CONSUL
CONSUL (
ὕπατος), 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.
5.80: cf.
Cic. de Leg. 3.3, 8;
de Orat. 2.39, 165), and Corssen
(
Ausspr. 2.71) 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, 4.272 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. A. R. 5.57;
D. C. 35.4), 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,
App. BC
1.78;
Vell. 2.24; 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,
App. BC
2.23,
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.
2.79-81.)
In the earliest times, the title of the chief magistrates was not only
consules, but also
praetores (Madvig,
Verf. 1.368);
characterising them as the commanders of the armies of the republic. Traces
of this title occur in ancient legal and priestly documents (
Liv. 7.3; 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. 1.14) It
appears also to have been the title used in the Twelve Tables (
Plin. Nat. 18.12). After the introduction
of the office of
praetor urbanus, the consuls.
were known as
praetores maximi (
στρατηγοὶ ὕπατοι), the praetors strictly as
praetores minores, though the last epithet
was commonly dropped,
[p. 1.533]and they were known to the
Greeks simply as
στρατηγοί. Sometimes the
consuls are designated by the title
judices,
especially as presiding over the centuriate assemblies. (Varro,
de L.
L. 6.88;
Liv. 3.55.) After B.C. 449
(
Zonar. 7.19), 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. 24.7, &c.; comp. 41.18.) 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. 3.35,
7.24,
24.9,
27.6.) The day of the election, which was made
known by an edict three nundines beforehand (
Liv.
3.35,
4.6,
42.28), 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. A. R. 5.1;
Liv. 7.3.) 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. A. R. 6.49.) 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. A. R. 9.13;
Liv. 3.6.) 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. A. R. 10.56;
Zonar. 7.18;
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. A. R. 11.63.) 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. 4.7;
Dionys. A. R. 11.62.) Henceforth the ides
of December remained for many years the dies solennis. (
Liv. 4.37.) 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. 5.9.) In
B.C. 391, the consuls entered upon their office on the kalends of Quintilis.
(
Liv. 5.32; comp. 31, 7.25, 8.20.) 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. 22.1,
23.30,
26.1,
26,
44.19), 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. 38.42,
42.28,
43.11.) 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. Att. 1.1. 6;
ad Fam. 8.4.) 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. Att. 2.2.
0,
4.16;
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.
6.42;
7.1.) The patricians, however,
notwithstanding the law, repeatedly contrived to keep the plebeians out
(
Liv. 7.17,
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. 7.42.) Attempts on the part of the patricians to exclude
the plebeians occur as late as the year
[p. 1.534]B.C. 297
(
Liv. 10.15;
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. 27.34;
39.42). 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. 35.10). In B.C. 215, the augurs indeed
successfully opposed the election of two plebeians (
Liv. 23.31); 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. A. R. 4.76), 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. Fam. 7.3. 0; Sueton.
Caes. 76, 80,
Nero, 15;
D. C. 43.46;
Macr.
2.3.)
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. 8.18,
39.17 ff., 41.9.) But, notwithstanding these
curtailings, the consulship still continued to be regarded as the
representative of regal power. (
Plb. 6.11;
Cic. de Leg. 3.3, 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. (
Plb. 6.12;
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. 25.17,
27.27;
V. Max.
1.1.9; comp.
Liv. 6.34,
39.12), and who preceded him in a line one behind
another. (
Liv. 24.44;
V.
Max. 2.2.4.) 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. A. R. 5.2,
19,
75;
10.59), 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. (
Plb. 6.12,
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. 1.535]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 (
Plb. 6.12,
13,
15;
Liv.
44.16). The quaestors also kept the keys of the treasury (even of
the
aerariums sanctius: cf. Mommsen,
Staatsr. 2.117), and their co-operation was therefore
necessary for any expenditure (
Plb. 23.14). 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. 2.90).
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. A. R. 10.17; Appian,
App. BC 2.11), 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. 2.18,
27,
3.34;
Dionys. A.
R. 5.9;
Cic. de Leg.
3.4) 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. A. R. 9.43); 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.
8.12,
9.8). 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. 2.31, 55;
Liv. 2.1,
3.33; comp.
Dionys. A.
R. 5.2,
10.24.) In later
times, the consul, even when he did not perform the functions of the office,
was also accompanied by twelve lictors (
Suet. Jul.
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. 37.47;
Cic. de Rep. 2.31, 55;
V. Max. 4.1.1;
Plut.
Publ. 12;
Dionys. A. R.
6.57.) Owing to the respect paid to the elder, he presided at the
meeting of the senate which was held immediately after the election. (
Liv. 9.8; Gellius,
2.15.)
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. 2.41,
52,
54,
61;
3.31;
22.40,
49;
27.2,
3;
27.34;
Cic. de Nat. Deor. 2.3, 8;
V. Max. 8.1.4.) 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. 4.26,
5.9,
42.21;
Epit. xlviii., lv.;
Cic. de Leg. 3.9, 20;
in Vat. 9, 21;
V. Max.
9.5.2;
D. C. 37.50,
38.6,
39.39.) Sometimes the people
themselves opposed the consuls in the exercise of their power. (
Liv. 2.55,
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. 24.10,
30.1,
32.8;
Cic. Fam.
1.9). 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. 3.2,
8.16,
37.1;
[p. 1.536]Cic. Att. 1.1. 9;
comp.
Liv. 35.20,
41.8.) 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. A. R. 6.24,
91; comp.
Liv.
3.4,
22,
7.38.)
Nay, we find that even when Rome had to contend with one formidable enemy,
the two consuls marched out together (
Liv. 2.44,
3.8,
66,
8.6, &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 (
Plb. 3.107,
110,
6.26;
Liv. 4.46,
22.27,
41,
28.9; comp. 3.70).
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. 41.8.) [
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. 21.17), or after it, and on the
proposal of the consuls (
Liv. 25.1,
26.28,
27.7,
&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;
Sal. 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. (
D. C. 40.46,
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. 10.37,
29.19,
31.48,
43.1.) In some few cases, a breach of this rule was pardoned after a
brilliant success. (
Liv. 27.43,
29.7.) 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.
37.47.) 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. 24.10,
35.6,
20,
39.32,
41.6), which of them was to dedicate a temple
(
Liv. 2.8,
27), or
nominate a dictator (
Liv. 4.26). 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.
41.18.)
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. A. R. 2.4,
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. 21.63;
Ov. ex
Pont. 4.4, 25,
Fast.
1.81), and received the
salutatio of his
friends and the senators. (
D. C. 58.5;
Ov. ex Pont. 4.4, 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.
4.4, 29 ff., 9, 17 ff.;
Liv. 21.63;
Cic. de Leg. Agr. 2.3. 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. 6.1,
9.8,
37.1;
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. 21.63,
22.1,
25.12,
42.10.) 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. 4.4, 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. 1.537]and at length for life. (Sueton.
Jul. 76, 80;
D. C. 42.20,
43.1,
46,
49; Appian,
de Bell. Civ. 2.106.)
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. (
D. C. 48.35,
43.46;
Lucan 5.399.) The emperors themselves
usually took the consulship at the beginning of the year, and laid it down
in a month or two. (
D. C. 53.32;
Tac. Hist. 1.77.) Nero received from the
senate
continui consulatus (
Tac. Ann. 13.41), 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
(
D. C. 43.46). 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;
D. C.
72.12.) 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, 3.31;
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. (
D. C. 58.20; Plin.
Paneg. 77;
Tac. Ann. 4.68.) 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. 1.10; Justin.
Nov. 70.80,
100.1), 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, 60.27) on
account of the public entertainments which a newly appointed consul had to
give to his friends and the people. (Fronto,
Ep. 2.1; Lydus,
de Magistr. 2.8; Liban.
Orat. 8; Symmach. 2.64, 4.8, 10.44; Sidon. Apollin.
Epist. 2.3; Cassiod. 2.2, 6.1; Procop.
de Bell.
Pers. 1.25.) Julius Caesar (
Suet. Jul.
76) and Augustus (
D. C. 46.41) 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. 4.19,
13.4;
Gel. 13.24) [
SENATUS], and partly in ordinary cases, such as
manumissions or the appointment of guardians (
Dig.
1,
10,
1; Ammian.
Marcell. 22.7; Cassiod. 6.1; Sueton.
Claud. 23); 3. The
letting of the public revenues, a duty which had formerly been performed by
the censors (
Ov. ex Pont. 4.5,
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. 11.193, &c.; Cassiod.
l.c., and 3.39, 5.42, 6.10.) 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, 2.70-124;
and Becker,
Handbuch der Röm. Alterth. vol. ii. part
ii. pp. 87-126, and part iii. pp. 235 if.
[
L.S] [
A.S.W]
