THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP BY D. COHEN For important reasons, rmuch interest has always been taken in ‘Roman dictatorship by those occupying themselves with the history of the Roman constitution. [hne, Schwegler ), Lange, Herzog concerned themselves with it; Mommsen grappled with the problem in his Rém. Staatsrecht, partly also in his Rim. Geschichte and his Rom, Chronologie, and in the last few years quite an amount of literature has been produced in which new courses have been struck out for approaching the problem *). These authors, as, in fact, others had done before them, refer, for purposes of comparison, to other parts of Italy outside Rome, principally Latium, but also Etruria and the Oscan-Sabellic district. The functions of officials in these regions and in Rome are compared, and the possibility of a ‘conformity between the Latin dictator (or dicator) and the Roman is considered. I do not intend, in the present article, to go into these matters, because in my investigation I want to proceed from the Roman dictator himself. This abstention does not imply any lack of respect, on my part, for the attempt made by others, but it seems to me that their investigations have not carried us any further to our aim. The magistrates who occur elsewhere exactly lack the remarkable feature of the Roman dictator which lies in the fact that this dictator gets appointed for discharging a special and. specified function and resigns office when his task has been com- pleted, whereas elsewhere the dictator or allied official is an ordinary magistrate who is appointed for every year at a time and imme- diately gives way to his successor after his resignation. This differ- 3) Rim, Gesch. 11 (1850), 92-05. Schwegler regards dictatorship as the vMittelotate zwischen Kénigtom tad Consulat” on account of the occur- fence of & praior masimus, and the dictatorship in Latium. Beloed, in bis Rom. Gesch., 231 H, has adopted Schwegier’s idea, 2) For a’ summary see. Meyer, Romischer Staat und Siztegedanke (Zurien 1048), 427° £: A. Staveley, The Constitution of the Roman Republic, 1940-1954, Historia s (1956). 74 2‘THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP 30r ‘ence, in my opinion, precludes any comparison, because the most striking characteristic of the Roman dictator is lacking with the officials elsewhere, There are those, however, who believe that an ordinary office can change into an extraordinary one *), but in that case it must be presupposed that first the ordinary official has been transferred from elsewhere to Rome as an ordinary official (hence, the dictator for instance) and that next, in the course of time, he hhas made room for others (the consuls, for instance) and then has become an extraordinarius himself ‘The latter opinion is indeed held by many authors. This theory, therefore, completely upsets the picture of the evolution of the Roman constitution we have formed from the classic writers. For if one is to believe those scholars, the Roman consulate was not instituted in 509, after the expulsion of the kings, but in the middle of the 5th century, or in 367 in consequence of the leges Liciniae Sextiae, which, in their opinion, had a, quite different intention from what tradition tells us. According to these scholars, it is impossible that such an unphilosophical people as the Romans should have been capable, after Tarquinius’ overthrow, of devising such a “Paradepferd einer ausgekltigelten Staatsmannsweisheit” as the twin consulate with its collegiality and restriction to one ar. 7 Thus, Berardi‘) looks upon the Rome of 509 B.C. a 9 “societa primitiva incapace ancora di reflessione critica”. He arrives at this idea because a similar rapid adaptation does not occur in other primitive communities. Staveley’), however, rightly observes: »The scholar, who is prepared to use anthropological arguments in order to discredit an entire written tradition is in danger of sacrificing history upon the altar of a preconceived philosophy of determinism. For the student of early Rome it is a metter of pecu- liar concern to discover the secret of her greatness. If he proceeds by first dismissing all that Roman writers themselves have to impart and by then reconstructing her history without their aid, 1) See Eenst Meyer, op. cil, 38, who does not believe this himself, but mentions various authors who argue in favour of it, p. 427% 2) Athen. 1952, 37. 3) Op. ait, t00.302 ‘THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP and upon the fixed assumption that the Roman mind and tem- erament differed in no respect from that of other nations, whose achievements have long been forgotten, the chances of success are small indeed.” Meyer), too, rightly remarks that the invention of the twin consuls was not ,,raffiniert” at all; I would add that it resulted from the obstacles that had been encountered with the royal rale, Others believe that the consulate in its later form is the result of a slow process but that the annuity certainly dates back to 509 B.C. 4), Others again arrive at the solution king— dictator or king—practor maximus ot practor — tribuni militum consulari potestate— consuls, because they do not trust tradition, maine taining that in the Fasti, which use tradition as source, many ‘names have been added with a view to increasing the honour of the patrician families; Livy himself) points out that vifiaiam me- ‘moriam funebribus laudibus falsisgue imaginum tittdis dum jamiliae ad se quaeque famam rerum gestarum honorimgue fallente mendacic trahunt, This consideration has induced many scholars to discard a large part of tradition. To confine ourselves to dictatorships, on intelligible—not always sensible—grounds many of them are called into question #). These scholars forget, however, that, as appears from his own words, Livy, too, pursued a critical course, and, moreover, that, though on the one hand falsifications occur in such an aristocratic community as the Roman in favour of members of the family, on the other hand a tradition is well preserved. In addition, they forget that the ancient writers had sources at their disposal which have got lost to us. An attempt at replacing this tradition by history which, even though based on some data, is largely founded on self-devised constructions—such as that of shifting the beginning of the consulate by half a century or more upwards—takes no account of the importance of this tradition. A remarkable instance of this is to be found in the interesting book written by Krister Hanell), who places as chief official at the 2) Op. ait 2) Staveley, op. cit, 92 ft SL. VIL 40, 4 4) A result is found in the thesis by Fritz Bandel, Die wémnischen Dikta- suren (Breslau 1910), 8) Das alirémische eponyms Amt (Lund 1948); he also feequently makes ‘mention of the above-mentioned theories, propounded by others. 1396.‘THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP 303, beginning of the history of the Republic a praetor maximus who has not existed at all, for which fact I hope to give ample proof 2). But even if it is intended thus to build up the Roman constitution, a conservative attitude towards tradition must, in each case, be taken in respect of traditionary customs and religious con- ceptions, since it is quite impossible that such Romans as Livy or Cicero or Varro or other writers on this subject should have put down something contrary to tradition or Roman character. An investigation into this matter—as we will venture to make— must, therefore, in any case start from data to be found with them. If we proceed on this basis we shall be able to explain some of the facts they mention in a novel and even better way than they were able to do, because we are acquainted with sociological or psycho- logical or religious phenomena which were unknown to them but which enable us to trace the deeper causes of the events they tall. In order to achieve our aim we will make use of the results of the study of the history of religions. First of all, however, we should ‘emphasize the fact that in the study of the constitution of the Roman Republic the dictatorship forms one of the most difficult, problems, Our conception of this constitution as a whole is that everything had been done to prevent one man from gaining control of the state-power, and that the magistrates elected by the people ‘were restricted in their power by collegiality, by obedience to the provocatio, and by their responsability to senate and people. All this is broken through by the systern of dictatorship. This dic- tatorship even lacks the principle that, according to Ernst Meyer 4), constitutes the essence of the Roman magistrateship: their being chosen by the people, since this magistrate is, though dependent on the will of the senate, appointed by one of the consuls. Mommsen, therefore, for whom the dictator did not fit in with his system of the constitution, made him the collega maior of the consuls, but, in doing so, has not met with the approval of any other writer. 3) Staveley, of. cit, 95, rightly says: ,,While many of theve elaborate land radical reconstructions (of the oldest history of Rome) do no small credit to the imaginative powers of their authors, not one of them can for a moment be regarded as the fruit of what is commonly meant by historical sosearch”. 2) Op. eit, 100,304 ‘THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP The dictator remains a peculiar and solitary figure). This is particularly true of the dictator who is appointed rei gerundae causa. But this dictator was certainly the first and the chief among dictators. The first, because every dictator had a magister eguitum beside him, who, however, had originally been attached to the dictator rei gerundae causa, called magister populi originally 2), since this would not have been done if there had been a dictator comitiis habendis or ludis faciendis before. And that he was always considered to be the chief among the dictators, is sufficiently proved by the fact that the families sometimes aimed at making a Gictator comitiorum habendoruns causa or ludis faciendis into one rei gerundac causa), Morcover, the other types of dictatorship did not make their appearance until later: the first comitiorum haben- dorum causa in 352 B.C., the first rei gerundac in 30. Nevertheless, all these types have certain features in common, and, in so far as this will be necessary, they may be considered collectively. All have, as we saw, a magister equitwm beside them, though this is not of the least importance except in the case of the dictator rei gerundae casa, In the second place, the motive for choosing a dictator and the nature of his office were for each dictator the same; the dictator 724 gerundac causa Was appointed, as well as those comiliis habendis and the others, when the ordinary magistrates were unable to perform their official duties, and all of them resign when their task has been accomplished. ‘The conception that the different types of dictatorship may be considered collectively applies in any case to an old type which ‘was established just because ordinary magistrates were not equal x) For this very reason, namely that the anrestricted power of one ‘person does not fit in with the system of the Roman constitution, T do not, gree with Staveley and many others who hold that the dictatorship shoald Ihave been instituted in times of iraminent danger Guring the frst few years of the Republic. 2) Cicero, de legibus TIL 3, 9: de republiza I 40, 63; Velius Longus p. 2234, Gramon, Lat, VIL 74: conzul oviene magicorum popudé dict: ana elzowhere, Koremana understands by populus the ,,Heeresbann’"; but from the fact ‘hat the dictator was not allowed to mount a horee and had a magistr ‘aguitum beside him, the word appears to mean "infantzy”. 3) eg. Liv. VIII 49,‘THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP 305 to the task required of them. In 363 B.C. a plague was raging fiercely at Rome, and Livy relates that for allaying the pestilence games were instituted more Tusco. These were of no avail, however, and were even disturbed by the grounds being flooded by the Tiber, and the gods, therefore, seemed haec placamina irae aspernari, Consequently, another piaculum was searched for, and) repetitum ex seniorum memoria dicitur pestilentiam quondam clavo ab dictatore Fixo sedatam. Ea religions adductus senatus dictalorem clavi figends causa dict tussit. Dictus L. Manlius Imperiosus L. Pinarium ma- gistrum equitum dixit, Lex vetusta est priscis litteris verbisque soripla, ‘ut qui pracior maximus sit, idibus septembribus claowm pangat ... Eum clavum quia rarae per ea tempora litteras erant, notam numeri annorum fuisse ferunt ...... Horatius consul ea lege templum Tovis optimi maximi dedicavit anno post reges exacios; a consulibus postea ad dictatores, quia maius imperium erat, sollemne clavi figendi translatwm est. Intermisso deinde more digna etiam per se visa res propier quam dictator crearetur. Qua de causa creatus L. Manlius, perinde ac rei gerendae ac non solvendac religions gratia orcatus esset, bellum Hernicum adfectans dilectu acerbo inventutem agitavit; tan- demaue omnibus in eum tribunis plebis coortis dictatura abiit. This remarkable story shows that Livy confuses two sorts of events here: driving in a nail on account of the plague, and the same act performed to indicate the years ®). The latter was done by a consul, and intermisso deinde more has reference to the fact that Livy found no dictator clavi figendi causa in the Fasti, except only in some fatal years when the appointment of such a dictator was due to a plague or some other calamity. Mommsen disbelieves the latter fact. Yet tradition makes them appear occasionally, and, besides, it is here that our knowledge of religious customs among other peoples comes to our aid. Frazer®) showed the way to an explanation of this remarkable custom, and others followed him. 1) Livy VII 3, 3 2) Not the centaies, as Mommsen thinks in his Rim. Chronologie. T am rot going into this question, and only refer to Matzat, Rim. Chyonoiogie I, 251, who believes in cycles of 50 years (which, however, is not correct) and to Holzapfel, Rim. Chronatogie, 13 {f, who assumes the nails to have been driven in annually, as well as LES.v., and others, 3) The Golden Bough, VI, 59. Moemosyne, X 2306 ‘THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP In the case of a disease or other calamity some peoples drove and still drive, a nail or a piece of wood into a tree or a stake in order to keep the evil power under restraint and thus to prevent it from escaping and doing harm. In ancient Rome, the city of the fopulus religiosissimus, there were traces of this ancient custom, for Pliny *) tells us that a nail was driven into the place where the head of an epileptic had struck the earth and where, I presume, ‘blood from his head had been shed. And a second argument is the belief, in Antoninus Pius’ time, that the pestilence had been capable of infusing the whole world in consequence of the soldiers having perforated the wall in the cella of a temple at Seleucia, where the disease had been confined. Livy's words now become understandable in spite of his confusing two facts. For itis clear that L. Manlius had been chosen to confine, through his ceremony, the disaster of the moment, whereas in the other case the clavus annus was driven in for confining the disasters of the past year and preventing them from doing any harm during the next. To Livy the latter ceremony seemed to be the more important one, but, since the object aimed at in both cases is the same, we may assume that the origin of his narrative goes back to very ancient times®). However, why was the claus to be driven in by a dictator? I believe that the words gui practor maximus sit, though used by Livy as referring to the magistrate who drives in the clavus annuus, also provide the clue to our problem, since both from Livy’s words and from the importance of the ceremony itself it is evident that the magistrate who possessed an imperium mazimum was charged with performing this ceremony. Now, H. Wagenvoort #) has made it clear that the ability to transmit energy and, consequently, this energy itself was regarded as the exclusive attribute of the king 3) NH. XXVUL 17, 63. 2) As to the dictator clavifigendi causa, and the place where he is ment- foned by Livy, I refer to Momiglian, Bollettine della Commissione Archaco- Jogica, $8 (1930). 38 f '3) Roman Dynamiim (Oxford 1047), 49. I do not intend to go into the criticism passed on Wagenvoort’s book—the results arived atin # seem to ‘me to have been confirmed by my own investigations—becaste, in my ‘Opinion, the mana of the dictator must be talcen as established even without the theory ia question,THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP 307 having imperium”, and we must with him explain imperium as the ‘mana (jie., according to the belief of primitive peoples, an inner power, which raised its possessor above other men) of the leader of the primitive community. In fact, such an imperium vehemently raised great powers in the holder of it, enabling him not only to foster the prosperity of the community but even to frighten and beat its enemies. Ernst Meyer) defines imperium as a “‘magische Kraft sein Volk au beherrschen und das Heer cum Siege au filhren”, ‘a power which passed over from the king to the consuls and the praetor. Qui practor maximus est, therefore, possesses these powers toa high degree, But who is he? Various authors ®) have recognized in him a magistrate, pracior maximus, who may already have existed in the period of the kings. If this were the case, however, he would have been called practor mazimus, and not gui practor ‘maximus sit, which Mommsen rightly translates by “der jewellige bochste Beamte”. Hanell rejects this explanation, because, ac- cording to him, it does not fit in the archaic terminology. But what evidence can he adduce in support of his statement? None whatever, since practor, in the archaic terminology, is pracd-tor, meaning leader; cf. Pseudo-Asconius 8): Veteres omnem magistratum cui pareve exercitus practorem appeliaverunt®). Qui pracior maximus 2) Op. cit, 109, in which be agrees with Wagenvoort, 2) Latready mentioned Krister Hanell, Das alivcmische eponyme Amt; as a proof that there were already practors during the rule of the Lings, be instances the Cippus legend (Val. Max. V, 6, ; Ovid. Metare. XV 592 t bbut docs this legend beloag to the period ‘of the kings?); of. de Sanctis, Storia dei Roma I, 405. Hanoll also cites Festus p. 161 M, 154 1, who speaks (Of practores maiores and minores—but his citation is of no avail in explaining ‘the term prector maximus. I refer to the further literature given by him and by G. Wesenberg, Pracior mazimus, in Zeitschr. Rom, Rechtagesch. 65 (2o47), 319-326. Staveley discusses the subject on pp. 94 ff, of his article already mentioned, where he quotes various scholars who believe ina yearly office of a bearer of this title, possibly at the head of a college of three Practors. This, however, is not confirmed by any classic author, and the expression gui practor maxinsus est is not in agreement with this theory. Staveley himself believes in the praetor marinus, but in one being a later ‘magistrate. 3) a8 Cie, 2 Vary, 14, 36. CL E, Meyer, op. cit, 35, Mommsen, Staats. 275 A, 4) Staveley op. cit, 97, though he wants the twin-consulate at the be- signing of the Republic to be retained, yet believes that there was a mac it Seeat Bea ease308, THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP sit is, therefore, “the highest magistrate” *), and it may either refer to the consul or, as in our case, to the dictator. Why the dictator? His imperium, ic. his mane, is summum, maximums, his edicham jrro numine semper observatum. est); is imperium is mains, melivs, vehemens; in him dwells the maiestas Aictatoria®) his office is an altius fastigium'). The lex de dictatore, a very old one, provided that only consulares should be created Aictatores; this was not always done, however, and on this and other grounds Mommsen throws doubts upon the whole lex, but in most cases an ex-consul was appointed to the dictatorship. Why? Because he had proved that he possessed mana combined with jelicitas 8). Wagenvoort ®) refers to Livy’), who relates that in a critical time (211 B.C.) placuit omnes qui dictatores, consules censoresue fuissent, cum imperio esse donee recessisset a muro hostis. Through this measure, it was felt, the inner power of the whole civitas was augmented. As regards the dictator, his inner strength is considered to be so great that, as we are told, his appearance alone sometimes suffices to frighten enemies or other magistrates; immediately after the appointment of a Roman dictator the in- habitants of Caere asked for peace 8); the rebel Sp. Maelius is full of fear and tries to hide when the magister cquitum brings him the gistrate pracior maximus. He himself, however, traces Livy's words Lex Setusa est etc. back to Cincius, who, he thinks, must have purposely under- Stood the words gui praior masina rif to tenn gut marims import et to make them refer to either the consul or the dictator. But if Cincias could thus translate these words, we certaily aged not be in doubt as to thelr Latinitas and their meaning; sex also Momigliano, loc. cit. 13) Its probably on that account that Festas says, p. 223 M 249 L, sw ‘practoria fora: quia initio practores evant ici mune consnies et Hi bella ade ‘minisvabont, Hanell believes that at first there was only one eponymous magistrate, bot how can we know? 2) Livy VII 32, 3; 34, 2: XXII 10, x0. 3) On the word meajestas, see Wagenvoort. op. cit, 122. 49) Livy VI 36, 13. Cl. Livy lc. ch. 3: tepid pairs ad duo ultima await, semmiam inperiom sumoiamgue sem decuoranl '3) Ck Cicr imp. Cn. Pomp. 28: op0 enim sie existimo in summo imperatore quatiuy has ves tnesse oporene,scieatiam rei miliaris, vitutem, axctorialem, Fliitaem 9) Op. et. 33 2) XXVI 10.5, 8) Livy Vit 20, 353 BO. (of. Livy XI 28, 4 (Cincinnatus): tants sine smagistrats terror erat)THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP 309 message: vocat te dictator); during the struggle between the factiones neither the tribwnt plebis nor the plebs dared to lift up their eyes towards the dictator nor to open their mouths); and the magister equitum Minucius, when opposing the dictatorship of Q. Fabius Maximus, boasts that he dares to do this in a community where the magistri equitum used to tremble and to shiver when seeing the virgae ac secures of the dictator *). This fear can, of course, be explained by pointing out the great power of the dictator in matters of life and death; and T. Livy may be charged with predi- lection for this aristocratic magistrate and with being induced by this to exaggeration and even falsification, But awe inspired by such a high office is not uncommon, and it is well known that in Etruria and elsewhere priests tried to cause 2 panic by their g ments and their gestures, and that even August was able to inspire people with fear by his appearance. We can now come back to the dictator clavi figendi causa of 363 B.C. For it has become clear that, if in olden times imperium ‘meant something like mana, and the highest imperium indicated the most powerful mana‘), he was appointed gui practor maximus erat, who had to fight the plague. This was the dictator, whose very office was destined for such special occasions; the act of driving in the claous annuus was left to be performed by the consul, the highest magistrate for a function recurring annually. ‘This act of driving in a nail against a plague is indeed repeated a few times. In 331 B.C., when a pestilence as well as a poisoning ‘of men by their wives threatened the state, memoria ex annalsbus repetita in secessionibus quondam plebis clavwm ab dictatore fizum alienatasgue discordia martes hominum. eo piaculo compotes sui fuisse dictatorem clavi figendé causa crear: placuét. Creatus Cn. Quinctilius magistrum equitum L. Valerium disit qué fixo clavo magistratu se abdicaverunt ®), And again in 312 B.C., in which year, according to 4) Livy IV 14 (439 BC) 2) Livy VI, 16, 3 (385 BC). 3) Livy 20811 27, 5 2) CE. Wageavoort, op. cit, 195. 5) Livy VIII 15, 128 Doubts have been wrongly entertained as 10 the ‘appointment ofa dictator on account ofa evoessia: dtscordia was regarded 23 a ‘rodigiuom as well as pestllenia, He is also mentioned by Livy persockal, XT310 ‘THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP some authors, C. Poetelius was not appointed rei gerundae causa, but pestilentia orta clavi figendi causa). And according to the Fasti Capitolini, a dictator clavi figendi causa was appointed again in 263%. There are some other important facts which have not been associated with those already mentioned, or have not been noticed as being associated with them. The first is that, according to Livy, in 344, when lapidibus pluit, libris inspectis cum plena religione civitas esset, senalui placuit dictatorem feriarum constituendarum 2), Here again, therefore, lustratio after a prodigium, and on that account the magistrate having the highest imperium (mana) had to be appointed, Another important fact referred to is that Dio Cassius tells us *) that when in 22 B.C. another pestilence had broken out, the people wanted Augustus to be made dictator. The latter refused, but the fact remains. Are we to believe that a dictator clavi /igendi causa is meant here? In that case the memoria of what happened in 363 B.C. and later on would have continued and our argument have been successfully concluded, But even without this solution the examples mentioned make it clear that, for the propitiation of such a disaster as the plague, a person could be sought who through his imperium maximum or suommwon was considered to be most suitable for performing the task imposed on him, and of whom it might be expected that his personal qualities and the imperium would enable him to accom- plish this task better than others. This imperium he carried about with him in all his acts); along with his personal qualities it is “'the inner power which raised the possessor above other men”, hence his mana. The very fact that he was thought to be the 2) Livy IX, 28, 6, 2} Mommsen, Rom. Chronslogie 1, 178, and, among others, also Bandel profes to think of = nail being driven in in every century, because a nail had ‘also been driven in in 363. Tae latter nail, however, was not one as was dsiven in annually, and, besides, afew more were driven in in intermediate wy) Livy VI 28, 7. 8. Thee are the feriae novemdieles (Wiseowa, Ret Kultas, 393) 4) LW 3 a, 5) Ct the expression esse cum imperio (Wagenvoort, op. ct, 194%)‘THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP ou ppossessor of this power was the reason why he was chosen gui prae- tor mascimus oraé, in this case the dictator. However, if for this clavum figere, consequently a sacral act, a person, who possessed the highest qualities and the highest ém- Perium was chosen, because it was believed that owing to these the greatest force would be added to the acts performed by him), will not this also have been the case with other, more important, acts? ‘An instance of this is indeed found with a votum *): Fabius Ma- ximus vovit quia ita ex jatalibus libris editum erat ut is voveres cuius maximum imperium esset. We may therefore assume that this was originally the case with the dictator rei gerundae as well. We al- ready saw that the dictaturae show the same character and since ‘the dictatwra rei gerundac causa is certainly the older, somebody must originally have been sought for this as well as for the dictatwra clavi figendi causa, who, both through his personal qualities and through his imperium maximum, was able to add the greatest force to his acts, greater than could be produced by any other magistrate, hhence one who in truth practor maximus est, for the imperium added to his personal qualities as well®); this also accounts for the terror directly inspired by his appearance or even by the fact of his appointment. In the tradition left to us this very superiority is the reason for his appointment, and not, as is generally thought, the fact that, in times of public danger, the rule of two magistrates who could come into conflict with each other might cause trouble), Of 42 dictatwrae rei gerundae causa which we know of by tradition, only six were constituted owing to discord between the consuls, and of these actually three in the period of the tribuni militum consularé poiestate. Indeed, the appointment of a dictator was decided upon quando ducltum gravius, discordiae civium escunt. The strongest personality 1) One mana is more powerful and, therefore, more effective than another; of, Wageavoort, 2b. cit, 185. '4) Livy XXIt to, 10. 3) Ck Livy VIL 40, 8 de si out genus, st cui sua virtus, sic etiam maiestas, si cui homores subdevespirition potuerunt, i ram nabs... ; in Which some. thing of this old idea has been preserved 14) Cleeto, de lepibus 3, 3.9 Ast quando duelum gravius, discordiae cium scant, ocrs ne omplins sex menses, si senatus creer, tiem tris quod duo Consules tonto, does not rofer eo this contick. “com nee an 3.13.0 age SNL312 ‘THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP ‘was then chosen. During the period of the Republic and according to the information supplied to us by the writers of that time, this expression was understood as we do it now. But in more ancient times it must have meant something like “the magistrate who ‘possessed the greatest mana”, We saw this in connection with such an old sacral act as the claowm figere, where, according to Livy, the appointment of a dictator dates back to the memoria pairum; and as, from the example of the dictator clavi figendi causa, we have concluded that among the Roman people the thought of such @ mana existed in olden times, we may assume that, if it is true of the clasum figere, this must certainly have been the case with a much more important act like the rem gerere. If this is the case, we must, for tracing the origin of dictatorship, ‘even thoughit should then bear a different name, carry our thoughts further back than the beginning of the Republic and therefore assume that during the rule of the kings, or even already at an earlier date, there existed among the tribes who constituted the population of Rome the belief that there were men who, in times of public danger, could rescue the community owing to personal ‘qualities, which raised them above others, and that this belief, inherited in the beginning of the Republic from earlier times, was ‘embodied in the constitution as dictatorship, the rule by one man appointed for a fixed time for a special task. ‘The antiquity of such a position, which became an office after- wards, has been accepted by many authors, and also appears from various ceremonies and taboos with which still later on the office wes enveloped, when its origin and the reason for its institution were no longer known. The fact that we do know their significance is due to our better insight into problems that are connected with the history of religions and which we can apply to facts handed down to us by tradition. Hanell) writes: “Der Diktator ersetzt den Kénig. Er tritt in 2) OP. cit. 191 ff. Ch, Bernardi, Athen. 1952, 25 {f, Staveley does not beliove that there were dictators as early as the rogal period. I do not wish ‘tp go into the question of Servius Tullius (Mastarna] as a magisler popu ‘According to some scholars, a consul was originally appointed. by the rex (de Francis, Studia et Documenta Historiae ot Turis, 1944, 160}.THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP 313 solchen Lagen auf, wo eigentlich der Kinig in eigener Person als Fiihrer seines Volkes hatte ins Feld ziehen miiscen, wo sozusagen das sakrale Moment in der Kriegftdhrung stark hervortrat und das Imperium des Prators den Unheilsmachten gegentiber nicht kraftig genug war. Konnte in einer solchen Lage der Konig nicht persinlich seinen Befehl austtben, 2.B, wenn er alt war, dann entstand eine Situation wo das Imperium regis in voller Kraft auf cinen Stellvertreter Ubertragen werden musste. Dass ein solcher stellvertretender Kénig, der magister populi oder dictator, mit allen Insignien der kéniglichen Macht hervortrat, war eine logische und ‘aus religidsen Griinden wohl schlechthin notwendige Konsequenz.”” There is much to be said in favour of the view that the offices of dictator or magister fopuli already existed in the period of the ings. !) It is even possible that the latter title dates from that time, or it may have had a different name which has got lost. However ‘this may be, the office held in the period of the Republic may be ‘thus explained much more easily, since it is improbable that it should have been devised in the first century of the existence of the Republic; the fear of the return of the regal power in one person was too great for such an office to be instituted. The situation becomes quite different, however, ifit is assumed that the office was taken over from the period of the kings, as was the case with those of the pontifices, the virgines Vestales, the flamines, or if, as was done in the case of the rex sacrorum, special functions held by the kkings were taken over. This had even to be done if, as Hanell does, Wwe associate sacral functions with the office of the dictator; for in that case this office, taken from the king or from the period of the kings, had to be retained to prevent the religio from being inter- fered with. Now, his imperium, as we saw, involved the holding of this sacral function. It was vested in the King as the imperium Summum or maximum, as the supreme potential power. This ceased to be the case. But it was required in time of great public danger or disasters. Consequently, it was retained by a magistrate who held this sacral function already as the king's deputy in the regal period. ‘Hanell has not foreseen this consequence of his own proposition 2) This view is shared by such writers as Taubler, Kornemann, Meyer34 ‘THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP But we have to take it by reason of what has been set forth above, since the whole matter now, in my opinion, becomes much clearer. The dictatorship is not in contravention of the arrangement of the Roman constitution; it has its own peculiar place in it, for the dictator is no magistrate in the usual sense of the word; he is not chosen by the people and retires as soon as his particular task has been accomplished. And the sacral element contained in his oifice is corroborated by various customs with which this office is at- tended. On that account the office could not be abolished and was, therefore, included among the offices of the community, in which, however, it always occupied a position of its own, which even led to such inconsistencies as the magister cquitum associated with a dictator comitiortsm habendorwm causa. But even this inconsistency justifies my proposition: the exceptional position of the office was vaguely realized, and religion prohibited anything to be altered init. Hence the exceptional customs with which it was attended and which also prove that the dignity must date back to very ancient times, much further back than the origin of the Republic. One of the most important of these customs concerned the prohibition to mount a horse }). This the dictator had in common with the flamen Dialis, the virgines Vestales, the rex sacrorum), which again shows that the prohibition was of a religious nature and of ancient date. What may be the sense ot this remarkable prohibition? In ans- wering this question Wiesner has, in Ernst Meyer's opinion, shown the right way for giving an explanation §). He has proved, princi- 1) Piut. Fab. Mox. 4; Livy XXII 14, 2; Zonaras VII 14. We sometimes find a dictator viding on horseback, but he bad asked the people or the senate ‘for permission to do s0. Staveley believes that the prohibition was for the purpose of reducing his unrestricted power; but why, if that should be tre, ‘was it made applicable to the flamen Dials as well 2) Wissowa, Rel. und Kultus dey Rémay, 505. Without any good reason Leifer disbelicves this. It is mentioned by Pliny N.H. XXVIII 146; Festus 71 L, 2.9, equss; Plat. Quasst. Rom. 40, p.274 C; Gellivs NA. % 15, 33 Serv. Aon. VIII's 3) Willems, Le sfnat IL, 335; A. Nissen, Bety,, 66-69. With regard to the injunction forbidding the dictator to mount a horse, Lange, Hom. Allert T, 61 (1856) already supposed that it had a sacral character, 14) Wiesner, Falren sid Reiten in Ai-Ewropa vnd im alien Orient (Der alte Ortent, 1939) and Reiter wd Riter im dltsten Rom (Klio 36, 1943, 748).‘THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP 315, pally by basing his statement on arguments derived from archaeo- logical sources, that the horse was introduced in Europe at a relatively late date and as a riding horse in Rome still later. This theory makes it clear that the prohibition of riding on horseback hhas the same basis as, for instance, the fact that the flamen Dialis was forbidden to touch iron, which material came into use only late in the Villanovan epoch. Both horse and iron were, owing to their novelty, considered to be taboo; such a taboo, as Frazer has shown, put an end to or, at any rate, diminished the power of ‘the mana, and even all the more if this mana was very strong, as, ‘we saw, in the case of the dictator. This argument, therefore, once ‘more’brings us back to our supposition that the dictator, or rather ‘the man who in very ancient times was appointed a leader in periods ‘of public danger end who was the prototypeof thefuturedictator, was originally believed to possess such a great deal of mana. This belief ‘was no longer entertained in later times, but the custom as well as the taboo to which it was subjected, was, as said before, adopted in the constitution. Whether the custom permitting the dictator to apply to the senate or the assembly of the people for an exemption from the prohibition’) dates back to ancient times, I donot venture to decide. Another custom which shows the sacral element of the office as well as its remote antiquity, is the dictator's appointment by the consul. This appointment was so peculiar, so very different from the method of choosing other magistrates that its tradition has been handed down by various writers. I cite three quotations: 1. Oriri apud antiguos surgere frequenter significabal, ut apparet in eo quod icitur, consul oriens magistrum populi dicit®}; 2. Cum consul oriens de nocte silentio diceret dictatorem); 3, Nocte deinde silentio, ‘uti mos est, L. Papirium dictatorem dizit *). Why nocte? Why silentio? A comparison may rightly be made with the fact that every ma gistrate may rise at night in order to observe the auspicia 5), but 2) Plat. Fad. Max, 4; Livy XXUT 24, 2 42} Velius Loagus, p.'2254. 3) Livy VITT 23, 35, 4) Livy 1X 38, 44. 13) Cl Festus, 52. sileniio: silensio noctc surgere ait (Verrius Flaceus) 10h qua post mediam noctem auspicandi causa ex lectulo sua silentio surresit tin solid se posuit. Sedeigue ne quid eo tempore dejiciat.3x6 ‘THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP then the difference is forgotten that in the case of the dictator there is no talk of auspicia in the night, but of a dictio. Moreover, the words oriens and magistrum populi indicate that exactly in the case of the dictator a very old formula was employed. The meaning becomes clear from quotations of Festus in regard to auspicia: silentio surgere cum dicitur, significat non interpellari quominus rem gerat 3, and elsewhere hoc enim est proprie silentium ommis vitii in auspiciis vacwitas 4). Also in the case of the dictator these words must indicate that no signal whatever is heard in the silence of the night, no sound that could detract from the appropriateness of the appointment. Such a signal, of course, would be sent by the gods: it does not indicate who has to be chosen, it is only negative to give warning, to prevent a bad choice, Therefore, if no sound is, heard, the gods are believed to give their assent, and their goodwill is on the side of the newly chosen dictator. It may be objected that through the consultation of the auspicia the choice of any magi- strate, including the dictator (for he, too, asks for auspicia, and if ‘they are not favourable he resigns °)) was submitted to the judgment of the gods, But the peculiar method of the dictator being chosen ‘must originate from very remote times and was enveloped in a still ‘more sacred atmosphere than was the case with the choice of other magistrates This is also proved by another custom the peculiarity of whih, T wonder, Mommsen did not perceive, With few exceptions all magistrates were chosen én comitifs, and one of the principal exceptions is the dictator. After a decree of the senate he was appointed by one man, who was one of the consuls, We must now investigate, of course, whether such a method was known in the case of other officials. What do we find? The comitia did not choose the sacerdotes, the jlamen Dialis, the virgines Vestales, priests, therefore, whose intimate connection with divine matters nobody will deny. I think also this argument justifies the con- 2) Restes, s sinistrom. 2) Festus, 0. slentio. Ct Chero de divin. 11 34, 72 3),Q- Fabine Maximus Verrucesus, for instance, retired from the dicta- torship because the whistle of a shrew-reoase had broken the silence: Val Max. 8, 1 5; ef, Pliny NH. VIL 57, 223: soricum oscentu dirsmi auspicis fenalis reeves habemus; cf. Marquardt, Rom. Siatval, 1, 388. ens onan nets STOR Termeané andtaneTHE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSHIP 37 ‘clusion that the dictatorship originally had some divine character, that this was the reason for the appointment of a dictator in times of public danger, and that the survival of the dictatorship from ‘olden times led to his high authority in historical times. The consul may have appointed him as a successor to the king }). As to the last argument for my theory, the late professor of history of religions at the Leytien University Brede Kristensen has, in his essay on the Roman fasces ®), given an explanation of these, which, in my opinion, is undoubtedly correct. He demonstrates that originally the fasces were bundles of stalks of plants and, as such, the attributes of the divine king, who took care of the welfare of the people, and, moreover, that the axe projecting from this bundle was the symbol of lightning accompanied by rain, which fertilizes the earth. Now we know that the dictator was preceded in public by 24 lictores carrying the fasces, twice as many as those who preceded the king and cither of the consuls, strengthening his, ‘mana, his inner power, to such an extent that it surpassed that power in other magistrates §) 1) Others are of opinion that the dictio instead of the oeatio by the people was done on account of the dispatch to be necessarily made, while Bernardi ‘Athen, 1952, 5, connects it with the magical cermonies at the dictator's assumption of power. Staveley, in my opinion, turns the question upside down when be writes (op. ct, 107): "One would probably be justified in stressing the possible impact upon the poorer classes of the peculiar mys- teries which attended the dievator’s assumption of power, Ie not too much to bolieve that the very nature of his appointment, which took place at ead of night and without popular approval, suggested some form of sweet Givine sanction, and so armed him with @ personal auctoritas which often enabled him to compel obedience from even the most militant of plebelans.” Staveley forgets, however, that this remarkable ceremony must certainly be very old, that the obedience of the people—which, in fact, was not always pald—is due to the ancient use of the ceremony, and that it is exactly the Cause of this ancient custom that has t9 be found out. As rogards dictio and creatio, see Bernardi, Athen. 1952, 5 if, who says that itis the dicfo by the Consul which proves that from the first the dictator was 8 magisiratus extra: ordinarius, 12) Verzamelde bijéragen tot de Rennis der antiche godsdiensten (Amster- dam, 1947). 149 £6 3) Livy per. 89 (cf, Lydus I 37): Sulla dictator factus quod nemo wnguan fecerat, ctwm fascibus KXITIY processit, seems to contradict this argument. However, the fact is confirmed by many writers: Polyb. IIT 87, 7: Dion X 242 Piut. Fab. Maz. 4; Appianus &.C. 1 200; Dio Cass. LIV r, 3, Mommsen emo ri38 THE ORIGIN OF ROMAN DICTATORSMIP By way of summary I wish to conclude by stating that the arguments I have put forward—the election of a dictator as a man sifted with the greatest influence for enabling him to put an end toa pestilence, the fear with which he inspires friends and enemies through his power, his imperium maius, the method of his appoint- ment by one of the consuls, the prohibition to mount a horse, his having 24 fasces—may lead us to the conclusion that the dictator- ship was originally founded on religious conceptions. Only such an assumption renders it possible for us to understand that the Romans could, for a short time, accept the absolute leadership of one man. They did not remember the origin of his office but, as always, followed the tradition of their ancestors, acknowledged the high auctoritas of the office and, in accordance with tradition, gave it a place in their constitution. ‘thinks the dictator had 12 fasces in towm and 24 extra urbem, while Vogel ‘Zaitstar, Sav, St 1950, 84 {6 Deioves that he had 24 fasces in later times only. If this is true, Stavstey's objection to the theory according to which ‘the dictator should, in the regal period, have had 24 fasces and the king only 12, would beremoved. But then, I must confess, my last argument is lacking strenget. AnsTERpam, Comelis Schuytstraat 52. IGNAVVM PECVS casta sacerdotes Tunoai festa parabant et celebres Indos indigenamque bouem. Ovid, Amores IL 33, 3-4. ‘Waszink’s defence (Mnemosyne Ser. 4, 6 (2953). 165), of et in v. 4 seems ‘to me wholly justified and I agree with kim in seeing no reason for departing from the reading of the manuscripts. The purpose of this somewhat belated footnote to his review is to point out that the per colebres which Ovid's editors have 40 religiously conserved was not the conjectare of Navgerius bat a misprint: he intended pevcelebves, which was in fact printed both ia the corrigenda to the second Aldine and in the text of the third. But error oes not die 30 easily. Would all those who have acquiesced in per elebres have changed their tone if they had realized that it emanated not from Naugerius but from typotheta nescioguis? One likes to think that they would not and that it was welcomed on its merits; but connoisseurs of editorial ‘habits will have their doubts Cananpar, Peterhouse, B. J. Kesey re bjoa SVOA Yom Coadane