Dictator rei publicar constituendae causal relationship

Dictator perpetuo - Wikipedia

To be sure, the connection be- tween foundation and dictatorship could be learned appeals explicitly to Scipio to become dictator rei publicae constituendae, . in the last analysis, subject to causation" and that if Between Past and. A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, 2 vols.,. 2nd edn .. later as Dictator, add up to a coherent vision for Rome? .. He is not mentioned in connection with the Mithridatic War, not as rei gerundae causa, but, like Sulla's, as rei publicae constituendae Casual remarks by Caesar in. A dictator was a magistrate of the Roman Republic, entrusted with the full authority of the state The three most common were rei gerundae causa, "for the matter to be done", used in the . Shortly before his assassination in BC 44, Caesar was named dictator perpetuo rei publicae constituendae, and given the power to.

It is quite possible that in 80, Sulla and Metellus agreed to exchange their provinces, after which Sulla eventually refused to depart for his province on the grounds that he was still needed in Rome. However, since Sulla was legally entitled to promulgate laws, he was perfectly capable of making binding interventions in the assignment of the provinces if he saw fit. The fact that the Valerian Law had equipped Sulla with the right to issue laws and with a whole series of other special powers does not at all imply that the dictator did not trouble to carry through his measures and reforms in consultation with the Senate and the People.

There is indeed ample and cogent evidence that, irrespective of his tremendous powers, the dictator involved the Senate in his decisions, and that he put the bulk of his legislative work to the popular assemblies, the comitia centuriata and the comitia tributa Valerius Flaccus] tulit legem: Si quid ergo ad populum tulisset Sulla, ualebat lege Cornelia ; si quid uoluisset et non tulisset ad populum, hoc ualebat lege Valeria. This means that if Sulla decided to put a proposal to the popular assembly, it was valid by virtue of a Cornelian Law.

If he wanted something without submitting it to the People, it was lawful by virtue of the Valerian Law. Evidently, the dictator was also free to decide which decisions he would make in consultation with the Senate and which not His course of action as dictator can be easily explained by his apparent wish to respect the customary prerogatives of the foremost institutions of the Roman Republic, Senatus Populusque, as much as possible By his choice to have none other than the moderate princeps senatus as his magister equitum, Sulla not only enhanced the dignitas and auctoritas of his office49, but made it clear from the very outset that he wished to discharge his exceptional duties in harmonious and respectful cooperation with the Senate Besides, Sulla obviously wanted to make sure that his political program was officially built on the consensus uniuersorum Therefore, he wanted his leges Corneliae to be genuine comitial leges rogatae rather than laws issued by virtue of a discretionary and objectionable prerogative.

Dictator sine prouocatione In addition to his extraordinary and — to the prevailing political standards — totally unacceptable powers, the lex Valeria equipped Sulla with yet another remarkable prerogative. In order to interpret the extant source material concerning this exceptional provision correctly, a short digression on the matter of the number of fasces belonging to the dictator is imperative. Dionysius relates in Ant. Quinctius Cincinnatus, dictator inwas assigned twenty-four secures and fasces.

Fabius Maximus Verrucosus was accompanied by twenty-four lictors complete with fasces, in the latter case evidently in the Urbs Next they took twenty-four bundles of fasces and vainly begged Augustus himself to consent to being named dictator Vogel is the principal advocate of the hypothesis that originally only twelve fasces were granted to the dictator.

At first sight, matters seem to become even more complicated by what is written in Per. Staveley asserts that dictators carried twenty-four fasces probably from the outset, and argues that the words with which Lydus prefaces his statement are such as to suggest strongly that he has blindly attributed to the dictator the number of fasces that was traditionally assigned to the king, thus committing the same error as Appian in reverse As a matter of fact, this passage need not necessarily lead to confusion about the precise number of fasces due to the dictator Nor ought it be interpreted as proof of the fact that the Valerian Law would have simply raised the number of dictatorial fasces from twelve to twenty-four.

In consequence of this provision of the lex Valeria, Sulla was probably the first dictator in centuries whose lictors were not bound to remove their axes when the dictator was active in the sphere domi This officially symbolized the fact that Sulla was acting as dictator sine prouocatione at any time and everywhere.

This interpretation is corroborated by a few other indications in the sources. Appian in particular provides us with some very valuable information in BC 1. Appian states that although Sulla in 82 allowed the People to appoint consuls for 81, he was dictator over them like a reigning sovereign. Appian goes on to explain that twenty-four axes were borne in front of him as dictator, the same number that were borne before the ancient kings, and that Sulla was also accompanied by a large body-guard It is illuminating to compare this representation of the facts with Dionysius 2.

It is sufficiently well known that, to the Romans, the unrestricted and unconditional power of life and death was one of the most characteristic and offensive features of regnum.

Arendt, Hannah - Between Past and Future

The evidence from Appian is to be compared also with what Dionysius says in 5. Larcius Flavus, in Dionysius tells that shortly after Larcius had assumed the dictatorship and appointed Spurius Cassius as his magister equitum, he ordered his lictors to carry the axes with the fasces through the Urbs, by which act he revived once more a custom that had been observed by the kings but was abandoned by the consuls after Valerius Publicola in his first consulship had lessened the hatred felt for that magistracy Dionysius explains that Larcius deliberately staged this threatening display of these symbols of royal power in order to terrify the turbulent and the seditious Finally, there is the illuminating example of the decemuiri legibus scribundis.

Plutarch and the consul Aemilius Lepidus in Sallust too supra attest that Sulla was given unrestricted power of life and death. That the dictator did not even refrain from killing some of the most prominent politicians by virtue of this extraordinary prerogative is shown by the ruthless execution of Lucretius Ofella Commander-in-chief of the entire Roman empire To my thinking, there is every indication that the Valerian Law explicitly charged Sulla with the supreme command of the whole of the Roman dominion, both in Italy and in the prouinciae Populi Romani.

This means that regardless of their status or station, all other Roman imperatores fell under his summum imperium auspiciumque. In the first place, there is the above-mentioned statement of the consul M. Secondly, Appian records in BC 1.

Thirdly, there is some unequivocal evidence of the dictator issuing direct orders to the imperatores in the field.

This deduction is confirmed by what is known about the decision-making concerning the tenure of L. Licinius Murena in Asia during the same period.

Roman dictator

The Senate consequently commissioned one Calidius to order Murena not to molest the king anymore. In this respect, it is also significant that it was Sulla who finally gave Pompeius permission to celebrate a full triumphus publicus in March The attested protest of one prominent Servilius, however, shows that the dictator must have taken this decision also in consultation with the Senate84, the body that traditionally decided in these matters.

Although in the Senate commissioned a dictator c. Servilius Caepio from Sicily to Italy by virtue of his imperium maius because he had crossed over to Sicily with the intent to cross over to Africa itself86Sulla was indeed the first Roman imperator who was explicitly authorized to exercise his imperium over the entire Roman empire, in Italy as well as in the provinces.

As the sources clearly show, the lex Valeria stipulated that Sulla need not lay down his dictatorship before issuing the necessary legislation and re-establishing the Roman Republic on a firm basis.

Since Sulla was, as a consequence of his exceptional official mandate, the only authority entitled to take a decision in this matter87, and since his public measures had the force of law, this provision implied that Sulla could retain his dictatorship as long as he was convinced of its necessity. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that Appian in BC 1. Appian also relates that Sulla laid down supreme power voluntarily, and even ventured to declare that he would render an account of his official acts to any who were dissatisfied with it After his abdication, Sulla was able to pursue his life unmolested as a private citizen.

That Sulla probably explained his abdication by referring to the intention of the lex Valeria90, is shown by Aur.

Thus, although Sulla was evidently not bound to abdicate after a period of six months, like the dictators of old, the arrangement concerning his term of office was not a complete breach of traditional practice. In a fundamental and authoritative study ofU. Coli convincingly demonstrated that regardless of the maximum term of six months, dictators were expected to abdicate, and generally did so, as soon as the specific task for which they were appointed was fulfilled Badian, many scholars argue that Sulla laid his dictatorship down on the last day ofwhile others opt for the last day of In my view, however, the sources unambiguously attest that the dictator abdicated only in Once only when he was going home, Sulla was allegedly reviled by a boy, who even dared to follow him to his house as nobody restrained him.

Secondly, this provocative and theatrical performance by itself only made sense if Sulla did not intend to hold any magistracy cum imperio in the near future, but not if he were consul designate at the time It seems most likely, therefore, that Sulla laid his dictatorship down at the very outset of More important, perhaps, was that the act of foundation, namely the colonization of the American continent, had preceded the Declara- tion of Independence, so that the framing of the Constitution, falling back on existing charters and agreements, confirmed and legalized an already existing body politic rather than made it anew.

However that may be, revolutions, which we commonly regard as radical breaks with tradition, appear in our context as events in which the actions of men are still inspired by and derive their great- est strength from the origins of this tradition. They seem to be the only salvation which this Roman-Western tradition has provided for emergencies. The fact that not only the various revolutions of the twentieth century but all revolutions since the French have gone wrong, ending in either restoration or tyranny, seems to indicate that even these last means of salvation provided by tradition have become inadequate.

Authority as we once knew it, which grew out of the Roman experience of foundation and was understood in the light of Greek political philosophy, has nowhere been re-established, either through revolutions or through the even less promising means of restoration, and least of all through the conservative moods and trends which occasionally sweep public opinion.

For to live in a political realm with neither authority nor the concomitant awareness that the source of authority transcends power and those who are in power, means to be confronted anew, without the religious trust in a sacred beginning and without the protection of traditional and therefore self-evident standards of behavior, by the elementary problems of human living-together. Mrio raise the question, what is freedom?

He would be nominated by the dictator immediately upon his own appointment, and unless the senatus consultum specified the name of the person to be appointed, the dictator was free to choose whomever he wished.

Before the time of Caesar, the only dictator who refused to nominate a magister equitum was Marcus Fabius Buteo in BC, and he strenuously objected to his own nomination, because there was already a dictator in the field. His imperium was equivalent to that of a praetor in the later use of the termin that he was accompanied by six lictors, half the number accorded to the consuls. But like the dictator, he could summon the Senate, and probably also the popular assemblies.

His authority was not subject to recall, although if the dictator were compelled to resign due to a fault in the auspices, the magister equitum was also expected to resign, and when the dictator laid down his imperium, so would the magister equitum. The dictator and magister equitum did not always take the field together; in some instances the magister equitum was assigned the defense of the city while the dictator took an army into the field, while on other occasions the dictator remained at Rome to see to some important duty, and entrusted the magister equitum with an army in the field.

Roman dictator - Wikipedia

After the lex Licinia Sextia gave plebeians the right to hold one of the annual consulships, a series of dictators were appointed in order to hold elections, with the apparent goal of electing two patrician consuls, in violation of the Licinian law.

No dictator was nominated during the Third Samnite Warand the six-month limitation on its powers made the dictatorship impractical for campaigns beyond the Italian peninsula.

Then, in 82 BC, the dictatorship was suddenly revived by Sulla. Sulla, already a successful general, had previously marched on Rome and taken the city from his political opponents six years earlier; but after he permitted the election of magistrates for 87, and departed to campaign in the east, his enemies returned.

In 83 he turned his attention to regaining Rome, and after defeating his opponents decisively the next year, the Senate and the people named him dictator legibus faciendis et rei publicae constituendae, giving Sulla the power to rewrite the Roman constitution, without any time limit.

He then placed severe limits on the tribunician powerlimiting the veto and forbidding ex-tribunes from holding higher magistracies. Although he resigned the dictatorship in 81, and held the consulship in 80, before returning to private life, Sulla's actions had weakened the Roman state and set a precedent for the concentration of power without effective limitation.