The text is copyright of its owner.
Consules
(originally Praetores, hupatoi). The Roman magistrates to whom the
supreme authority was transferred from the kings, after the expulsion
of the latter in B.C. 510. The consuls gave their name to the year.
They were elected by the Comitia Centuriata, and down to B.C. 366
from the patricians only. The legal age at which a man might be
elected was, in the time of Cicero, fortythree. The time of entering
on the office varied in the early periods: in B.C. 222, it was fixed
to March 15th; in 153, to the 1st of January. The accession of the
new consuls was attended with the performance of certain ceremonies,
among which may be mentioned a procession of the consuls to the
Capitol, with the Senate, equites, and other citizens of position, as
escort; an offering of white bulls to Iupiter, and the utterance of
solemn vows.
The consuls were the representatives of the royal authority, and
consequently all other magistrates were bound to obey them, with the
exception of the tribunes of the plebs and the dictator. During a
dictatorship their powers fell into abeyance. In the city their
authority was limited by the right of appeal to the people and the
veto of the tribunes. But in the army, and over their subordinates,
they had full power of life and death. Some of their original
functions passed from them in course of time. Thus in B.C. 444, the
business of the census was made over to the censors; in 366, the
civil jurisdiction within the city, so far as it included the right
of performing the acts of adoption, emancipation, and liberation of
slaves, was transferred to the praetors. In the field, however,
having the criminal jurisdiction in their hands, they had also the
right of deciding in civil cases affecting the soldiers. In the
general administration of public business the consuls, although
formally recognized as the supreme authority, gradually became, in
practice, dependent upon the Senate and the Comitia, as they had only
the power of preparing the resolutions proposed and carrying them out
if accepted. Within the city their powers were virtually confined to
summoning the Senate and the Comitia and presiding over their
meetings. They also nominated the dictators, and conducted the
elections and legislation in the Comitia and the levies of soldiers.
After the office of dictator fell into abeyance, the power of the
consuls was, in cases of great danger, increased to dictatorial
authority by a special decree of the Senate. See Comitia.
An essential characteristic of the consular office was that it was
collegial, and therefore if one consul died another (called consul
suffectus) was immediately elected. This consul suffectus had
absolutely the same authority as his colleague, but he had to lay
down his office with him at the end of the year for which the two had
been originally elected.
The power of the two consuls being equal, the business was divided
between them. In the administration of the city they changed duties
every month, the senior taking the initiative. With regard to their
insignia--namely, the toga praetexta, sella curulis, and twelve
lictors--the original arrangement was that the lictors walked in
front of the officiating consul, while the other was only attended by
an accensus. In later times the custom was for the lictors to walk
before the officiating consul and behind the other.
In the field each consul commanded two legions with their allied
troops; if they were in the same locality, the command changed from
day to day. The question of the administration of the provinces they
either settled by consent, or left it to be decided by lot. With the
extension of the Empire the consuls became unable to undertake the
whole burden of warfare, and the praetors were called in to assist.
The provinces were then divided into consular and praetorian; the
business of assignment being left to the Senate, which, after the
year 122, was bound to make it before the elections. In the first
century B.C., a law of Sulla deprived the consuls of an essential
element of their authority, the military imperium; for it enacted
that the consuls should spend their year of office in Rome, and only
repair to the provinces and assume the imperium after its conclusion.
In the Civil Wars the consular office completely lost its old
position, and though it continued to exist under the Empire, it
became, practically, no more than an empty title. The emperors, who
often held the office themselves, like Caesar, for several years in
succession, had the right of nominating the candidates, and
therefore, in practice, had the election in their own hands. It
became usual to nominate several pairs of consuls for one year, so as
to confer the distinction on as many persons as possible. In such
cases, the consuls who came in on January 1, after whom the year was
named, were called consules ordinarii, the consules suffecti counting
as minores. Until the middle of the first century A.D., it was a
special distinction to hold the consulship for a whole year; but
after that no cases of this tenure occur. In time the insignia
(ornamenta consularia), or honorary distinctions of the office, were
given, in certain degrees, even to men who had not been consuls at
all. The chief duties of the consuls now were to preside in the
Senate and to conduct the criminal trials in which it had to give
judgment. But, besides this, certain functions of civil jurisdiction
were in their hands, notably the liberation of slaves, the provision
for the costly games which occurred during their term of office, the
festal celebrations in honour of the emperor, and the like. After the
seat of empire was transferred to Constantinople, the consulate was,
towards the end of the fourth century, divided between the two
capital cities. The consulate of the Western capital came to an end
in A.D. 534, that of the Eastern in 541. From that time the emperor
of the East bore the title of consul perpetuus.
Harry Thurston Peck. Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. New
York. Harper and Brothers. 1898.
CONSUL
CONSUL (hupatos), the highest republican magistrate at Rome. The
derivation of the name is still quite uncertain. It was derived by
the Romans from consulere: qui recte consulat, consul cluat (Varro,
L. L. v. § 80: cf. Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 8; de Orat. ii. 39, 165), and
Corssen (Ausspr. ii. 71) admits this, connecting consulere itself
with the root sal in salire: others, while finding in consul the same
root, deny the connexion with consulere. Some, again, prefer the root
sed (sel), sit, or sal, dwell. (Cf. Nettleship in Journal of
Philology, iv. 272 ff.)
There was a tradition that king Servius, after regulating the
constitution of the state, intended to abolish the kingly power, and
substitute for it the annual magistracy of the consulship; and
whatever we may think of the tradition, the person who devised it
must have had a deep insight into the nature of the Roman state and
its institutions; and the fact that on the abolition of royalty it
was instituted forthwith, seems, at any rate, to show that it had
been thought of before. Thus much is also certain, that the
consulship was not a Latin institution, for in Latium the kingly
power was succeeded by the dictatorship, a magistracy invested with
the same power as that of a king, except that it lasted only for a
time.
The consulship which was established as a republican magistracy at
Rome, immediately after the abolition of royalty, showed its
republican character in the circumstance that its power was divided
between two individuals (imperium duplex), and that it was only of
one year's duration (annuum). This principle was, on the whole,
observed throughout the republican period; and the only exceptions
are, that sometimes a dictator was appointed instead of two consuls,
and that in a few instances, when one of the consuls had died, the
other remained in office alone, either because the remaining portion
of the year was too short, or from religious scruples (Dionys. v. 57;
Dio Cass. xxxv. 4), for otherwise the rule was, that if either of the
consuls died in the year of his office, or abdicated before its
expiration, the other was obliged to convene the comitia for the
purpose of electing a successor (subrogare or sufficere collegam). It
is only during the disturbances in the last century of the republic,
that, after Cinna's death, Carbo maintained himself as sole consul
for nearly a whole year (Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 78; Vell. Pat. ii. 24;
Liv. Epit. lxxxiii.); and that Pompeius was appointed sole consul, in
order to avoid the necessity of a dictator. (Ascon. ad Cic. pro Mil.
p. 37; Liv. Epit. 107; Appian, Bell. Civ. ii. 23, 25.) Even he, after
five months, had a colleague elected. On one occasion during the
Civil Wars Cinna and Marius, without any election at all, continued
to hold the power of the consulship for a second year. (Liv. Epit.
lxxx.)
Under the early emperors the practice as to the duration of the
consulship varied in the most arbitrary manner. (Mommsen, Staatsr.
ii. 79-81.)
In the earliest times, the title of the chief magistrates was not
only consules, but also praetores (Madvig, Verf. i. 368);
characterising them as the commanders of the armies of the republic.
Traces of this title occur in ancient legal and priestly documents
(Liv. vii. 3; Fest. p. 161), and also in the names praetorium (the
consul's tent) and porta praetoria in the Roman camp. (Paul. Diac. p.
123; Pseudo-Ascon. ad Cic. in Verr. i. 1. 4) It appears also to have
been the title used in the Twelve Tables (Plin. H. N. xviii. § 12).
After the introduction of the office of praetor urbanus, the consuls.
were known as praetores maximi (stratêgoi hupatoi), the praetors
strictly as praetores minores, though the last epithet was commonly
dropped, [p. 533] and they were known to the Greeks simply as
stratêgoi. Sometimes the consuls are designated by the title judices,
especially as presiding over the centuriate assemblies. (Varro, de L.
L. vi. 88; Liv. iii. 55.) After B.C. 449 (Zonar. vii. 19), the name
consules was the established title until the final overthrow of the
Roman empire. Upon the establishment of the republic, after the
banishment of Tarquin, all the powers which had belonged to the king
were transferred to the consuls, except that which had constituted
the king high priest of the state; for this was kept distinct and
transferred to a priestly dignitary, called the rex sacrorum, or rex
sacrificulus.
As regards the election of the consuls, it invariably took place in
the comitia centuriata, under the presidency of a consul or a
dictator; and, in their absence, by an interrex. The consuls thus
elected at the beginning of a year were styled consules ordinarii, to
distinguish them from the suffecti, or such as were elected in the
place of those who had died or abdicated, though the privileges and
powers of the latter were in no way inferior to those of the former.
(Liv. xxiv. 7, &c.; comp. xli. 18.) At the time when the consulship
was superseded by the institution of the tribuni militares consulari
potestate, the latter, of course, presided at elections, as the
consuls did before and after, and must in general be regarded as the
representatives of the consuls in every respect. It was, however, a
rule that the magistrate presiding at an election should not be
elected himself, though a few exceptions to this rule are recorded.
(Liv. iii. 35, vii. 24, xxiv. 9, xxvii. 6.) The day of the election,
which was made known by an edict three nundines beforehand (Liv. iii.
35, iv. 6, xlii. 28), naturally depended upon the day on which the
magistrates entered upon their office. The latter, however, was not
the same at all times, but was often changed. In general it was
observed as a rule, that the magistrates should enter upon their
office on the kalendae or idus, unless particular circumstances
rendered it impossible; but the months themselves varied at different
times, and there are no less than eight or nine dates at which the
consuls are known to have entered upon their functions, and in many
of these cases we know the reasons for which the change was made. The
real cause appears to have been that the consuls, like other
magistrates, were elected for a whole year; and if before the close
of that year the magistracy became vacant either by death or
abdication, their successors, of course, undertook their office on an
irregular day, which then remained the dies solennis, until another
event of a similar kind rendered another change necessary. The first
consuls entered upon their office on the ides of September, the day
on which in later years the praetor maximus drove the annual nail in
the temple of the Capitol; or, according to others (cf. Hartmann,
Röm. Kal. p. 228), traditionally on the kalends of March, but really
on the kalends of October. (Dionys. v. 1; Liv. vii. 3.) The first
change seems to have been brought about by the secession of the
plebs, B.C. 493, when the consuls entered upon office on the kalends
of September. (Dionys. vi. 49.) In B.C. 479, the day was thrown a
whole month backward; for of the consuls of the preceding year one
had fallen in battle, and the other abdicated two months before the
end of his year: hence the new consuls entered on the kalends of
Sextilis. (Dionys. ix. 13; Liv. iii. 6.) This day remained until B.C.
451, when the consuls abdicated to make room for the decemvirs, who
entered upon their office on the ides of May. The same day remained
for the two following years (Dionys. x. 56; Zonar. vii. 18; Fast.
Cap.); but the third year of the decemvirate not having been
completed, another day must have become the dies solennis. We have no
information what day it was, until in B.C. 443 we find that it was
the ides of December. (Dionys. xi. 63.) This change had been
occasioned by the tribuni militares who had been elected the year
before, and had been compelled to abdicate in the third month of
office, to make room for consuls. (Liv. iv. 7; Dionys. xi. 62.)
Henceforth the ides of December remained for many years the dies
solennis. (Liv. iv. 37.) In B.C. 401, the military tribunes, in
consequence of the defeat at Veil, abdicated, and their successors
entered upon their office on the kalends of October. (Liv. v. 9.) In
B.C. 391, the consuls entered upon their office on the kalends of
Quintilis. (Liv. v. 32; comp. 31, vii. 25, viii. 20.) From this time
no further change is mentioned, though several events are recorded
which must have been accompanied by an alteration of the dies
solennis, until in B.C. 223 we learn that the consuls entered upon
their office on the ides of March, which custom remained unaltered
for many years (Liv. xxii. 1, xxiii. 30, xxvi. 1, 26, xliv. 19),
until in B.C. 154 it was decreed that in future the magistrates
should enter upon their office on the 1st of January, a regulation
which began to be observed the year after, and remained in force down
to the end of the republic. (Liv. Epit. xlvii.; Fast. Praenest. Kal.
Jan.; cf. Mommsen, Chron. pp. 81-98.)
The day on which the consuls entered on their office determined the
day of the election, though there was no fixed rule, and in the
earliest times the elections probably took place very shortly before
the close of the official year, and the same was occasionally the
case during the latter period of the republic. (Liv. xxxviii. 42,
xlii. 28, xliii. 11.) But when the 1st of January was fixed upon as
the day for entering upon the office, the consular comitia were
usually held in July or even earlier, at least before the kalends of
Sextilis. (Cic. ad Att. i. 1. 6; ad Fam. viii. 4.) But even during
that period the day of election depended in a great measure upon the
discretion of the senate and consuls, who often delayed it. (Cic. ad
Att. ii. 2. 0, iv. 16; pro Leg. Man. 1.)
Down to the year B.C. 366, the consulship was accessible to none but
patricians, but in that year L. Sextius was the first plebeian consul
in consequence of the law of C. Licinius. (Liv. vi. 42; vii. 1.) The
patricians, however, notwithstanding the law, repeatedly contrived to
keep the plebeians out (Liv. vii. 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 28), until in
B.C. 342 the legislation of Publilius Philo secured the firm
establishment of the plebeian consulship; and it is even said that at
that time a plebiscitum was passed, enacting that both consuls might
be plebeians. (Liv. vii. 42.) Attempts on the part of the patricians
to exclude the plebeians occur as late as the year [p. 534] B.C. 297
(Liv. x. 15; Cic. Brut. 14, 55); but they did not succeed, and it
remained a principle of the Roman constitution that both consuls
should not be patricians (Liv. xxvii. 34; xxxix. 42). The candidates
usually were divided into two sets, the one desirous to obtain the
patrician, and the other to obtain the plebeian place in the
consulship (in unum locum petebant, Liv. xxxv. 10). In B.C. 215, the
augurs indeed successfully opposed the election of two plebeians
(Liv. xxiii. 31); but not long after, in B.C. 172, the fact of both
consuls being plebeians actually occurred (Fast. Capitol.), and after
this it was often repeated, the ancient distinction between
patricians and plebeians falling completely into oblivion.
The consulship was throughout the republic regarded as the highest
office and the greatest honour that could be conferred upon a man
(Cic. pro Planc. 25, 60; Paul. Diac. p. 136; Dionys. iv. 76), for the
dictatorship, though it had a majus imperium, was not a regular
magistracy; and the censorship, though conferred only upon consulars,
was yet far inferior to the consulship in power and influence. It was
not till the end of the republic, and especially after the victories
of Caesar, that the consulship lost its former dignity; for in order
to honour his friends, he caused them to be elected, sometimes for a
few months, and sometimes even for a few hours. (Cic. ad Fam. vii. 3.
0; Sueton. Caes. 76, 80, Nero, 15; Dio Cass. xliii. 46; Macrob. Sat.
ii. 3.)
The power of the consuls was at first equal to that of the kings into
whose place they stepped, with the exception of the priestly power of
the rex sacrorum, which was detached from it. Even after the Valerian
laws and the institution of the tribuneship, the consuls who alone
were invested with the executive retained the most extensive powers
in all departments of the government. But in the gradual development
of the constitution, some important functions were detached from the
consulship and assigned to new magistrates. This was the case first
with the censorship in B.C. 443,--an office which at first was
confined to holding the census and registering the citizens according
to their different classes, but afterwards acquired very extensive
powers. [CENSOR] The second function that was in this manner taken
from the consuls was their judicial power, which was transferred in
B.C. 366 to a distinct magistracy under the title of the praetorship
[PRAETOR] ; and hence-forth the consuls appeared as judges only in
extraordinary cases of a criminal nature, when they were called upon
by a senatus consultum. (Cic. Brut. 34, 128; Liv. viii. 18, xxxix. 17
ff., xli. 9.) But, notwithstanding these curtailings, the consulship
still continued to be regarded as the representative of regal power.
(Polyb. vi. 11; Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 8.)
In regard to the nature of the power of the consuls, we must in the
outset divide it into two parts, inasmuch as they were the highest
civil authority, and at the same time the supreme commanders of the
armies. So long as they were in the city of Rome, they were at the
head of the government and the administration, and all the other
magistrates, with the exception of the tribunes of the people, were
subordinate to them. They convened the senate, and as presidents
conducted the business; they had to carry into effect the decrees of
the senate, and sometimes on urgent emergencies they might even act
on their own authority and responsibility. They were the medium
through which foreign affairs were brought before the senate; all
despatches and reports were placed in their hands before they were
laid before the senate; by them foreign ambassadors were introduced
into the senate, and they alone carried on the negotiations between
the senate and foreign states. They also convened the assembly of the
people and presided in it; and thus conducted the elections, put
legislative measures to the vote, and had to carry the decrees of the
people into effect. (Polyb. vi. 12; COMITIA; SENATUS.) The whole of
the internal machinery of the republic was, in fact, under their
superintendence; and in order to give weight to their executive
power, they had the right of summoning and arresting offenders
(vocatio and prehensio), but not in their own houses (Cic. in Vat. 9,
22; pro Dom. 41, 109), and a general right of inflicting punishment,
limited only by the right of appeal from their judgment (provocatio);
which might be exercised even against inferior magistrates.
The outward signs of their power, and at the same time the means by
which they exercised it, were twelve lictors with the fasces, without
whom the consul never appeared in public (Liv. xxv. 17, xxvii. 27;
Val. Max. i. 1, §9; comp. Liv. vi. 34, xxxix. 12), and who preceded
him in a line one behind another. (Liv. xxiv. 44; Val. Max. ii. 2, §
4.) In the city, however, the axes did not appear in the fasces; a
regulation which is said to have been introduced by Valerius
Publicola (Dionys. v. 2, 19, 75; x. 59), and which is intimately
connected with the right of appeal from a consul's sentence, whence
it did not apply to the decemvirs nor originally to the dictator. Now
as the provocatio could take place only within a thousand paces from
the city, it must be supposed that the axes did not appear in the
fasces within the same limits, an opinion which is not contradicted
by the fact that the consuls on returning from war appeared with the
axes in their fasces in the Campus Martins, at the very gates of
Rome; for they had the imperium militare, which ceased only when they
had entered the city.
But the powers of the consuls were far more extensive in their
capacity of supreme commanders of the armies, and wherever they were
without the precincts of the city, and were invested with the full
imperium. When the levying of an army was decreed by the senate, the
consuls conducted the levy, and, at first, had the appointment of all
the subordinate officers--a right which subsequently they shared with
the people; and the soldiers had to take their oath of allegiance to
the consuls. They also determined the contingent to be furnished by
the allies; and in the province assigned to them they had the
unlimited administration, not only of all military affairs, but of
everything else, even over life and death, excepting only the
conclusion of peace and treaties. (Polyb. vi. 12, 5; compare
EXERCITUS) The treasury was, indeed, under the control of the senate;
but in regard to the expenses for war, the consuls do not appear to
have been bound down to the sums [p. 535] granted by that body, but
to have availed themselves of the public money as circumstances
required; the quaestors, however, kept a strict account of the
expenditure (Polyb. vi. 12, 13, 15; Liv. xliv. 16). The quaestors
also kept the keys of the treasury (even of the aerariums sanctius:
cf. Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 117), and their co-operation was therefore
necessary for any expenditure (Polyb. xxiii. 14). The control thus
exercised became a real one when the quaestors were no longer
nominated by the consuls, but were elected by the people. In the
early times, the consuls had the power to dispose of the booty in any
way they pleased; sometimes they distributed the whole or a part of
it among the soldiers, and sometimes they sold it, and deposited the
produce in the public treasury, which in later times became the usual
practice. The first limitation of the military command of the consuls
was in B.C. 227, when Sicily was erected into a province, committed
to a special governor (praetor), and thus removed from the consular
jurisdiction. But a more important change was that introduced by
Sulla, who extended to the whole of Italy the legal privileges of the
city of Rome. From this time forward the consuls ceased to hold
military command during their year of office, and passed at the
expiration of it into the ranks of the generals in office in the
provinces by virtue of a special resolution of the senate (Mommsen,
Staatsr. ii. 90).
Abuse of the consular power was prevented, first of all, by each of
the consuls being dependent on his colleague, who was invested with
equal rights; for, if we except the provinces abroad where each was
permitted to act with unlimited power, the two consuls could do
nothing unless both were unanimous (Dionys. x. 17; Appian, Bell. Civ.
ii. 11), and against the sentence of one consul an appeal might be
brought before his colleague; nay, one consul might of his own accord
put his veto on the proceedings of the other. (Liv. ii. 18, 27, iii.
34; Dionys. v. 9; Cic. de Leg. iii. 4) But in order to avoid every
unnecessary dispute or rivalry, arrangements had been made from the
first, that the real functions of the office should be performed only
by one of them every alternate month (Dionys. ix. 43); and the one
who was in the actual exercise of the consular power for the month
was preceded by the twelve lictors, whence he is commonly described
by the words penes quem fasces erant (Liv. viii. 12, ix. 8). In the
early times, his colleague was then not accompanied by the lictors at
all, but he was preceded by an accensus. (Cic. de Rep. ii. 3. 1, 55;
Liv. ii. 1, iii. 33; comp. Dionys. v. 2, x. 24.) In later times, the
consul, even when he did not perform the functions of the office, was
also accompanied by twelve lictors (Suet. Caes. 20), but these
followed him: when this custom arose is uncertain, and we only know
that, in the time of Polybius, the dictator, as representing both
consuls, had twenty-four lictors. It has been maintained that the
consul who for the month being performed the functions of the office,
was designated as the consul major; but Festus (p. 161) leaves it
doubtful whether the term applied to the one who had the fasces, or
to the one who had been elected first; and there seems to be good
reason for believing that the word major really had reference only to
the age of the consul, so that the elder of the two was called consul
major. (Liv. xxxvii. 47; Cic. de Rep. ii. 3. 1, 55; Val. Max. iv. 1,
§ 1; Plut. Publ. 12; Dionys. vi. 57.) Owing to the respect paid to
the elder, he presided at the meeting of the senate which was held
immediately after the election. (Liv. ix. 8; Gellius, ii. 15.) The
exercise of the consular power was also checked by the knowledge that
after the expiration of their office they might be called to account
for the manner in which they had conducted themselves in their
official capacity. Many cases are on record, in which after their
abdication they were accused and condemned not only for illegal or
unconstitutional acts, but also for misfortunes in war which were
ascribed either to their carelessness or want of ability. (Liv. ii.
41, 52, 54, 61; iii. 31; xxii. 40, 49; xxvii. 2, 3; xxvii. 34; Cic.
de Nat. Deor. ii. 3, 8; Val. Max. viii. 1, § 4.) The ever-increasing
arrogance and power of the tribunes did not stop here, and we not
unfrequently find that consuls, even during the time of their office,
were not only threatened with punishment and imprisonment, but were
actually subjected to them. (Liv. iv. 26, v. 9, xlii. 21; Epit.
xlviii., lv.; Cic. de Leg. iii. 9, 20; in Vat. 9, 21; Val. Max. ix.
5, § 2; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 50, xxxviii. 6, xxxix. 39.) Sometimes the
people themselves opposed the consuls in the exercise of their power.
(Liv. ii. 55, 59.) Lastly, the consuls were dependent upon the
senate. [SENATUS] There occurred, however, times when the power of
the consuls thus limited by republican institutions was thought
inadequate to save the republic from perils into which she was thrown
by circumstances; and on such occasions a senatus consultum viderent
or darent operam consules, ne quid respublica detrimenti caperet,
conferred upon them full dictatorial power, not restrained either by
the senate, the people, or the tribunes. In the early times, such
senatus consulta are rarely mentioned, as it was customary to appoint
a dictator on such emergencies; but when the dictatorship had fallen
into disuse, the senate by the above-mentioned formula invested the
consuls, for the time, with dictatorial power. [DICTATOR] On this
senatus consultum ultimum, see Heitland's App. A to Cic. pro C.
Rabirio.
On entering upon their office, the consuls, and afterwards the
praetors also, agreed among one another as to the business which each
had to look after, so that every one had his distinct sphere of
action, which was termed his provincia. The ordinary way in which the
provinces were assigned to each was by lot (sortiri provincias),
unless the colleagues agreed among themselves, without any such means
of decision (comparare inter se provincias, Liv. xxiv. 10, xxx. 1,
xxxii. 8; Cic. ad Fam. i. 9). The decision by lot was resorted to for
no other reason than because the two consuls had equal rights, and
not, as some believe, because it was thereby intended to leave the
decision to the gods. It it was thought that one of the consuls was
eminently qualified for a particular province. either on account of
his experience or personal character, it frequently happened that a
commission was given to him extra sortem or extra ordinem, i.e. by
the senate and without any drawing of lots. (Liv. iii. 2, viii. 16,
xxxvii. 1; [p. 536] Cic. ad Att. i. 1. 9; comp. Liv. xxxv. 20, xli.
8.) In the earliest times, it seems to have been the custom for only
one of the consuls to march out at the head of the army, and for the
other to remain at Rome for the protection of the city, and to carry
on the administration of civil affairs, unless, indeed, wars were
carried on in two different quarters which rendered it necessary for
both consuls to take the field. (Dionys. vi. 24, 91; comp. Liv. iii.
4, 22, vii. 38.) Nay, we find that even when Rome had to contend with
one formidable enemy, the two consuls marched out together (Liv. ii.
44, iii. 8, 66, viii. 6, &c.); but the forces were equally divided
between them, in such a manner that each had as a rule the command of
two legions, and had the supreme command on every alternate day
(Polyb. iii. 107, 110, vi. 26; Liv. iv. 46, xxii. 27, 41, xxviii. 9;
comp. iii. 70).
When the Roman dominion extended beyond the natural boundaries of
Italy, the two consuls were not enough to undertake the
administration of the provinces, and praetors were appointed to
undertake the command in some, while the more important ones were
reserved for the consuls. Hence a distinction was made between
provinciae consulares and praetoriae. (Liv. xli. 8.) [PROVINCIA] It
lay with the senate to determine into which provinces consuls were to
be sent, and into which praetors, and this was done either before the
magistrates actually entered upon their office (Liv. xxi. 17), or
after it, and on the proposal of the consuls (Liv. xxv. 1, xxvi. 28,
xxvii. 7, &c.). Upon this, the magistrates either agreed among
themselves as to which province each was to undertake, or they drew
lots; first, of course, the consuls, and after them the praetors. One
of the laws of C. Gracchus (de provinciis ordinandis; Cic. de Prov.
Cons. 2, 3; Sall. Jug. 27), however, introduced the regulation, that
every year the senate, previous to the consular elections, should
determine upon the two consular provinces, in order to avoid
partiality, it being yet unknown who were to be the consuls. It had
been customary from the earliest times for the consuls to enter their
province in the year of their consulship; but in the latter period of
the republic, the ordinary practice of the consuls was to remain at
Rome during the year of their office, and to go into their province
in the year following as pro-consuls, until at length in B.C. 53, a
senatus consultum, and the year after a law of Pompeius, enacted that
a consul or praetor should not go into any province till five years
after the expiration of their office. (Dio Cass. xl. 46, 56.) When a
consul was once in his province, his imperium was limited to it; and
to exercise the same in any other province was, at all times,
considered illegal. (Liv. x. 37, xxix. 19, xxxi. 48, xliii. 1.) In
some few cases, a breach of this rule was pardoned after a brilliant
success. (Liv. xxvii. 43, xxix. 7.) On the other hand, a consul was
not allowed to quit his province before he had accomplished the
purpose for which he had been sent into it, or before the arrival of
his successor, unless, indeed, he obtained the special permission of
the senate. (Liv. xxxvii. 47.) Other functions also were sometimes
divided between the consuls by lot, if they could not agree: for
example, which of them was to preside at the consular elections or
those of the censors (Liv. xxiv. 10, xxxv. 6, 20, xxxix. 32, xli. 6),
which of them was to dedicate a temple (Liv. ii. 8, 27), or nominate
a dictator (Liv. iv. 26). So long as the consuls had to hold the
census, they undoubtedly drew lots, uter conderet lustrum; and even
when they went out on a common expedition, they seem to have
determined by lot in what direction each should exert his activity.
(Liv. xli. 18.)
The entering of a consul upon his office was connected with great
solemnities: before day-break each consulted the auspices for
himself, which in the early times was undoubtedly a matter of great
importance, though, at a later period, we know it to have been a mere
formality. (Dionys. ii. 4, 6.) It must, however, be observed, that
whatever the nature of the auspices were, the entering upon the
office was never either rendered impossible or delayed thereby,
whence we must suppose that the object merely was to obtain
favourable signs from the gods, and as it were to place under the
protection of the gods the office on which the magistrate entered.
After the auspices were consulted, the consul returned home, put on
the toga praetexta (Liv. xxi. 63; Ov. ex Pont. iv. 4, 25, Fast. i.
81), and received the salutatio of his friends and the senators. (Dio
Cass. lviii. 5; Ov. ex Pont. iv. 4, 27, &c.) Accompanied by these and
a host of curious spectators, the consul, clad in his official robes,
proceeded to the temple of Jupiter in the Capitol, where a solemn
sacrifice of white bulls was offered to the god. It seems that in
this procession the sella curulis, as an emblem of his office, was
carried before the consul. (Ov. l. c. iv. 4, 29 ff., 9, 17 ff.; Liv.
xxi. 63; Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 3. 4, 92.) After this, a meeting of
the senate took place, at which the elder of the two consuls made his
report concerning the republic, beginning with matters referring to
religion, and then passing on to other affairs (referre ad senatum de
rebus divinis et humanis, Liv. vi. 1, ix. 8, xxxvii. 1; Cic. ad Quir.
post Red. 5, 11). One of the first among the religious things which
the consuls had to attend to, was the fixing of the feriae Latinae,
and it was not till they had performed the solemn sacrifice on the
Alban mount that they could go into their provinces. (Liv. xxi. 63,
xxii. 1, xxv. 12, xlii. 10.) The other affairs upon which the consuls
had to report to the senate had reference to the distribution of the
provinces, and many other matters connected with the administration,
which often were of the highest importance. After these reports, the
meeting of the senate broke up, and the members accompanied the
consuls to their homes (Ov. ex Pont. iv. 4, 41); and this being done,
the year of office was formally begun.
Respecting the various offices which at different times were
temporary substitutes for the consulship, such as the dictatorship,
the decemvirate, and the office of the tribunl militares consulari
potestate, the reader is referred to the separate articles.
Towards the end of the republic, the consulship lost its power and
importance. Caesar, in his dictatorship, gave it the first severe
blow, for he himself took the office of consul along with that of
dictator, or he arbitrarily caused persons to be elected who in their
actions were entirely dependent upon his will. He himself was elected
at first for five years, then for ten, [p. 537] and at length for
life. (Sueton. Jul. 76, 80; Dio Cass. xlii. 20, xliii. 1, 46, 49;
Appian, de Bell. Civ. ii. 106.) In the reign of Augustus the consular
power was a mere shadow of what it had been before, and the consuls
who were elected did not retain their office for a full year, but had
usually to abdicate after a few months. (Dio Cass. xlviii. 35, xliii.
46; Lucan, v. 399.) The emperors themselves usually took the
consulship at the beginning of the year, and laid it down in a month
or two. (Dio Cass. liii. 32; Tac. Hist. i. 77.) Nero received from
the senate continui consulatus (Tac. Ann. xiii. 41), and Vitellius
arranged the elections for ten years in advance, with himself as
perpetuus consul (Suet. Vitell. 11). Vespasian was consul eight times
in ten years, Domitian seventeen times in all. The usual time for the
tenure of the office came to be either four or two months (Dio Cass.
xliii. 46). In A.D. 69 there were fifteen consuls. (Cf. Mommsen in
Ephem. Epigr. 1872, p. 189.) In the reign of Commodus there were no
less than twenty-five consuls in one year. (Lamprid. Commod. 6; Dio
Cass. lxxii. 12.) In the republican time, the year had received its
name from the consuls, and in all public documents their names were
entered to mark the year; but from the time that there were more than
two in one year, only those that entered upon their office at the
beginning of the year were regarded as consules ordinarii, and gave
their names to the year, though the suffecti were likewise entered in
the Fasti. (Sueton. Domit. 2, Galb. 6, Vitell. 2; Senec. de Ira, iii.
31; Plin. Paneg. 38; Lamprid. Al. Sev. 28.) The consules ordinarii
ranked higher than those who were elected afterwards. The election
from the time of Tiberius was in the hands of the senate, who, of
course, elected only those that were recommended by the emperor;
those who were elected were then announced (renuntiare) to the people
assembled in what were called comitia. (Dio Cass. lviii. 20; Plin.
Paneg. 77; Tac. Ann. iv. 68.) In the last centuries of the empire, it
was customary to create honorary consuls (consules honorarii), who
were chosen by the senate and sanctioned by the emperor (Cassiod. i.
10; Justin. Nov. lxx. 80, c. 1), and consules suffecti were then
scarcely heard of at all, for Constantine restored the old custom of
appointing only two consuls, one for Constantinople, and the other
for Rome, who were to act as supreme judges (under the emperor) for a
whole year, and besides these two there were no others except
honorary consuls and consulares. Although the dignity of these
honorary consuls as well as of the consules ordinarii and suffecti
was merely nominal, still it was regarded as the highest in the
empire, and was sought after by noble and wealthy persons with the
greatest eagerness, notwithstanding the great expenses connected with
the office (Dio, lx. 27) on account of the public entertainments
which a newly appointed consul had to give to his friends and the
people. (Fronto, Ep. ii. 1; Lydus, de Magistr. ii. 8; Liban. Orat. 8;
Symmach. ii. 64, iv. 8, x. 44; Sidon. Apollin. Epist. ii. 3; Cassiod.
ii. 2, vi. 1; Procop. de Bell. Pers. i. 25.) Julius Caesar (Suet.
Jul. 76) and Augustus (Dio Cass. xlvi. 41) conferred the ornamenta
consularia without the actual office; and this practice became so
common afterwards, that the title consulares was used for this class,
which held rank as the most distinguished class of senators, and
their honour ultimately became hereditary. After Diocletian, however,
they ranked below the viri illustres and the viri spectabiles. The
last consul of Rome was Decimus Theodorus Paulinus, A.D. 534, and at
Constantinople Flavius Basilius Junior, in A.D. 541. After that time,
the emperors of the East took the title of consul for themselves,
until in the end it fell quite into oblivion.
Under the empire the consuls were regarded as the official
representatives of the senate, and were even allowed by some emperors
a formal precedence (Suet. Tib. 31). Their official functions were as
follows:--1. They presided in the senate, though, of course, never
without the sanction of the emperor; 2. They administered justice,
partly extra ordinem (Tac. Ann. iv. 19, xiii. 4; Gell. xiii. 24)
[SENATUS], and partly in ordinary cases, such as manumissions or the
appointment of guardians (Dig. 1, 10, 1; Ammian. Marcell. xxii. 7;
Cassiod. vi. 1; Sueton. Claud. 23); 3. The letting of the public
revenues, a duty which had formerly been performed by the censors
(Ov. ex Pont. iv. 5, 19), although the consuls had always possessed
the right of acting as the representatives of the censors, when there
were none in office at the time; 4. The conducting of the games in
the Circus and of public solemnities in honour of the emperors, for
which they had to defray the expenses out of their own means.
(Sueton. Nero, 4; Juv. xi. 193, &c.; Cassiod. l. c., and iii. 39, v.
42, vi. 10.) Some emperors indeed granted the money necessary for
such purposes, and endeavoured to check the growing extravagance of
the consuls, but these regulations were all of a transitory nature.
(Lamprid. Al. Sever. 43; Vopisc. Aurel. 12; Justin. Nov. 105.)
Compare besides the various works on Roman history, K. D. Hüllmann,
Röm. Grundverfassung, p. 125, &c.; K. W. Göttling, Gesch. der Röm.
Staatsverf. p. 269, &c.; above all, Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 70-124;
and Becker, Handbuch der Röm. Alterth. vol. ii. part ii. pp. 87-126,
and part iii. pp. 235 if. [L. S.] [A. S. W.]
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. William Smith, LLD.
William Wayte. G. E. Marindin. Albemarle Street, London. John Murray.
1890.
|