The Functioning of the Republican Institutions under the Triumvirs

FRANCISCO PINA POLO (ed.) THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD CIVIL WAR, POLITICAL CRISIS AND SOCIOECONOMIC TRANSFORMATIONS EDITORIAL UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILL A PRENSAS DE L A UNIVERSIDAD DE ZARAGOZA THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD: CIVIL WAR, POLITICAL CRISIS AND SOCIOECONOMIC TRANSFORMATIONS Francisco Pina Polo (ed.) EDITORIAL UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILL A PRENSAS DE L A UNIVERSIDAD DE ZAR AGOZA Dirección de la Colección: Francisco Pina Polo (Univ. Zaragoza) Cristina Rosillo López (Univ. Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla) Antonio Caballos Rufino (Univ. Sevilla) Consejo Editorial: Antonio Caballos Rufino (Sevilla), Antonio Duplá Ansuátegui (Vitoria), Enrique García Riaza (Palma de Mallorca), Pedro López Barja de Quiroga (Santiago de Compostela), Ana Mayorgas Rodríguez (Madrid), Antoni Ñaco del Hoyo (Girona), Francisco Pina Polo (Zaragoza), Cristina Rosillo López (Sevilla), Elena Torrregaray Pagola (Vitoria), Fernando Wulff Alonso (Málaga) Comité Científico: Alfonso Álvarez-Ossorio (Sevilla), Valentina Arena (Londres), Catalina Balmaceda (Santiago de Chile), Nathalie Barrandon (Reims), Hans Beck (Munster), Henriette van der Blom (Birmingham), Wolfgang Blösel (Duisburgo), François Cadiou (Burdeos), Cyril Courrier (Aix-en-Provence/Marsella), Alejandro Díaz Fernández (Málaga), Harriet Flower (Princeton), Estela García Fernández (Madrid), Marta García Morcillo (Roehampton), Karl-Joachim Hölkeskamp (Colonia), Michel Humm (Estrasburgo), Frédéric Hurlet (Nanterre-París), Martin Jehne (Dresde), Carsten Hjort Lange (Aalborg), Robert Morstein-Marx (Santa Bárbara), Henrik Mouritsen (Londres), Sylvie Pittia (París), Jonathan Prag (Oxford), Francesca Rohr Vio (Venecia), Amy Russell (Durham), Manuel Salinas de Frías (Salamanca), Eduardo Sánchez Moreno (Madrid), Pierre Sánchez (Ginebra), Catherine Steel (Glasgow), Elisabetta Todisco (Bari), W. Jeffrey Tatum (Wellington), Frederik Vervaet (Melbourne), Kathryn Welch (Sidney) © Francisco Pina Polo © De la presente edición, Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza (Vicerrectorado de Cultura y Proyección Social) y Editorial Universidad de Sevilla 1.ª edición, 2020 Proyecto “El período triunviral y la disolución de la República romana (43-31 a.C.): cambios institucionales, sociales y económicos” (HAR2017-82383. Agencia Estatal de Investigación). Colección Libera Res Publica, n.º 2 Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza. Edificio de Ciencias Geológicas, c/ Pedro Cerbuna, 12, 50009 Zaragoza, España. Tel.: 976 761 330. Fax: 976 761 063 puz@unizar.es http://puz.unizar.es Editorial Universidad de Sevilla, c/ Porvenir, 27, 41013 Sevilla, España. Tel.: 954 487 447 eus4@us.es https://editorial.us.es Impreso en España Imprime: Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Zaragoza ISBN: 78-84-1340-097-6 This book is dedicated to the memory of Fergus Millar CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Francisco Pina Polo................................................................................... 13 I. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: INTERACTIONS BETWEEN TRIUMVIRAL AND REPUBLICAN INSTITUTIONS The Triumvirate Rei Publicae Constituendae: Political and Constitutional Aspects Frederik Juliaan Vervaet ........................................................................... The Functioning of the Republican Institutions under the Triumvirs Francisco Pina Polo................................................................................... Senatorum ... incondita turba (Suet. Aug. 35.1). Was the Senate Composed so as to Ensure its Compliance? Marie-Claire Ferriès ................................................................................. 23 49 71 II. WAR AND PEACE The Notion of Bellum Civile in the Last Century of the Republic Valentina Arena ....................................................................................... Civil War and the (Almost) Forgotten Pact of Brundisium Carsten Hjort Lange ................................................................................. A Framework of Negotiation and Reconciliation in the Triumviral period Hannah Cornwell ..................................................................................... 101 127 149 Children for the Family, Children for the State: Attitudes towards and the Handling of Offspring during the Triumvirate Francesca Rohr Vio ................................................................................... 171 III. STRATEGIES OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION The Intersection of Oratory and Institutional Change Catherine Steel ........................................................................................ Invectivity in the City of Rome in the Caesarian and Triumviral periods Martin Jehne ............................................................................................ Fear in the City during the Triumviral Period: The Expression and Exploitation of a Politic Emotion Frédéric Hurlet ......................................................................................... The Reception of Octavian’s Oratory and Public Communication in the Imperial Period Henriette van der Blom ............................................................................. Information Exchange and Political Communication in the Triumviral Period: Some Remarks on Means and Methods Enrique García Riaza ............................................................................... Marcus Antonius: Words and Images Kathryn Welch.......................................................................................... 195 209 229 249 281 301 IV. CRISIS AND RESTORATION AT ROME AND IN ITALY Consumption, Construction, and Conflagration: The Archaeology of Socio-political Change in the Triumviral Period Dominik Maschek ..................................................................................... The Socio-political Experience of the Italians during the Triumviral Period Cristina Rosillo-López ............................................................................... Hasta infinita? Financial Strategies in the Triumviral Period Marta García Morcillo ............................................................................. 327 353 379 V. THE TRIUMVIRS AND THE PROVINCES Provinces and Provincial Command during the Triumvirate: Hispania as a Study Case Alejandro Díaz Fernández ........................................................................ 401 Triumviral Documents from the Greek East Andrea Raggi............................................................................................ Antonius and Athens W. Jeffrey Tatum ...................................................................................... 431 451 VI. CONCLUSION Law, Violence and Trauma in the Triumviral Period Clifford Ando ........................................................................................... 477 INDEX OF ANCIENT NAMES ............................................................... INDEX OF SUBJECTS .............................................................................. 495 503 THE FUNCTIONING OF THE REPUBLICAN INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE TRIUMVIRS Francisco Pina Polo Universidad de Zaragoza / Grupo Hiberus franpina@unizar.es I In 28-27, shortly before he became Augustus, Octavian affirmed his intention to carry out the restitutio rei publicae. With this purpose in mind, he reintroduced a series of forgotten institutional procedures that could give the impression that normality and Republican legality had returned to Rome. The ancient sources not only tell us that this restoration took place, but also provide some details about how it was implemented. In his Res Gestae Octavian himself states that the restoration took place during his sixth and seventh consulships, which he shared with Agrippa: in consulatu sexto et septimo… rem publicam ex mea potestate in senatus populique Romani arbitrium transtuli (“in my sixth and seventh consulships… I transferred the Republic from my own power to the will of the senate and the Roman people”).1 Tacitus confirms that Octavian, when he felt that his power was secure in his sixth consulate, abolished the (irregular) measures the Triumvirs had put in place and in their place established laws that made it possible to live in peace.2 * Project The Triumviral period and the collapse of the Roman Republic (43-31 BC): institutional, social and economical transformation (HAR2017-82383. Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Spanish Government). 1 RGDA 34. 2 Tac. Ann. 3.28.2: sexto demum consulatu Caesar Augustus, potentiae securus, quae triumviratu iusserat abolevit deditque iura quis pace et principe uteremur. Cf. Dio Cass. 53.2.5. 50 francisco pina polo Cassius Dio also affirms that during his sixth consulate in 28 Octavian reinstated traditional rules. The Greek author specifies the measures taken by Octavian, who, on one hand, reinstated the alternating possession of the fasces between the two consuls, which in the previous years had been exclusively in the hands of the Triumvirs. This change visually represented that the consuls once again exercised their power collegially.3 At the end of his sixth consulship, on the other hand, Octavian, Cassius Dio adds, took the traditional oath, presumably in a contio, that he had respected the laws, an act whose relevance was especially noteworthy in the year of restitutio.4 Finally, the legend found on the reverse of an aureus minted in 28 speaks to Octavian’s programme and demonstrates the importance that it was lent: LEGES ET IVRA P R RESTITVIT (“he restored the laws and rights of the Roman people”).5 The restoration of the res publica must have taken the form of one or several edicts,6 in which various measures of public and private law were adopted.7 In the political field, Octavian stopped handpicking magistrates years in advance, something which the Triumvirs had done, and returned to the Roman people their elective duties. He also gave the senate back the job of drawing the provincial proconsuls. It is beyond dispute that from 28 onwards all the magistrates were again elected in comitia, as well as that between 28 and 5 BC there were only ordinary consuls and no consules suffecti, except in extraordinary situations when one of the ordinarii had to be replaced, just as had happened throughout the Republic. In short, Octavian formally recognized popular sovereignty and the rule of law in Rome, thus allowing for a return to political normality. This stood in contrast to the exceptionality of the Triumvirate.8 3 Cf. Vervaet 2014: 32-33; Dalla Rosa 2015a: 558. 4 Dio Cass. 53.1.1-2: τότε μὲν ταῦτ᾽ ἐγένετο, τῷ δὲ ἑξῆς ἔτει ἕκτον ὁ Καῖσαρ ἦρξε, καὶ τά τε ἄλλα κατὰ τὸ νομιζόμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ πάνυ ἀρχαίου ἐποίησε, καὶ τοὺς φακέλους τῶν ῥάβδων τῷ Ἀγρίππᾳ συνάρχοντί οἱ κατὰ τὸ ἐπιβάλλον παρέδωκεν, αὐτός τε ταῖς ἑτέραις ἐχρήσατο, καὶ διάρξας τὸν ὅρκον κατὰ τὰ πάτρια ἐπήγαγε. 5 Mantovani 2008, Vervaet 2010 and Dalla Rosa 2015b. Rich – Williams 1999 defend the reading “he restored to the Roman People laws and rights”. See also Suspène 2009 (with further bibliography). Octavian’s garlanded head appears on the obverse; on the reverse a togate Octavian is seated on a sella curulis, holding a scroll in his right hand. 6 Dio Cass. 53.2.5. Cf. Mantovani 2008; Pellecchi 2015: 464-465; Dalla Rosa 2015b: 187. 7 Dio Cass. 53.2.3. 8 Hurlet – Mineo 2009b: 17. On res publica restituta see also Ferrary 2003; Le Doze 2015. the functioning of the republican institutions 51 We should not analyse these events in the light of what happened years later, when the Principate progressively asserted itself as a de facto monarchy: historians know what happened next, but the inhabitants of Rome and the Empire could not have known what would later unfold. The point to stress is that for a few years, despite Augustus’ rule, it would have surely been possible – even if a bit optimistic – to believe that in Rome the res publica had indeed been restored, a sentiment that would have been buttressed by Augustus’ frequent absences from the city.9 Restitutio rei publicae should not be considered, therefore, as nothing more than a propagandistic slogan in 28-27, but rather as a desirable and much-awaited policy that could lead to stability in Rome. In other words, there was a palpable desire for restoration, which was undoubtedly shared by large sections of Roman-Italian society that was fed up with wars, violence as well as political and social instability. In several passages Appian, who is more concerned with social issues than Cassius Dio, reflects on the socioeconomic chaos experienced in Italy during the Triumviral age: war, conscription, the running away of slaves, the pillage of fields, a plummet in agricultural productivity, an increase in famine, etc.10 Other chapters in this volume deal with the socio-economic damage that Romans and Italians suffered during the period.11 In the context of the present chapter, I am particularly interested in the institutional aspects, for which our main – and sometimes only – source of information is Cassius Dio. The abovementioned actions that Octavian undertook in 28-27 show that there were valid grounds on which one could argue that institutional restoration did indeed take place, in light of the slew of illegal or irregular events that had occurred in the years prior to Actium.12 9 Hurlet 2009: 84: “la restauration de la Res publica constitue une réalité si l’on analyse la situation à Rome dans le courant des années 20. À l’issue d’un processus qui commença le 1er janvier 28 pour s’achever avec la ou les séance(s) de janvier 27 relative(s) au gouvernement des provinces, l’État romain redevint un État de droit qui mit un terme aux pratiques triumvirales et subordonna le fonctionnement des institutions politiques au strict respect de règles d’essence républicaine.” 10 See App. B Civ. 5.74 (cf. 4.13-15; 5.67-68; 5.132). On the social perspective in Appian’s narrative – something absent from Cassius Dio’s, which focuses more on political issues –, see Gowing 1992: 36-37. 11 See in this volume the articles of Maschek, García Morcillo and Rosillo-López. 12 In this context of restoration, Octavian also took care of promoting necessary economic reconstruction. Cassius Dio (53.22.1) reports that many of the roads in Italy were in very poor condition due to lack of maintenance over the previous years. Consequently, Octavian ordered various senators to repair them at their own expense, and he himself looked after the via francisco pina polo 52 Fergus Millar, however, came to the conclusion that one can legitimately speak of institutional normality during the Triumviral period.13 To what extent did such normality actually exist? To what extent, in contrast, can we speak of institutional exceptionality throughout this period?14 II Let us start with the facts that cast light on the exceptionality and irregularity of the Triumviral period vis-à-vis the normal functioning of Republican institutions. In this regard, an obvious place to begin is the use that the Triumvirs made of magistracies and priestly colleges as a mechanism for rewarding their loyal followers.15 Consequently, Triumviral control of the magistracies was detrimental to many traditional aristocratic families and, at the same time, allowed for more than ever before homines novi to gain access to the elite by the mere virtue of holding an office. The power of the Triumvirs to appoint magistrates (and priests), on the one hand, took away from the people – whether totally or partially – one of their main prerogatives: the election of magistrates in comitia.16 On the other hand, direct appointment eliminated competition between members of the aristocracy, a type of competition that had been one of the bases of the Republican system: this must have been a consequential shock to an aristocracy whose existence was essentially predicated on internal competition and choice of the people in elections.17 Flaminia. Years later Augustus personally assumed the responsibility for the roads, though he appointed praetorii to take charge of the details (Dio Cass. 54.8.4). Cf. Eck 1979: 25. 13 Millar 1973: 54. 14 In the present context, I can only focus on the institutions whose activities were carried in Rome and must, therefore, exclude the provinces from the present discussion. 15 On the Triumviral prerogatives in general, see Vervaet’s chapter in this volume. 16 Cf. Laffi 1993: 53-54. 17 Cf. Hölkeskamp 2010: 98-106. When Cassius Dio asserts that the Romans were uneasy about the continuous coming and going of magistrates every year (Dio Cass. 48.53.12, see below), one may wonder whether discontent was general or whether it focused in particular on the (traditional) aristocracy, for whom the avenues of political promotion depended exclusively on the three rulers of Rome. On the other hand, we know that in the 30s there seems to have been an endemic lack of aediles: in 36 there were no aediles due to a lack of candidates, and so praetors and tribunes had to absorb their functions (Dio Cass. 49.16.2), and in 33 Agrippa agreed to be the sole aedile, again due to a lack of candidates (Dio Cass. 49.43.1). The dearth of aediles may have been partially due to the economic burdens inherent in holding the office (see, for example, the enormous – albeit exceptional – costs that Agrippa incurred during his term of office); cf. Daguet-Gagey 2015: 80-81. However, another reason the functioning of the republican institutions 53 However, it is not clear – and perhaps unlikely – that the Triumvirs always appointed all magistrates at all levels. In other words, it is possible that elections continued to take place,18 although we must note the lack of any indication that election ‘campaigns’ or competition between candidates happened in this period. We do know of the case of Oppius, who, according to Appian, was elected aedile by the people, which helped him to cover the expenses of his office since the proscriptions had robbed him of all his property.19 Appian’s account clearly suggests that the people somehow intervened in Oppius’ election, but we cannot conclude whether this was merely a meaningless confirmation ritual for an appointment previously decided upon by the Triumvirs. Be that as it may, this episode remains an isolated case in our sources, and in no way allows us to conclude that the elections continued to be held on a regular basis between 43 and 31 BC. In the agreement between Lepidus, Antonius and the young Caesar that gave rise to the formation of the Triumvirate, there was a special stipulation concerning the Triumvirs’ role in appointing all magistrates whom they considered appropriate, a provision that must have been included in the lex Titia, which legally created the Triumvirate.20 As a consequence, we have a good deal of evidence concerning the appointments for the shortage may have been that it was no longer worth bearing the expenses entailed in that office when future promotion to other magistracies depended not on popularity among the people, but on the will of the Triumvirs. In order to solve these problems related to the recruitment of aediles, Octavian handed over their functions to the praetors in 28. 18 Millar 1973: 52: “there remain a few indications that the ritual of the elections continued, and even that some places were filled by election.” In his speech to his soldiers in 42, Cassius asserts that no magistrate (whether praetor, consul or tribune) was elected any longer (App. B Civ. 4.93). This statement must, however, be understood in the context of the initial phase of the Triumvirate and civil wars. 19 App. B Civ. 4.41. Cf. Millar 1973: 53. According to Cassius Dio (49.16.2), in 36 there were no aediles due to a lack of candidates, but this does not necessarily imply that they were candidates in popular elections. However, we do have proof that the elections still took place in the year 43, at the time when the Triumvirate began to wield its power. According to Appian (B Civ. 4.18; cf. Val. Max. 9.11.6), an individual who canvassed for the questorship denounced his father (L. Villius Annalis), a praetor who was one of the proscripted. In return he received his father’s fortune and was directly appointed aedile by the Triumvirs (not quaestor), which shows their willingness to intervene in the appointment of magistrates from practically the beginning of their rule. In fact, this episode indicates the pre-eminence and arbitrariness of the Triumvirs in the institutional sphere. 20 Dio Cass. 46.55.3; App. B Civ. 4.2.7. Cf. Frei-Stolba 1967: 81-83; Fadinger 1969: 35-36; Laffi 1993: 45-47. 54 francisco pina polo carried out directly by the Triumvirs. As a matter of fact, we have evidence that they designated consuls,21 praetors,22 aediles,23 quaestors,24 urban praefects,25 priests26 and senators.27 Many of these appointments were carried out under extraordinary conditions and without any respect for traditional norms or the law, regarding questions like the number of magistrates, term limits or age requirements. While the number of magistrates – except in the case of the consulship – had increased throughout the Republic, there was an established number for every office each year. This regulation disappeared in practice during the Triumviral age, when the number of magistrates increased at the whim of the Triumvirs, even disproportionately: this was the case in 38, when sixty-seven praetors were appointed and held office throughout the year.28 As a general consequence, the magistracies lost their annual nature and were not held for a set amount of time. Already in 43, within the framework of the proscriptions, the Triumvirs removed all the praetors from office, even though they only had five days left to serve, and in their place they appointed substitutes for the short period of time that remained.29 Likewise, in the year 40 Antonius and Octavian dismissed all the consuls and praetors, although the end of the year was very near, and appointed others in their place to hold the position for only a few days. L. Cornelius Balbus was among the new consuls. Not only that, but when an aedile died on the last day of the year the Triumvirs chose and designated a substitute for only a few hours.30 And this was not the only instance of this happening: when a praetor died on the last day of the year 33, 21 Dio Cass. 47.15.2 (in 43 Ventidius); 48.32.1 (year 40); 48.35.1-2 (year 39); 50.10.1 (year 31). 22 Dio Cass. 47.15.1-3; 48.43.2. 23 Dio Cass. 48.32.3. 24 Dio Cass. 48.43.2. 25 Dio Cass. 49.42.1. 26 Dio Cass. 47.15.1; 49.16.1; App. B Civ. 4.5.1. 27 Dio Cass. 48.34.4. 28 Dio Cass. 48.43.2. There were also institutional innovations, such as the fact that the consuls of 38 were the first to have two quaestors each (Dio Cass. 48.43.1). 29 Cf. Dio Cass. 47.15.3. When the young Caesar became a triumvir in 43, he left the consulship and was replaced by Ventidius, who until then had held the praetorship. This happened instead of electing a suffect consul, as would have been legal. In turn, an aedile replaced Ventidius as praetor (cf. Daguet-Gagey 2015: 86). Both promotions without elections were irregular. 30 Dio Cass. 48.32.1-3. On the aedile, see Daguet-Gagey 2015: 86. the functioning of the republican institutions 55 the young Caesar likewise appointed a substitute for just a few hours.31 Speaking of events from 37, Cassius Dio asserts that the citizens in Rome were annoyed by the constant changes that took place in the magistracies, since consuls, praetors and quaestors were constantly replacing each other in the offices. Cassius Dio explains that for many it was important just to hold a magistracy – even if for only a very short time – simply because they could then say that they had held that honos, which opened up the possibility of holding other offices outside Italy. In fact, it was not unusual to accept a magistracy only to resign it on the same day, always with the approval of the Triumvirs of course.32 Similarly, it was not unusual for the age requirements for holding an office to be ignored. Thus, a boy was designated quaestor in 38,33 and in 34 children chosen among the equites were named urban prefects during the celebration of the Feriae Latinae, which continued to be held (see below).34 Ultimately, the impression obtained from all these examples is that the tenure of the magistracies depended on the will, or rather the whim, of the Triumvirs, and in particular of Octavian, who was present in the Urbs. So, it is no surprise that in 33, when the praetor L. Asellius resigned from the office due to illness, Octavian simply replaced him with his son, as if the office had suddenly become hereditary.35 Cassius Dio tends to paint a picture of absolute institutional disorder, and the senate is no exception.36 He claims that the Triumvirs enrolled a large number of new members in the senate (it can be assumed that the lex Titia would have given the Triumvirs that power), but his main criticism deals with the origins of the new senators: not only were Italians and soldiers enrolled, but the sons of freedmen and even slaves were as well.37 For Cassius Dio, this fact that slaves could infiltrate the senatorial order and hold magistracies serves as the coup de grâce in his depiction of the chaos of the 31 Dio Cass. 49.43.7. 32 Dio Cass. 48.53.1-2. 33 Dio Cass. 48.43.2. 34 Dio Cass. 49.42.1. It should be noted that the prefects were appointed by the Triumvir Octavian, not by the consuls as had previously been the norm. 35 Dio Cass. 49.43.7. 36 See Ferriès’ chapter in this volume. 37 When Octavian exercised censorial prerogatives in 29-28 with Agrippa, he undertook a thorough review of the composition of the senate. As a result he removed dozens of senators (Dio Cass. 52.42). 56 francisco pina polo period. He mentions a Maximus, whom his master recognized when the slave was aspiring to hold a quaestorship, and another slave even reached the praetorship, though upon being discovered he was summarily condemned to death.38 The Triumvirs not only appointed magistrates, they did so for several years in advance, which automatically marginalized the people and rendered elections toothless. In 39 the Triumvirs appointed among their followers the consuls for several years in advance.39 In addition to designating two annual consuls, as had been the custom, they appointed others, establishing the difference between consules ordinarii and consules suffecti.40 At the end of 40, suffect consuls had already been appointed for a short period of time, but since 39 a permanent system was established for the rest of the Triumviral period: two ordinary consuls at the beginning of each year, replaced in the following months by a varying number of suffect consuls (up to four in 34 and six in 33). In practice, this meant that no consul held office for a full year, and that many of the suffect consuls barely held office for a few months or even just a few weeks. From a political point of view, the unusual proliferation of consuls could be used to consolidate support and reward a large number of loyal followers, many of whom were members of families that, until that moment in history, had been inconspicuous in Rome and some of whom came from Italian towns. From a constitutional point of view, the consulship remained formally the highest annual magistracy and was still a token of status. This apparent continuity gave the impression that Republican institutions had been preserved. In practice, however, the consulship became a second-class 38 Dio Cass. 48.34.4-5. On (Vibius) Maximus, see Syme 1955: 57. Cf. Pina Polo 2014. Cassius Dio uses almost exactly the same words and makes the same criticisms when he speaks of the new senators appointed by Caesar (Dio Cass. 43.47.3). Ultimately, Cassius Dio disapproves of lowborn, undeserving individuals who entered the senate. Cf. Gowing 1992: 25 n.15. 39 Dio Cass. 48.35.1-2. Cf. App. B Civ. 5.73. Cassius Dio’s suggestion that consuls were appointed eight years in advance is dubious. Appian leaves out the appointment of the consuls of previous years and only mentions the designation of the regular consuls for the four years between 34 and 31. See Welch 2012: 243-244 (for another viewpoint, see Vervaet 2010, 84-87 and 96-97, as well as in his chapter in this volume). Be that as it may, it is a fact that ordinary and suffect consuls were appointed by the Triumvirs, and not elected by the people in comitia for the years between 39 and 31. 40 On the suffect consulship during the Triumviral period, see Pina Polo 2018. the functioning of the republican institutions 57 magistracy under the Triumvirate’s thumb.41 On the one hand, the fact that the appointment of consuls depended on the will of the Triumvirs and not on the popular vote clearly and emphatically revealed the inferiority of the consulship. On the other hand, the multiplication of the number of consuls each year, eliminating de facto the traditional annual limits of the office, reduced its authority and depreciated the consulship in relation to the Triumvirs, who held the real power.42 While the suffect consulship had existed throughout the Republic as a constitutional mechanism to replace dead or incapacitated consuls, during the Triumviral period it was used as a political instrument, since suffect consuls replaced consuls that did not need a substitute. This change perverted the meaning of the institution. This irregularity was so evident that is easy to understand why Octavian’s decision in 28 to suppress the suffect consuls could be seen as a sign of a return to Republican normality. When in 5 BC Augustus re-established the suffect consulship on a regular basis, political circumstances had shifted and the Princeps needed a way to reward those who had proven their loyalty, just as the Triumvirs had done decades before. One of the consequences of the Triumvirs appointing magistrates for several years in advance was that many people could hold the title of magistrates designate for years, which conferred a certain political status, even within the senate.43 Obviously, this was yet another irregularity, since until then a magistrate was only considered designate from the moment he was proclaimed the winner in the elections until he took office, that is, for a few weeks or months. Now, this status could be held for years from the time an individual was appointed by the Triumvirs until he actually took office. And some inscriptions and coins show that these people did indeed use the title of designate as part of their official cursus honorum. According to Cassius Dio, the Pact of Misenum signed in 39 between Sextus Pompeius and the Triumvirs established that Pompeius would be consul some years later and that some of those under his command would be appointed tribunes, praetors and members of priestly colleges.44 For that reason, over the next several years, Sextus Pompeius was officially consul 41 42 43 44 See Pina Polo forthcoming. Pina Polo 2018: 112-113. On consules designati, see Pina Polo 2013. Cf. Frolov 2018. Dio Cass. 48.36.4. 58 francisco pina polo designatus and augur designatus, but in fact he did not hold the consulship nor was he actually inaugurated as augur.45 In an inscription of Lilybaeum in Sicily, L. Plinius Rufus, who is called legatus pro praetore, appears to be responsible for the construction of a gate and towers in the town.46 The inscription is dedicated to Magnus Pompeius Pius (i.e. Sextus Pompeius), who is given the titles of consul and augur designate. The inscription therefore must be dated subsequent to the 39, after the Pact of Misenum had been signed. As a legatus pro praetore, Plinius Rufus commanded the Pompeian troops in the western part of Sicily and fought against Lepidus. After the defeat at Naulochus, Sextus Pompeius brought Plinius Rufus to Messana, but, once Pompeius fled the island, Plinius Rufus surrendered.47 In the inscription, besides being referred to as legatus pro praetore Plinius Rufus presents himself as praetor designatus. He must have been appointed praetor immediately after the signing of the Pact of Misenum, in 39 or 38.48 Therefore, he was one of Pompeius’ followers who received an office in advance. However, it is unlikely that he would actually ever go on to hold the praetorship, and he must have remained praetor designate until his surrender in 36, as is reflected in the inscription. In a very significant way, the title consul designatus appears for years along with that of triumvir rei publicae constituendae (i.e. as their two official institutional titles) on coins minted by the Triumvirs, which were, after all, official documents with wide circulation. Antonius was consul ordinarius in 34 and was to be so again in 31. On the reverse of the coins that he minted in 38, Antonius is referred to as consul designate for the second and third time.49 We find a similar legend along with augur on the obverse of coins in 36.50 In the years 34 and 33, however, only the legend consul designatus for the third time appears.51 In the case of Octavian, who was consul ordinarius in 33 and 31, on his coins of 37 and 36 we find the legend consul designate for the third 45 Dio Cass. 48.54.6. Cf. Welch 2012: 184. 46 ILS 8891 = ILLRP 426: Mag. Pompeio Mag. f. Pio imp. augure cos. design. por[ta]m et turres L. Plinius L. f. Rufus leg. pro pr. pr. des. f. c. 47 App. B Civ. 5.97-98; 5.122. 48 Welch 2012: 216. 49 Crawford RRC 534, no.533 (III · VIR · R · P · C· COS · DESIG · ITER · ET · TERT ). 50 Crawford RRC 537, no.539 (AVGVR · COS · DES · ITER · ET · TERT ). 51 Crawford RRC 538, no.541 (COS · ITER · DESIGN · TERT · III · VIR · R · P · C) and 542 (COS · DES · III · III · V · R · P · C). the functioning of the republican institutions 59 time.52 Nevertheless, this title was not exclusive to the Triumvirs. Marcus Agrippa was consul ordinarius in 37. For that reason on coins minted by Octavian in 38, Agrippa is mentioned on the reverse as consul designatus.53 In exactly the same way as they used traditional Republican magistracies, the Triumvirs used the priestly colleges as a political instrument to reward the greatest possible number of their loyal supporters.54 Given the high number of vacancies in the priestly colleges that resulted from the wars and proscriptions of the years following Caesar’s assassination,55 the Triumvirs had the ability to make immediate nominations, whereas traditionally an aspirant to a priestly college had to wait to be co-opted until a vacancy opened up and he had been selected in a competition with other candidates. In the Triumviral period, this process was entirely in the hands of the Triumvirs whether or not any given priesthood was awarded. The difference between magistracies and priesthoods was the fact that, while the number of priests in each college was fixed56 and tenure was for life, the magistracies were annual, which allowed for the successive designation of a large number of individuals on a yearly basis. Naturally, this greatly increased the opportunity for the Triumvirs to reward their loyal followers. Nevertheless, the priestly colleges offered the Triumvirs a stage for institutional evergetism which was, perhaps, more modest than a magistracy, but no less attractive from a symbolic point of view. As we have seen, one aspect of the compromise between the different leaders in the Pact of Misenum entailed the appointment of magistrates for the following years, which assisted in achieving peace and stability. Given that the pact included the large-scale nomination of new priests to the different colleges, we can assume that it was probably in 39 that the different priestly colleges saw the vacancies that had resulted from the conflicts of the previous years finally filled.57 Unsurprisingly, taking into account the nature of the Pact 52 Crawford RRC 536-538, no.537, 538 and 540 (COS · ITER · ET · TER · DESIG). 53 Crawford RRC 535, no.534 (M · AGRIPPA · COS · DESIG). 54 See Pina Polo 2019b. 55 Pina Polo 2019a; 2019b: 179-181. 56 However, we know of the case of M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus, who was probably nominated in 36 after returning from the war against Sextus Pompeius (Hofmann Lewis 1955: 41-42 and 83; Valvo 1983; Rüpke 2008: 940 no.3414). According to Cassius Dio (49.16.1), he was nominated by Octavian despite there being no vacancy in the collegium. This clearly indicates that the Triumvirs bequeathed priestly nominations as they pleased, even exceeding the set number of priests in a college, if they saw fit. 57 Pina Polo 2019b: 183-186. 60 francisco pina polo of Misenum, which tried to achieve political equilibrium between the different individuals and groups in conflict, the new priests (like the consuls designated at the same time) were supporters of one leader or another and only received their new appointment because of their proven loyalty to the Triumvirs or Sextus Pompeius. In fact, the appointment of magistrates and priests was close linked and it is no coincidence that the majority of these new priests would later become consuls, whether ordinary or suffect. Indeed, their appointment as priests no doubt inherently carried a simultaneous nomination as consuls designate, or at least the promise of a future consulship.58 As a matter of fact, it was a constant throughout the period that the nomination of an individual to the priesthood, irrespective of to which priestly college he was appointed, either predated his nomination as ordinary or suffect consul, or occurred at (roughly) the same time. That is, the social elevation that a priestly appointment implied generally preceded the political zenith that came along with occupying the highest Republican office.59 58 Indeed, among those who certainly or probably became priests as a consequence of the Pact of Misenum are the following individuals who later became consuls: the ordinary consul for 39, Marcius Censorinus (quindecimvir); the ordinary consuls for 38, Claudius Pulcher (epulo) and Norbanus Flaccus (quindecimvir); the ordinary consuls for 37, Agrippa (quindecimvir) and Caninius Gallus (epulo), as well as the suffect consul for the same year, Statilius Taurus (augur); the ordinary consul for 36, Cocceius Nerva (quindecimvir); Sextus Pompeius, who should have been ordinary consul (augur designate); the ordinary consul for 34, Scribonius Libo (epulo), and perhaps the suffect consul that same year, Paullus Aemilius Lepidus (augur); perhaps the suffect consul for 33, Fonteius Capito (pontifex or augur); the ordinary consul for 32, Sosius (quindecimvir); the suffect consul for 31, Cn. Pompeius (quindecimvir); the suffect consul for 29, Potitus Valerius Messalla (quindecimvir); and the ordinary consul for 21, Q. Aemilius Lepidus (quindecimvir). A similar succession of religious and political offices applies in the case of Sempronius Atratinus, who was probably nominated augur in 40, the year in which he was also suffect praetor, and who was appointed suffect consul in 34. The same sequence occurred with later nominations: Marcus Valerius Messalla was probably quindecimvir before being appointed suffect consul in 32; Messalla Corvinus became a priest in 36 and was suffect consul in 31; Titius must have been nominated pontifex prior to occupying the suffect consulship also in 31; the same occurred with Marcus Cicero, suffect consul in 30; Sextus Apuleius was augur before becoming ordinary consul in 29; the ordinary consul for 25, M. Junius Silanus, was nominated augur at some point in the 30s. Cf. Pina Polo 2019b: 190. 59 Multiple examples reliably corroborate this fact, and it is very likely that this sequence also applied in cases for which there is no chronological confirmation for the sacerdotal appointments. This occurred from the very outset of the Triumviral period: Ventidius Bassus was nominated pontifex at the same time as suffect consul at the end of 43, as though the assumption of the highest office (Ventidius Bassus was praetor until that moment) necessarily entailed also receiving the social and political accolade of priesthood. The same perhaps the functioning of the republican institutions 61 This close relationship between political magistracies and priestly offices is hardly surprising, since they are, in reality, two facets of the political practice and self-representation of the social elite throughout the Republic. Probably more than had been the case in previous times, however, during the Triumviral period the priesthood served as a stepping stone for many homines novi who were socially elevated by the Triumvirs to the highest offices. A nomination to the priesthood – before assuming the highest magistracy – immediately endowed the beneficiaries with prestige and visibility, something particularly important for parvenus without a brilliant family history in Rome: for them, therefore, a priesthood symbolised access to the new de facto aristocracy of those rendering service to the Triumvirs. III Compared to what had been the institutional norms in the decades prior to the Triumviral period, all of these facts were notable irregularities. The question, however, remains whether it is possible to speak of normality in the daily life of Roman institutions between 43 and 31.60 As had been happening throughout the Republic, each year consuls, praetors, tribunes of the plebs, aediles and quaestors took their office, and the priestly colleges filled their ranks with new members when necessary. As we have seen, the aedileship posed the main problem, since during the 30s there seems to have been an endemic dearth of candidates for the office (see above n.17). However, their duties remained necessary and still had to be carried out. Thus, for example, in 36 there was no aedile, and so praetors and tribunes of the plebs needed to perform their duties, a solution to the problem that itself constituted an irregularity.61 In 33 there was the same issue, and Agrippa was the sole aedile that year.62 This was naturally an extraordinary event, but Agrippa acted as a normal aedile and performed the usual tasks required of the office, though he spent his own money and did not take anything from the public treasury. occurred with Lucius Cornelius Balbus, who could have been nominated pontifex in 40 at the same time when he held the office of suffect consul. It should not be forgotten that Caesar had also proceeded in a similar way nominating Vibius Pansa and Hirtius to the augurship, before they became consuls in 43. 60 Cf. Laffi 1993: 55. 61 Dio Cass. 49.16.2. Likewise no prefect of the city was appointed for the Feriae Latinae, but some of the praetors discharged his functions. 62 Dio Cass. 49.43.1. 62 francisco pina polo Accordingly, he repaired public buildings and streets, cleaned out sewers, built wells, fountains and reservoirs, carried out maintenance works at the circus, distributed olive-oil and salt, furnished the baths free of charge for men and women, etc.63 Agrippa’s aedileship clearly shows the combination of exceptionality in his appointment as the sole person holding the magistracy, on the one hand, and the normality of his carrying out of the duties of the office, on the other, even when we take into account the extraordinarily high expenses that he bore as aedile. We also have evidence of the activities of other magistrates during the Triumviral period.64 Agrippa himself organised the Ludi Apollinares in 40 as urban praetor.65 The tribune of the plebs Nonius Balbus prevented the consul Sosius in 32 from taking measures against Octavian, in what amounted to the use of the tribunician veto and pointed forward a normal functioning of the tribunate (however, one has to wonder if a veto that harmed the Triumvir would have been admissible).66 The tribune P. Falcidius passed a law, according to which the regular heirs had to receive no less than a quarter of the inheritance, thus demonstrating the tribunician capacity for legislative initiative.67 Q. Pedius, son of the suffect consul in 43, was an urban quaestor in 41, as we know thanks to an inscription from the temple of Juno Lucina on the Esquiline. The inscription indicates that Pedius was responsible for contracting (locare) the construction of a murus of the temple for a certain amount and for approving after inspection (probare) that the work had been carried out properly: both are characteristic tasks of an urban quaestor.68 The SC de Aphrodisiensibus, dated to 39, mentions the urban quaestors of this year, whose names cannot be reconstructed.69 According to the inscription, the 63 Dio Cass. 49.43.1-5; Plin. HN 36.121. 64 The same must have happened with the religious ceremonies in which the priests of the different collegia were involved and which must have taken place as usual. However, Cassius Dio homes in on an exceptional fact: in 40 the pontiffs took care of the rituals that corresponded to the septemviri, because none of these were in Rome. According to Cassius Dio, this was also done on many other occasions afterwards (Dio Cass. 48.32.4). 65 Dio Cass. 48.20.2. 66 Dio Cass. 50.2.3. 67 Dio Cass. 48.33.5. 68 CIL 6.358 = ILS 3102 = ILLRP 160: P. Servilio L. Antonio cos. / a.d. IIII k. Sext. / locavit Q. Pedius q. urb. / murum Iunoni Lucinae / sestertium milibus trecentis octoginta / eidemque probavit. The high cost indicates that it was an important undertaking, possibly related to the temple’s load-bearing walls (see Giannelli 1996). 69 See a new edition of the SC de Aphrodisiensibus in Raggi – Buongiorno, 2020. the functioning of the republican institutions 63 consuls should instruct the urban quaestors to register the name of an ambassador in the aerarium and to give him a sum of money.70 Again, registering the names of foreign legates in the aerarium and taking care of their needs during their stay (including the delivery of money) were tasks that the urban quaestors had undertaken throughout the Republic following the instructions of the senate and the direct orders of the consuls (as the SC demonstrates occurred in this case as well).71 The information about consuls at work during the Triumviral period is very limited, but it is sufficient to conclude that they continued to carry out their traditional duties and functions in day-to-day politics (obviously under the control and authority of the Triumvirs). Ordinary and suffect consuls – at least some of them – must have had a certain social visibility, which surely had a good deal to do with the presence (or lack thereof ) of the Triumvirs at Rome: the consuls intervened in the senate, probably issued edicts,72 spoke to the people in assemblies and performed religious tasks. In fact we know of a few specific acts carried out by the consuls.73 With regards to religious duties, in 40 the consuls celebrated the games that had been vowed for the completion of the war against Brutus and Cassius.74 The festival may have been held at the end of the year, coinciding with the presence of Antonius and Octavian at Rome.75 The suffect consuls L. Cornelius Balbus and P. Canidius Crassus would have presided over these games. Our sources also tell of the festival in 34 held in honour of Venus Genetrix during the final days of July, which was presided over by the suffect consuls Paullus Aemilius Lepidus and C. Memmius, who had entered office on 1st July.76 Additionally, a brief notice given by Velleius Paterculus may very well refer to the suffect consul M. Titius in 31, who also presided over games: Titius, who, according to Velleius, had become unpopular in Rome for having killed Pompey, was jeered by the audience when celebrating the games he had organised in 70 SC de Aphrodisiensibus ll. 2-3; 74-76. Cf. Reynolds 1982: 66 and 88. 71 Pina Polo – Díaz Fernández 2019: 98-102. 72 For instance, in 42 the consul L. Munatius Plancus issued edicts saving some of the proscribed (App. B Civ. 4.37 and 45). 73 See Millar 1973: 53; Pina Polo forthcoming. 74 Dio Cass. 48.32.4. 75 Sumi 2005: 197-198. 76 Dio Cass. 49.42.1. For the date at which these consuls entered office, see Salomies 1991: 192; Pina Polo 2018: 108-109. Cf. Sumi 2005: 151. francisco pina polo 64 Pompey’s theatre.77 As for the Feriae Latinae, Cassius Dio shows that in 43 it was still compulsory for the consuls to preside over the festival before leaving Rome to take command of their armies.78 According to Cassius Dio, the consuls of that year left Rome without the festival having been held, which constituted a breach of the tradition. In 42, the prefect of the city presided over the Latin Festival, although this task, according to Cassius Dio, did not belong to him but to the consuls instead.79 This consular duty must have existed over the following years under the Triumvirs. In the second half of 34 the consul suffectus Paullus Aemilius Lepidus dedicated the rebuilt Basilica Aemilia, which his father L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus had begun twenty years earlier.80 This dedication continued the tradition, whenever it was possible, of inaugurating a public building promoted by the same individual or by a member of his family, while he was a consul in office: it was a means of simultaneously giving prominence to his consulship and to the building itself, not to mention a chance to curry favour in Rome.81 There is no reason to think that the consuls lost their ability to convene contiones, preside over them and speak at them, that is, their potestas contionandi. However, the only contio of the Triumviral period in which the intervention of a consul is attested was held during the Perusine war, when Lucius Antonius, who was wearing military garb, delivered a speech to the people and was acclaimed imperator by the audience.82 To this can be added an assembly in 30 (i.e. after Actium but before the restitutio rei publicae of 2827), in which the suffect consul M. Tullius Cicero announced to the people at Rome that Antonius had died, since his death in August of that year coincided with the months when the son of the orator was consul.83 The text of Appian makes it clear that the consul Cicero read to the people an edict that was also publicly displayed on the Rostra. In all probability Cicero himself was the author of the edict, and this shows that, during the Triumviral period, the consuls must have issued edicts, as had been the case in previous years. 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Vell. Pat. 2.79.6. Cf. Millar 1973: 53. Dio Cass. 46.33.4-5. Dio Cass. 47.40.6. Dio Cass. 49.42.2. Cf. Pina Polo 2011: 272-273. App. B Civ. 5.30-31; Dio Cass. 48.13.5. App. B Civ. 4.51; Dio Cass. 51.19.4. the functioning of the republican institutions 65 With respect to the popular assemblies, we have already seen that there are serious doubts that the comitia continued to maintain any real authority to elect magistrates. However, there is evidence of laws passed in comitia during the period, which demonstrates the continuity of at least a certain legislative activity. The known laws were promoted by consuls or tribunes of the plebs, as had been customary throughout the Republic.84 The contiones, on the other hand, undoubtedly continued to take place, since these meetings were an indispensable instrument of communication with the people. However, a different question altogether is whether these assemblies were open to all offices, mainly consuls and tribunes of the plebs,85 who had been the main conveners of contiones throughout the Republic, or whether they were under the (almost) exclusive control of the Triumvirs. As we have just seen, that of Lucius Antonius is the only known contio of a consul between 43 and 31. In contrast, all other meetings of which we know were summoned by the Triumvirs or one of them, especially Octavian, who was present at Rome.86 Finally, despite its new and changing composition, it is evident that the senate continued to function during the Triumviral period.87 Again, it is a much more difficult matter to determine to what extent we can speak of normality in its sessions, procedures and debates. For example, in 39 the senate ratified the acts that the Triumvirs had carried out since the creation of the Triumvirate in 43.88 This could be seen as suggesting that the Triumvirs were apparently somehow subordinate to the senate, though, in reality, this was nothing more than formality: could the senators have acted differently? In 84 Laffi 1993: 50-53 collects the known laws. According to Laffi, the influence of the Triumvirs must have lurked behind all legislative initiatives. 85 The last known contio called by a tribune was that of P. Titius in November 43, precisely to announce his bill for the creation of the Triumvirate (App. B Civ. 4.7). The tribune Falcidius must have summoned contiones to present and defend his inheritance law (see above). 86 App. B Civ. 4.32-34 (edict to confiscate women’s wealth); Suet. Aug. 61 (funeral eulogy of Octavian’s mother); Dio Cass. 47.13.4 (edict of proscriptions); Sen. Suas. 6.19 and 21; Plut. Cic. 49.1-2 (Antonius shows Ciceron’s head on the Rostra in an assembly); Dio Cass. 49.15.3 (Octavian announces outside the pomerium his victory over Sextus Pompeius in Naulochus); Suet. Aug. 17.1; Dio Cass. 50.3.4 (Octavian reads pro contione the supposed will of Antonius). Cf. Pina Polo 1989: 312-313; 1996: 162-169. 87 See in Laffi 1993: 47-50, a list of sessions and decisions taken by the senate during the period. 88 Dio Cass. 48.34.1. Cf. App. B Civ. 5.75: the senate ratifies all that Antonius had done or should do. francisco pina polo 66 any case, this shows that the senate met and issued decrees, as happened years later when the senators approved granting honours to Octavian after his victory over Sextus Pompeius,89 or when near the end of 40 the praetores suffecti Sempronius Atratinus and Messala Corvinus summoned the senate and introduced Herod of Judea, who was granted the title of king.90 Cassius Dio narrates the dispute between Octavian and the consul Sosius, who already on the first day of 32,91 presumably in the usual debate in the senate when a new year started, had dared to praise Antonius and to attack the young Caesar. Sosius did not stop there: he wanted to introduce measures against Octavian, apparently in the senate.92 Octavian had preferred to stay out of the city while Sosius spoke in the senate and tried to launch initiatives against him. After reflecting on the situation, he returned to Rome and summoned the senate, accompanied by a guard of soldiers and friends who carried hidden daggers. In the senate the young Caesar sat down “upon his official chair” (ἐπὶ δίφρου ἀρχικοῦ) “in the middle of the consuls” (ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ὑπάτων), in a clear show of his superiority.93 From there, he spoke at length in his own defence and railed against Sosius and Antonius. The consuls did not even dare to open their mouths to respond him and actually left the city secretly soon after, with other senators in tow.94 While this story clearly demonstrates who actually held power in Rome, it also shows the senate at work. IV Let us conclude. While Appian is primarily interested in portraying the socioeconomic havoc in Rome and Italy during the Triumviral period, Cassius Dio focuses first and foremost on political and institutional chaos. While there is no reason to doubt the veracity of his claims, we must remember that 89 App. B Civ. 5.130. 90 Jos. AJ 14.384. Laffi 1993: 50: it seems that the Triumvirs let ordinary magistrates maintain the power to summon the senate. 91 See Lange 2009: 61, with supplementary bibliography for the discussion of the chronology of 32. 92 We do not know what kind of actions Sosius was planning, but the veto of the tribune of the plebs Nonius Balbus prevented him from going ahead (Dio Cass. 50.2.3). Once more, the initiative of the consul and the veto of the tribune should be seen as an indication of a certain institutional normality. 93 Pina Polo forthcoming. See also Vervaet’s chapter in this volume. 94 Dio Cass. 50.2.4-6. the functioning of the republican institutions 67 Cassius Dio saw the Triumviral period as the justification for Augustus’ Principate.95 And today there is undoubtedly a strong tendency to conceive of the Triumviral age as a transitional period between the Republic and Principate, perhaps precisely because of the influence that Cassius Dio’s narrative has wielded. It is worth asking, however, whether Cassius Dio may have exaggerated the political instability of the period in order to extol and legitimise Augustus’ government, and whether he consciously cherry picked episodes and anecdotes that would throw disorder into relief, while also minimizing any aspects that would demonstrate elements of continuity and normality. Be that as it may, it seems evident, on the one hand, that the period was no stranger to institutional irregularities in regards to the magistracies, senate and comitia. Among them, surely the most decisive and striking was the fact that the election of the magistrates by the people was substituted for the Triumvirs’ direct appointment of those officials. As a consequence, competition between members of the aristocracy, which had been a staple of the Republican political system, largely disappeared. The key to being appointed to an office was no longer found in gaining the people’s favour, but tin winning the support of the Triumvirs. Obtaining an office, therefore, became a compensation for political or military achievements in the Triumvirs’ service, not in the service of the larger community. In this respect, the Triumvirs found a clever means of exploiting their power to convert both magistracies and priesthoods into an instrument for rewarding loyalties. Accordingly, there was a rise of a new loyal aristocracy, which after Actium and Antonius’ defeat essentially became an aristocracy loyal exclusively to the man who would soon be known as Augustus. On the other hand, however, there is also sufficient evidence to suggest that the institutions, in general, continued to function fairly normally on a day-to-day basis, even if always under the supreme control of the Triumvirs. The senate continued to meet regularly and make decisions. The contiones, an essential channel of communication with the people, continued to be summoned. The magistrates performed the duties of their offices and carried out the tasks traditionally assigned to them; and if this was not possible, as 95 Gowing 1992: 35: “Dio’s conception of and interest in the triumviral period largely derive from its result, the Principate… In Dio’s view, history tended inexorably to the conclusion that Octavian would become sole ruler; all else is subordinated to that premise. Study of the period was useful only insofar as it demonstrated the need for monarchy and for a monarch like Augustus.” 68 francisco pina polo happened with the aediles on at least one occasion, other magistrates stepped in and took charge. The ranks of the priestly colleges were filled with new members who performed the ceremonies and rituals expected of them. In short, we cannot suggest in good faith that the Roman administration completely succumbed to dysfunction for more than a decade. On the contrary, we must submit that, fundamentally, the Roman state machinery continued to function with a certain normality, despite the unusual practice of irregularly appointing magistrates: this level of normality lent Republican legitimacy to the Triumviral regime without any political risk to the Triumvirs. Significantly, when Octavian returned to Rome in 36 after defeating Sextus Pompeius, Appian says that he “allowed” the annual magistrates to manage many public affairs according to tradition, in an attempt to present an image of a return to the traditional Republican order.96 On the one hand, this shows that, in effect, the affairs of the public administration continued to be carried out, despite an increasing dependence on the Triumvirs, particularly the one who stayed in Rome, Octavian. The question, then, is whether between 43 and 31, we should envision a Rome whose institutions were crippled by the Triumvirs’ stranglehold and the resulting lack of competition, yet where daily political life nevertheless proceeded as normal. Bibliography Crawford RRC = Crawford, M. (1974) Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge Daguet-Gagey, A. (2015) Splendor aedilitatum. L’édilité à Rome (Ier s. avant J.-C.-III s. après J.-C.), Rome Dalla Rosa, A. (2015a) “L’autocrate e il magistrato. Le attività di Augusto negli ambiti di competenza consolare”, in J.-L. Ferrary – J. Scheid (eds.), Il princeps romano: autocrate o magistrato? Fattori giuridici e fattori sociali del potere imperiale da Augusto a Commodo, Pavia, 555-585 Dalla Rosa, A. (2015b) “L’aureus del 28 a.C. e i poteri triumvirali di Ottaviano”, in T.M. Lucchelli – F. Rohr Vio (eds.), Viri militares. Rappresentazione e propaganda tra Repubblica e Principato, Trieste, 171-200 Eck, W. (1979) Die Staatliche Organisation Italiens in der hohen Kaiserzeit, Munich 96 App. B Civ. 5.132. Octavian also ordered that the writings that contained evidence concerning strife be burned and promised to restore the constitution when Antonius should return from the Parthian war. Cf. Gowing 1992: 1: Octavian already intended to impose his own view of historical facts, as he would later do as Augustus. the functioning of the republican institutions 69 Fadinger, V. (1969) Die Begründung des Prinzipats. Quellenkritische und staatsrechtliche Untersuchungen zu Cassius Dio und der Parallelüberlieferung, Berlin Ferrary, J.-L. (2003) “Res publica restituta et les pouvoirs d’Auguste”, in S. Franchet D’Espèrey – V. Fromentin – S. Gotteland – J.-M. Roddaz (eds.), Fondaments et crises du pouvoir, Bordeaux, 419-428 Frei-Stolba, R. (1967) Untersuchungen zu den Wahlen in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Zurich Frolov, R. (2018) “From privatus to magistratus: The Political Initiative and the Alleged ius edicendi of Magistrates-Elect in Republican Rome”, Historia 67, 128-159 Giannelli, G. (1996) s.v. Iuno Lucina, aedes, LTUR, 3, 122-123 Gowing, A.M. (1992) The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio, Ann Arbor Hoffman Lewis, M.W. (1955) The Official Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians, Rome Hölkeskamp, K.-J. (2010) Reconstructing the Roman Republic. An Ancient Political Culture and Modern Research, Princeton (1Munich 2004) Hurlet, F. (2009a) “L’aristocratie augustéenne et la Res publica restituta”, in F. Hurlet – B. Mineo (eds.), Le principat d’Auguste: réalités et réprésentations du pouvoir autour de la Res publica restituta, Rennes, 73-99 Hurlet, F. – Mineo, B. (2009b) “Introduction. Res publica restituta. Le pouvoir et ses representations à Rome sous le principat d’Auguste”, in F. Hurlet – B. Mineo (eds.), Le principat d’Auguste: réalités et réprésentations du pouvoir autour de la Res publica restituta, Rennes, 9-22 Laffi, U. (1993) “Poteri triumvirali e organi repubblicani”, in A. Gara – D. Foraboschi (eds.), Il triumvirato costituente alla fine della Repubblica romana. Scritti in onore di Mario Attilio Levi, Como, 37-65 Lange, C.H. (2009) Res publica constituta. Actium, Apollo and the Accomplishment of the Triumviral Assignment, Leiden–Boston Le Doze, Ph. (2015) “Res publica restituta. Réflexions sur la restauration augustéenne”, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 26, 79-108 Mantovani, D. (2008) “Leges et iura P(opuli) R(omani) restituit. Principe e diritto in un Aureo di Ottaviano”, Athenaeum 96, 5-54 Millar, F. (1973) “Triumvirate and Principate”, JRS 63, 50-67 Pellecchi, L. (2015) “Quae triumviratu iusserat abolevit’. Gli esordi del potere normativo di Augusto in material fiscale”, in J.-L. Ferrary – J. Scheid (eds.), Il princeps romano: autocrate o magistrato? Fattori giuridici e fattori sociali del potere imperiale da Augusto a Commodo, Pavia, 431-495 Pina Polo, F. (1989) Las contiones civiles y militares en Roma, Zaragoza Pina Polo, F. (1996) Contra arma verbis. Der Redner vor dem Volk in der späten römischen Republik, Stuttgart Pina Polo, F. (2013) “The political role of consules designati at Rome”, Historia 62, 420-452 Pina Polo, F. (2014) “Impostores populares y fraudes legales en la Roma tardorrepublicana”, in F. Marco Simón – F. Pina Polo – J. Remesal Rodríguez (eds.), Fraude, mentiras y engaños en el mundo antiguo, Barcelona, 123-138 Pina Polo, F. (2018) “Magistrates without Pedigree: The Consules Suffecti of the Triumviral Age”, JRS 108, 99-114 Pina Polo, F. (2019a) “Losers in the Civil War between Caesarians and Pompeians: Punishment and Survival”, in K.-J. Hölkeskamp – H. Beck (eds.), Verlierer und Aussteiger 70 francisco pina polo in der ‘Konkurrenz unter Anwesenden’. Agonalität in der politischen Kultur des antiken Rom, Stuttgart, 147-167 Pina Polo, F. (2019b) “Los colegios sacerdotales durante la época triunviral (43-31 a.C.) como instrumento para premiar lealtades”, in S. Alfayé Villa – F. Pina Polo (eds.), Dioses, sacerdotes y magos en el mundo antiguo. Homenaje a Francisco Marco Simón, Madrid, 177192 Pina Polo, F. (forthcoming) “The Consulship under the Triumvirs: A Phantom Office?”, in C. Balmaceda (ed.), Libertas and res publica in the Roman Republic, Leiden Pina Polo, F. – Díaz Fernández, A. (2019) The Quaestorship in the Roman Republic, Berlin Raggi, A. – Buongiorno, P. (2020) Il senatus consultum de Plarasensibus et Aphrodisiensibus del 39 a.C. Edizione critica, traduzione, commento, Stuttgart Reynolds, J. (1982) Aphrodisias and Rome, London Rich, J.W. – Williams, J.H.C. (1999) “Leges et Ivra P. R. Restituit: A New Aureus of Octavian and the Settlement of 28-27 BC”, The Numismatic Chronicle 159, 169-213 Rüpke, J. (2008) Fasti Sacerdotum: A Prosopography of Pagan, Jewish and Christian Religious Officials in the City of Rome, 300 BC to AD 499, Oxford, (1Stuttgart 2005) Salomies, O. (1991) “Zu den Fasti Consulares von Tauromenium”, ZPE 86, 187-192 Sumi, G.S. (2005) Ceremony and Power: Performing Politics in Rome, Ann Arbor, Michigan Suspène, A. (2009) “Aspects numismatiques de la Res publica restituta augustéenne”, in F. Hurlet – B. Mineo (eds.), Le principat d’Auguste: réalités et réprésentations du pouvoir autour de la Res publica restituta, Rennes, 145-167 Syme, R. (1955) “Missing Senators”, Historia 4, 52-71 Valvo, A. (1983) “M. Valerio Corvino negli studi più recenti”, ANRW II 30.3, Berlin – New York, 1663-1680 Vervaet, F.J. (2010) “The Secret History: The Official Position of Imperator Caesar Divi Filius from 31 to 27 BCE”, Ancient Society 40, 79-152 Vervaet, F.J. (2014) The High Command in the Roman Republic. The Principle of the summum imperium auspiciumque from 509 to 19 BCE, Stuttgart Welch, K. (2012) Magnus Pius. Sextus Pompeius and the Transformation of the Roman Republic, Swansea