Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:12:48.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PRIESTLY AUCTORITAS IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2013

Federico Santangelo
Federico Santangelo*
Affiliation:
Newcastle University
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Some of the best recent work on Roman priesthoods under the Republic has engaged with the issue of priestly authority and its role in defining the place of priesthoods vis-à-vis other centres of power, influence and knowledge. The aim of this paper is to make a contribution to this line of enquiry by focussing on the concept of priestly auctoritas, which has seldom received close attention. The working hypothesis is that the study of priestly auctoritas may contribute to a broader understanding of the place of priesthood in Republican Rome, and especially in the Late Republican period, from which most of the evidence derives. The link between religious authority and religious expertise requires special attention.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , December 2013 , pp. 743 - 763
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Abridged versions of this paper were presented at the Classical Association Conference in Durham and at a meeting of the Oxford Philological Society in April and May 2011 respectively. I am grateful to the audiences on both occasions for their reactions; to Valentina Arena, Dominique Briquel, John N. Dillon, Leofranc Holford-Strevens and Catherine Steel for discussion and advice on various points; to Jerzy Linderski, Fiona Noble, James Richardson, an anonymous referee and Bruce Gibson for their comments on earlier drafts.

References

1 Scheid, J., ‘Le Prêtre et le magistrat. Réflexions sur les sacerdoces et le droit public à la fin de la République’, in Nicolet, C. (ed.), Des ordres à Rome (Paris, 1984), 243–80Google Scholar; Beard, M., ‘Acca Larentia gains a son: myths and priesthood at Rome’, in MacKenzie, M.M. and Roueché, C. (edd.), Images of Authority. Papers Presented to Joyce Reynolds on the Occasion of her Seventieth Birthday (Cambridge, 1989), 41–61Google Scholar; Beard, M., ‘Priesthood in the Roman Republic’, in Beard, M. and North, J. (edd.), Pagan Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient World (London, 1990), 19–48Google Scholar; Beard, M., North, J. and Price, S., Religions of Rome (Cambridge, 1998), 18–30Google Scholar; Rüpke, J., Fasti Sacerdotum. Die Mitglieder der Priesterschaften und das sakrale Funktionspersonal römischer, griechischer, orientalischer und jüdisch-christlicher Kulte in der Stadt Rom von 300 v. Chr. bis 499 n. Chr. (Stuttgart, 2005), 1405–18Google Scholar.

2 TLL 2.1229. See Teichmüller, F., ‘Grundbegriff und Gebrauch von auctor und auctoritas. II. Teil. Auctoritas’, Programm des Königlichen Gymnasiums zu Wittstock 90 (1898), 18, 31, 33Google Scholar and Fürst, F., Die Bedeutung der auctoritas im privaten und öffentlichen Leben der römischen Republik (Diss. Marburg, 1934), 33–7Google Scholar. Cf. also the cursory remarks in Valeton, I.M.J., ‘De modis auspicandi Romanorum II’, Mnemosyne ns 18 (1890), 406–56Google Scholar, at 414–15; id., ‘De inaugurationibus Romanis caerimoniarum et sacerdotum’, Mnemosyne ns 19 (1891), 405–60, at 413, 432Google Scholar; Heinze, R., ‘Auctoritas’, Hermes 60 (1925), 348–66Google Scholar, at 359–60 (= Vom Geist des Römertums [Darmstadt, 19724], 43–58, at 52–3); Catalano, P., Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale I (Turin, 1960)Google Scholar, 2 (‘carattere nomofilattico dell’auctoritas augurum'), 68, 189, 278–9; Magdelain, A., Jus Imperium Auctoritas. Études de droit romain (Rome, 1990), 685–6Google Scholar; Nippel, W., ‘The Roman notion of auctoritas’, in Pasquino, P. and Harris, P. (edd.), The Concept of Authority. A Multidisciplinary Approach: From Epistemology to the Social Sciences (Rome, 2007), 13–34Google Scholar, at 26.

3 See Fürst (n. 2), 33 on the ‘religiös-wissenschaftliche’ nature of priestly auctoritas. Magdelain (n. 2), 685 warns that attempts to reduce auctoritas to a unitary concept are misguided.

4 Beard (n. 1 [1990]), esp. 34–48. A different view in Thomas, D.F.C., ‘Priests and politicians: reflections on Livy and Cicero's De domo sua’, in Welch, K. and Hillard, T. (edd.), Roman Crossings. Theory and Practice in the Roman Republic, (Swansea, 2005), 119–40Google Scholar, where a case is made for the centrality of the pontiffs in Republican religion. Involvement of magistrates in religious affairs: Scheid, J., ‘Les activités religieuses des magistrats romains’, in Haensch, R. and Heinrichs, J. (edd.), Herrschen und Verwalten. Der Alltag der römischen Administration in der Hohen Kaiserzeit (Cologne, 2007), 126–44Google Scholar; Polo, F. Pina, The Consul at Rome: The Civil Functions of the Consuls in the Roman Republic (Cambridge, 2011), 21–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 On this point cf. Watt, E.D., Authority (London, 1982), 15–16Google Scholar; Friedman, R.D., ‘On the concept of authority in political philosophy’, in Raz, J. (ed.), Authority (Oxford, 1990), 56–91Google Scholar, at 74–7. General discussions of auctoritas: Teichmüller (n. 2); Heinze (n. 2); Fürst (n. 2); Wagenvoort, H. and Tellenbach, G., ‘Auctoritas’, in Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart, 1950–), 1.902–9Google Scholar; Hellegouarc'h, J., Le Vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République (Paris, 1963), 295–320Google Scholar; Hiltbrunner, O., ‘Auctoritas’, in id., Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wortforschung (Bern and Stuttgart, 1981–92), 3.30–68Google Scholar; Lincoln, B., Authority. Construction and Corrosion (Chicago and London, 1994), 2–4Google Scholar; Belardi, W., ‘«Auctor» e «Auctoritas». Sopravvivenze del significato e del significante nel tempo’, Storia, Antropologia e Scienze del Linguaggio 10 (1995), 127–90Google Scholar, at 130–9; Lowrie, M., ‘Inside out: a defense of form’, TAPhA 135 (2005), 35–48Google Scholar, at 42–6; Bettini, M., ‘Auf unsichtbaren Grundlagen. Eine linguistische Beschreibung der auctoritas’, in Melville, G. (ed.), Das Sichtbare und das Unsichtbare der Macht: institutionelle Prozesse in Antike, Mittelalter und Neuzeit (Cologne, 2005), 237–58Google Scholar; Nippel (n. 2); Gotter, U., ‘Cultural differences and cross-cultural contact. Greek and Roman concepts of power’, HSPh 104 (2008), 179–230Google Scholar, at 200–3; Caserta, C., Corpo politico. Corpo, Dike, comunicazione fra Agamennone e Pericle (Bologna, 2009), 143–5Google Scholar.

6 Filoramo, G., ‘Foundations of power and conflicts of authority in late-antique monasticism: an introduction’, in Camplani, A. and Filoramo, G. (edd.), Foundations of Power and Conflicts of Authority in Late-Antique Monasticism (Leuven, 2007), 1–10Google Scholar, at 5. Cass. Dio 55.3.5 notes that the Latin word auctoritas cannot be effectively translated with a single Greek term; on this passage see Balsdon, J.P.V.D., ‘Auctoritas, dignitas, otium’, CQ 10 (1960), 43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 43.

7 Teichmüller, F., ‘Grundbegriff und Gebrauch von auctor und auctoritas. I. Teil. Auctor’, Programm des Königlichen Gymnasiums zu Wittstock 89 (1897), 3–28Google Scholar, at 9–15; Benveniste, E., Le Vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Volume 2. Pouvoir, droit, religion (Paris, 1969), 148–51Google Scholar; the insightful critiques of Benveniste's discussion in Belardi (n. 5), 143–7 and Bettini (n. 5), 249–50 do not apply to this point.

8 Auctor coemptionis: Cic. Flac. 84; auctor dotis: Cic. Caecin. 73, Flac. 86; auctor nuptiarum: Cic. Clu. 14, Sest. 6; eius quod mulier promisit: Cic. Caecin. 72. Bibliography in Lincoln (n. 5), 167. Auctoritas is also a technical term of haruspicy (Sen. QNat. 2.39.1): the fulmen auctoritatis is the lightning which indicates whether the consequences of a past action will be good or bad (see Hine, H.M., An Edition with Commentary of Seneca Natural Questions, Book 2 [New York, 1981], 379–80Google Scholar).

9 See Heinze (n. 2), 349–50; Ernout, A. and Meillet, A., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots (Paris, 2001 4), 57Google Scholar. The link between augere and auctor was clearly understood in antiquity: Maltby, R., A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies (Leeds, 1991), 64Google Scholar; cf. Bettini (n. 5), 253–8.

10 Consuls: Cic. Rab. Post. 22; Mur. 82, 86; Livy 2.56.4; Apul. Flor. 9. Praetor: Cic. Verr. 1.106; Gai. Inst. 3.224. Censors: Cic. Clu. 95, 124; Livy 42.3.3. See Fürst (n. 2), 13–18; Hellegouarc'h (n. 5), 309–10.

11 Lincoln (n. 5), 3–4 defines them as ‘epistemic’ and ‘executive’ authority and draws attention to their overlap.

12 See Mommsen, T., ‘Der Patriciersenat der Republik’, in Römische Förschungen (Berlin, 1864–79), 1.218–49Google Scholar, at 233–49; id., Römisches Staatsrecht (Leipzig, 1887–83)Google Scholar, 3.2, 951–3, 1037–43; Fürst (n. 2), 37–67; Mannino, V., Auctoritas patrum (Milan, 1979)Google Scholar; Graeber, A., Auctoritas patrum. Formen und Wege der Senatsherrschaft zwischen Politik und Tradition (Berlin, Heidelberg and New York, 2001)Google Scholar. Magdelain (n. 2), 385–403 shows that auctoritas patrum and auctoritas senatus are not entirely overlapping concepts. The claim that the auctoritas patrum, the auctoritas of the augurs and the magistrates' ius auspicii are the same thing (Giovannini, A., ‘Auctoritas patrum’, MH 42 [1985], 28–36Google Scholar, at 35) is not supported by the evidence; cf. Graeber (this note), 13 n. 6.

13 Cic. Dom. 2: sin autem uestra auctoritate sapientiaque, pontifices, ea quae furore improborum in re publica ab aliis oppressa, ab aliis deserta, ab aliis prodita gesta sunt rescinduntur, erit causa cur consilium maiorum in amplissimis uiris ad sacerdotia deligendis iure ac merito laudare possimus (‘But if, on the other hand, your authority and wisdom is applied to the cancelling of what the madness of villains has achieved, now in the crushing of constitutional government, now in its desertion, and now in its betrayal, then we shall have good reason to give well-deserved approbation to the prudence of our ancestors in electing to the priestly offices the men of highest distinction’, tr. N.H. Watts, modified). Cf. another reference to auctoritas and sapientia at 45. See Beard (n. 1 [1990]), 36–7 on this passage and on the link between knowledge and auctoritas in the speech.

14 Gildenhard, I., Creative Eloquence: The Construction of Reality in Cicero's Speeches (Oxford, 2010), 306–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the distinction between the prerogatives of the Senate those of the pontifical college and the different roles of the senators who were members of the pontifical college see Cic. Att. 4.2.4, with North, J.A., Roman Religion (Oxford, 2000), 27Google Scholar.

15 Cic. Dom. 1. See also Luc. 1.595: pontifices, sacri quibus est permissa potestas.

16 On Bibulus' role see Dom. 39–40; Cicero's sensitive handling of the validity of Caesar's consular acta is noteworthy.

17 See Stroh, W., ‘De domo sua: legal problem and structure’, in Powell, J. and Paterson, J. (edd.), Cicero the Advocate (Oxford, 2004), 313–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 316–23 for a masterful overview of the legal background of the speech. Stroh, at 322, finds the transformation of the pontifical college into a court rather strange, but a significant precedent may be found in the actions that the college took against the Vestal Virgins who were accused of incest: see Koch, C., ‘Vesta’, RE 16 (Stuttgart, 1958), 1717–76Google Scholar, at 1747–8 (esp. 1748: ‘[d]er Vestalinnenprozeß muß als Strafverfahren erklärt werden’).

18 Cic. Dom. 4.

19 Cf. Nisbet, R., M. Tulli Ciceronis de domo sua ad pontifices oratio (Oxford, 1939)Google Scholar, 134: ‘your votes and your weighty support’.

20 Cic. Dom. 100.

21 Cic. Dom. 117: opus erat enim auctoritate, quae est in his omnibus, sed tamen auget et aetas et honos dignitatem; opus erat etiam scientia, quam si omnes consecuti sunt, tamen certe peritiores uetustas facit (‘You needed such auctoritas as can be found in all these men, though at the same time individual dignity is enhanced by age and distinction; you needed, too, knowledge, and though this has been attained by all, it is nevertheless undoubted that length of years lends added skill’, tr. N.H. Watts, modified).

22 The auctoritas of the individual members of the college is referred to in ch. 132 and is specifically associated with aetas and honos. See Rüpke, J., ‘Different colleges – never mind?!’, in Richardson, J.H. and Santangelo, F. (edd.), Priests and State in the Roman World (Stuttgart, 2011), 25–38Google Scholar, at 25–6.

23 Scheid (n. 1), 261–2: in his view the emphasis of Cicero on Pinarius' lack of credentials and non-senatorial status is evidence of a ‘mentalité nouvelle’ which opposes youth and inexperience to age and experience (262).

24 See esp. Cic. Dom. 137: senatus in loco augusto consecratam iam aram tollendam ex auctoritate pontificum censuit neque ullum est passus ex ea dedicatione litterarum exstare monumentum (‘the Senate, prompted by the auctoritas of the pontiffs, decreed that an altar which had already been consecrated at a revered spot must be removed and did not permit a single letter upon what had been dedicated to stand as a witness’, tr. N.H. Watts, modified).

25 Cicero is referring to the comitia calata, i.e. the curiate or centuriate assemblies that were presided over by the pontifex maximus and which dealt with religious matters; Valeton (n. 2 [1891]), 421–37 provides the fullest discussion of this institution.

26 See Corbeill, A., ‘The function of a divinely inspired text in Cicero's De haruspicum responsis’, in Berry, D.H. and Erskine, A. (edd.), Form and Function in Roman Oratory (Cambridge, 2010), 139–54Google Scholar, at 150–1 and Gildenhard (n. 14), 333–4.

27 The same concept is expressed in very similar terms in Val. Max. 1.1.1.

28 I accept the reconstruction of Dyck, A.R., A Commentary on Cicero, Legibus, De (Ann Arbor, 2004), 5–7Google Scholar.

29 Cic. Leg. 2.31. See Fontanella, F., ‘Introduzione al De legibus di Cicerone. I’, Athenaeum 85 (1997) 487–530Google Scholar, at 526–30; Scheid, J., Religion et piété à Rome (Paris, 2001), 66–7Google Scholar. Cicero's emphasis in this passage should not be taken at face value: Fürst (n. 2), 34–5. On the association of ius and augury see Linderski, J., ‘The augural law’, in ANRW 2.16.3 (Berlin and New York, 1986), 2146–312Google Scholar, at 2241.

30 Scheid (n. 1), 267.

31 Rüpke (n. 1), 1328, no. 3290: he became augur in 53.

32 Livy records several cases of augurs who declared a magistrate unlawfully elected (uitio creatus): see e.g. 4.7.3, 8.15.6; 8.23.14; 23.31.13; cf. also Cic. Div. 2.74. In none of those cases, however, is priestly auctoritas mentioned.

33 Cic. Leg. 2.31: nihil domi, nihil militiae per magistratus gestum sine eorum auctoritate posse cuiquam probari (‘no act carried out by a magistrate, whether in peacetime or in wartime, may receive the approval of anyone without their endorsement’). There is a close integration between the account of the priesthoods in Leg. 2 and that of the magistracies of Leg. 3; they must be read and understood in conjunction with one another.

34 Harries, J., Cicero and the Jurists. From Citizens' Law to the Lawful State (London, 2006), 164–6Google Scholar.

35 Cic. Div. 1.33; cf. also 2.74–5. See Wardle, D., Cicero on Divination. De Divinatione. Book 1. Translated with Introduction and Historical Commentary (Oxford, 2006), 194–5Google Scholar.

36 Cic. Nat. D. 2.10–11. There is an excellent discussion of the confrontation between Gracchus and the haruspices in Orlin, E.M., Foreign Cults in Rome. Creating a Roman Empire (Oxford, 2010), 98–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Cic. Div. 1.36; Val. Max. 4.6.1; Pliny HN 7.122; De vir. ill. 57.4; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 1.2–3. 154 b.c. is a possible date for this episode: Santangelo, F., ‘The religious tradition of the Gracchi’, ARG 7 (2005), 198–214Google Scholar, at 202–3. A tradition of critical responses to haruspicy developed under the Republic: see Haury, A., ‘Une querelle de clocher: augures contre haruspices’, in Chevallier, R. (ed.), Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire offerts à André Piganiol 3 (Paris, 1966), 1623–33Google Scholar; Farney, G.D., Ethnic Identity and Aristocratic Competition in Republican Rome (Cambridge, 2007), 150–9Google Scholar.

38 Cic. Div. 2.70.

39 Cf. the use of the same meaning in an important passage of Livy (25.12.3), where the first of the carmina Marciana gains auctoritas after it becomes apparent that it deals with events that had already happened, and this auctoritas reverberates upon the second carmen when it is made public in 212 b.c.

40 Cf. Macrob. Sat. 3.13.10–12, where the priests taking part in a banquet offered by L. Cornelius Lentulus Niger after his inauguration as flamen Martialis, probably in 70 b.c., are listed according to their seniority: Rüpke, J., ‘Acta aut agenda: relations of script and performance’, in Barchiesi, A., Rüpke, J. and Stephens, S. (edd.), Rituals in Ink. A Conference on Religion and Literary Production in Ancient Rome (Stuttgart, 2004), 23–43Google Scholar, at 29.

41 On this problem see Dyck (n. 28), 376, 381, 386–7; Harries (n. 34), 150–1.

42 Cic. Leg. 2.47: quid enim ad pontificem de iure parietum aut aquarum aut luminum <ni>si eo quod cum religione coniunctum est? (‘What has a pontiff to do with regulations about party walls or the water supply or anything else except what is concerned by religion?’, tr. N. Rudd).

43 E.F. Bruck, Cicero vs. the Scaevolas. Re: Law of Inheritance Decay of Roman Religion (de legibus, II, 19–21), Reprinted from SEMINAR. An Annual Extraordinary Number of The Jurist. Vol. III, 1945 (Washington, 1945)Google Scholar provides a reliable discussion of the juridical dimension of the dispute and rightly notes (at 17) that looking for a substitute to the legitimate heirs for the performance of the sacra could be read as an attempt to secure the continuation of the sacra, rather than the other way round.

44 Cic. Leg. 2.52: nam sacra cum pecunia pontificum auctoritate, nulla lege coniuncta sunt. itaque si uos tantummodo pontifices essetis, pontificalis maneret auctoritas; sed quod idem iuris ciuilis estis peritissimi, hac scientia illam eludistis (‘Rites go with the deceased's property by the authority of the pontiffs, not by any law. So if you were only pontiffs, the pontiffs’ authority would be upheld; but being at the same time great experts in civil law, you use this knowledge to circumvent that authority', tr. N. Rudd). See Fontanella, F., ‘Ius pontificium, ius civile e ius naturae in De legibus II, 45–53’, Athenaeum 84 (1996), 254–60Google Scholar, at 257–60; Dyck (n. 28), 386–7; Mantovani, D., ‘Cicerone storico del diritto’, Ciceroniana ns 13 (2009), 297–367Google Scholar, at 332–3. The adjective pontificalis is used by Cicero only in the De legibus, and on three occasions; there is one reference to pontificalia atque auguralia insignia in Livy (10.7.9) and all the other occurrences are in imperial authors, usually in references to the libri pontificales.

45 Bruck (n. 43), 17–20.

46 Cic. Brut. 56: qui cum consul esset eodemque tempore sacrificium publicum cum laena faceret, quod erat flamen Carmentalis, plebei contra patres concitatione et seditione nuntiata, ut erat laena amictus ita uenit in contionem seditionemque cum auctoritate tum oratione sedauit. (‘While he was consul and wearing the priestly robe was engaged in a public sacrifice – he was the flamen of Carmentis – word was brought him of a plebeian riot and mutiny against the senators; just so as he was clad in his priestly robe he proceeded to (or rather convoked) the public gathering and by the weight of his authority and the persuasion of his oratory quelled the mutiny’). On Popillius see Rüpke (n. 1), 1229, no. 2807.

47 Habinek, T., The World of the Roman Song. From Ritualized Speech to Social Order (Baltimore and London, 2005)Google Scholar, 243 offers a brief, perceptive reading of this episode. Note the etymological link between laena and Laenas, the cognomen of the branch of the Popillii that descended from the consul of 359.

48 Linderski, J., ‘The pontiff and the tribune. The death of Tiberius Gracchus’, Athenaeum 90 (2002), 339–66Google Scholar, at 351–2 (= Roman Questions II [Stuttgart, 2007], 88–114, at 100–1).

49 Sources gathered in Greenidge, A.H.J. and Clay, A.M., Sources for Roman History 133–70 b.c. (Oxford, 1960 2), 8–9Google Scholar.

50 Sources and discussion in Mommsen, T., Römisches Staatsrecht (Leipzig, 1871), 1.339–40Google Scholar.

51 Nasica as an angry man: Rhet. Her. 4.68; Cic. Tusc. 4.51.

52 Val. Max. 3.2.17; Vell. Pat. 2.3.1 (priuatusque et togatus); Plut. Ti. Gracch. 19.4; App. B Civ. 1.16.68.

53 Linderski (n. 48), 355–66 = 104–14.

54 Clark, A.J., ‘Nasica and Fides’, CQ 57 (2007), 125–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Cic. Brut. 107.

56 Cicero repeatedly draws attention to this point: Cic. Cat. 1.13; Dom. 91; Planc. 88; Tusc. 4.51; Off. 1.76.

57 Note Cic. Dom. 101, where Cicero juxtaposes auctor and dux: ut apud posteros nostros non exstinctor coniurationis et sceleris, sed auctor et dux fuisse uidear (‘with the result that in the eyes of posterity I shall be thought to have been not the queller of conspiracy and crime, but its promoter and leader’, tr. N.H. Watts, modified). On the difference between auctor and dux see Hellegouarc'h (n. 5), 324–6, esp. 326: ‘L’auctor apporte à une entreprise l'appui de sa capacité, de son expérience; le dux la dirige, lui donne son impulsion'.

58 Badian, E., ‘The pig and the priest’, in Heftner, H. and Tomaschitz, K. (edd.), Ad Fontes! Festschrift für Gerhard Dobesch am 15 September 2004 (Vienna, 2004), 263–72Google Scholar, at 266–7.

59 Livy 31.9.

60 Briscoe, J., A Commentary on Livy, Books XXXI–XXXIII (Oxford, 1973), 80–1Google Scholar reads this episode as an instance of factional politics; see also Lundgreen, C., Regelkonflikte in der römischen Republik: Geltung und Gewichtung von Normen in politischen Entscheidungsprozessen (Stuttgart, 2011), 159, 167–8Google Scholar.

61 Livy 34.44.2–3: uer sacrum factum erat priore anno, M. Porcio et L. Valerio consulibus. id cum P. Licinius pontifex non esse recte factum collegio primum, deinde ex auctoritate collegii patribus renuntiasset, de integro faciendum arbitratu pontificum censuerunt, ludosque magnos qui una uoti essent tanta pecunia quanta adsoleret faciendos: uer sacrum uideri pecus quod natum esset inter kalendas Martias et pridie kalendas Maias P. Cornelio et T<i>. Sempronio consulibus (‘In the previous year a uer sacrum had been observed, and the pontifex maximus P. Licinius reported to the pontifical college that its observance had not been properly carried out. The college then authorized him to bring the matter to the attention of the Senate, and they decided that there should be an entirely fresh observance under the direction of the pontiffs. Great Games, which had been vowed at the same time, were also ordered to be celebrated, and the usual outlay incurred upon them; the ‘sacred spring’ was defined as including all the animals born between the Calends of March and the day preceding the Calends of March in the consulship of Publius Cornelius and Tiberius Sempronius'). See Lundgreen (n. 60), 169. The explicit reference to the auctoritas collegii is noteworthy.

62 Livy 26.23.8; Val. Max. 1.1.4. See Lundgreen (n. 60), 158 n. 445.

63 Livy 27.8.4. See Lundgreen (n. 60), 158.

64 Livy 27.8.7–10. See Richard, J.-C., ‘Sur quelques grands pontifes plébéiens’, Latomus 27 (1968), 786–801Google Scholar, at 788–9; Ando, C., The Matter of the Gods. Religion and the Roman Empire (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 2008)Google Scholar, 15 n. 38; Bianchi, E., Il rex sacrorum a Roma e nell'Italia antica (Milan, 2010), 138–40Google Scholar; Lundgreen (n. 60), 125–6, 159.

65 Livy 37.51.1–6. See Richard (n. 64), 789–801; Bianchi (n. 64), 141–2.

66 Livy, Per. 19; Val. Max. 1.1.2. See Lundgreen (n. 60), 173–4.

67 The same choice was made in the controversy between Metellus and Postumius Albinus in 242 b.c. and in that between the pontifex maximus P. Licinius Crassus Diues Mucianus and the flamen Martialis L. Valerius Flaccus in 131 (Cic. Phil. 11.18): see Bleicken, J., ‘Kollisionen zwischen Sacrum und Publicum. Eine Studie zum Verfall der altrömischen Religion’, Hermes 85 (1957), 446–80Google Scholar, at 454–5 (= Gesammelte Schriften [Stuttgart, 1998], 1.431–65Google Scholar, at 439–40), who stresses that both priests were consuls and reads the affair against the background of Tiberius Gracchus' death; the involvement of a Licinius is also noteworthy). See Richard (n. 64), 797, who argues that all these clashes within the pontifical college are attested when the pontifex maximus is a plebeian; Lundgreen (n. 60), 161, 171, 173–4.

68 Livy 37.51.4: abdicare se conantem patres auctoritate sua deterruerunt (‘the Senate by their auctoritas prevented him when he attempted to abdicate the magistracy’). See Bleicken (n. 67), 451–2 (= 436–7); Lundgreen (n. 60), 165.

69 See e.g. Beard (n. 1 [1990]), 47–8.

70 Val. Max. 1.1.8.

71 Gell. 5.13.6. It is striking and perhaps significant that Caesar is not referred to as (for example) dictator or imperator, but specifically as supreme pontiff. For a different view see Dahlmann, H., ‘Caesars Rede für die Bithynier’, Hermes 73 (1938), 341–6Google Scholar, at 346; Ward, A.M., ‘Caesar and the pirates II. The elusive M. Iunius Iuncus and the year 75/4’, AJAH 2 (1977), 26–36Google Scholar, at 31; Canfora, L., Giulio Cesare. Il dittatore democratico (Bari and Rome, 1999)Google Scholar, 12 n. 16. Osgood, J., ‘Caesar and Nicomedes’, CQ 58 (2008), 687–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 690–1 does not take a stance on the chronology of the speech.

72 De vir. ill. 6.7: equitum centurias [Tarquinius] numero duplicauit, nomina mutare non potuit Atti Nevii auguris auctoritate deterritus, qui fidem artis suae nouacula et cote firmauit (‘Tarquin doubled the number of the equestrian centuries, but could not change their names because he was deterred by the auctoritas of the augur Attus Nevius, who confirmed the reliability of his art with the razor and the whetstone’).

73 The tradition on Attus Navius is very rich: the fullest account is Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom . 3.70; see also Cic. Div. 1.31–2; Rep. 2.36 (where Attus Navius is mentioned as non auctor of Tarquinius' plans); Livy 1.36. A complete list of the relevant literary sources in Piccaluga, G., ‘Attus Navius’, SMSR 40 (1969), 151–208Google Scholar, at 131 n. 1; cf. also Briquel, D., ‘Considérations sur la légende d'Attus Navius’, Res Antiquae 2 (2005), 61–82Google Scholar.

74 Briquel, D., ‘Art augural et Etrusca disciplina, le débat sur l'origine de l'augurat romain’, in id. and Guittard, C. (edd.), La divination dans le monde étrusco-italique 3 (Tours, 1986), 68–100Google Scholar, at 78–82, 95–100 downplays the significance of the Etruscan element in Attus' divinatory expertise and stresses that this tradition is found only in Dionysius.

75 Cf. the story of Numerius Suffustus, who found the sortes of the oracle of Praeneste in a rock that he had cut open: Cic. Div. 2.85, with D. Sabbatucci, Divinazione e cosmologia (Milan, 1989), 198.

76 For a comparative (and contrastive) discussion of Attus and Romulus see Piccaluga (n. 73), 203–7.

77 Beard (n. 1 [1989]), 50–3.

78 Pace Piccaluga (n. 73), 192–4.

79 Beard, North and Price (n. 1), 24. On the statue see Coarelli, F., ‘Statua Atti Navii’, in Steinby, E.M. (ed.), Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae (Rome, 1993–1999), 4.365–6Google Scholar: the base was destroyed in the fire of the Curia in 52 b.c. and the statue was probably no longer on site in Livy's day. On its relationship to its topographical setting see also Briquel, D., ‘Monuments of the Regal Period and the beginnings of the Republic: the ambiguity of realia’, in García Morcillo, M., Richardson, J.H. and Santangelo, F. (edd.), Ruin or Renewal? Places and the Transformation of Memory in the City of Rome (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

80 Bremmer, J., ‘Three Roman aetiological myths’, in Graf, F. (ed.), Mythos in mythenloser Gesellschaft (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1993), 158–74Google Scholar, at 172–3. In general on religious developments in the late second century b.c. see Rawson, E., ‘Religion and politics in the late second century b.c. at Rome’, Phoenix 28 (1974), 193–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar (= Roman Culture and Society. Collected Papers [Oxford, 1991], 149–68Google Scholar).

81 Linderski, J., ‘Cicero and Roman divination’, PP 37 (1982), 12–38Google Scholar (= Roman Questions [Stuttgart, 1995], 458–84Google Scholar).

82 Some recent contributions to the debate on the election of priests in the late Republic, with good bibliographical overviews: Scheid (n. 1), 274–8; Delgado, J.A. Delgado, ‘Criterios y procedimientos para la elección de los sacerdotes en la Roma republicana’, Ilu 4 (1999), 57–81Google Scholar, at 74–81; Rüpke (n. 1), 1636–42; J.A. North, ‘Lex Domitia revisited’, in Richardson and Santangelo (n. 22), 39–61.

83 Cic. Leg. agr. 2.18–19.

84 Livy, Per. 89; Serv. Aen. 6.73; De vir. ill. 75.

85 Drummond, A., ‘The ban on gentiles holding the same priesthood and Sulla's augurate’, Historia 57 (2008), 367–407Google Scholar, at 401–5 has a sensible discussion of the political context of the lex Labiena. Cf. the rhetorical comparison between Domitius and Rullus in Cic. Leg. agr. 2.18–19.