The auspices were a central feature of Roman republican political life and thereby formed an essential prerequisite for every public action. Advised by the augurs, the magistrates had to ask the permission of the gods (first Iuppiter Optimus Maximus) for every official act to be taken in accordance with their office. The importance of the auspices furthermore stresses the close connection of political actions and religious life as a key feature of Roman society; therefore, since the nineteenth century, this has been frequently discussed on its own as well in studies on the Roman constitution or political institutions and in studies on Roman religion and religious practices.[1]
The right to hold the auspices was an exclusive privilege of magistrates with imperium (usually Consuls, Praetors, Censors, or Dictators). The privilege, according to Roman tradition, was transferred from the last king to the first Consuls, and thereby was transferred continuously from one magistrate to his successor. When there were no patrician magistrates who could carry out the religious duties, the auspices fell back to the patrician members of the senate, who chose from among themselves interreges for five days to secure the continuity of the auspices until new magistrates were elected. A disruption in this series in Roman belief would have caused the irreversible end of the auspices: auspicia populi Romani, si magistratus particii creati non sint, intereant necesse est, cum interrex nulla sit, quod et ipsum patricium esse et a patriciis prodi necesse est.[2]
Undesired auspices in certain cases were also rejected or ignored by the respective magistrates in charge. Although only a few magistrates dared to disregard the decisions of the god, the few cases reported in the sources shed an interesting light on the limits as well as on the potential of magisterial power in the Roman Republic. This sometimes neglected subject therefore is the key issue of The challenge to the auspices by C. F. Konrad.
The monograph focuses mainly on events reported for the Middle Republic, especially the second half of the third century BCE, when there seems to have been a significant increase in the number of incidents where the auspices were contested by Roman magistrates. Taken together, these events to Konrad might be “expressions of a larger sense of disaffection among elements of the Roman political class” (ix). The book does not offer a coherent analysis, but consists of nine independent chapters mainly providing case studies on single events, which help to illustrate the overarching questions on the nature of auspicia and imperium as well as on the reasons for challenging the auspices.
On the difficult questions of personal belief and religiosity of the Roman elite, Konrad, well aware not only of the recent research but also of the constitutive studies published from the nineteenth century onwards, in general takes a basically positivistic view, assuming “that the Romans, high and low alike, took their gods to be real and took them seriously” (vii). Nonetheless, the book handles the ancient sources, which except for longer passages are only given in Latin, with caution and methodological precision, considering as well that individual actors might have been disbelievers or might have used religious arguments only as a vehicle to pursue their personal political aims.
To set up the general framework for discussion and to illustrate the overarching themes, the book starts with a close analysis of the famous story, reported at length by Livy, about the Master of the Horse Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus who fought a victorious battle without permission of his absent Dictator L. Papirius Cursor in 324 BCE, probably claiming to possess auspices of his own. This challenge to the absolute power of the Dictator in the aftermath in Rome led to general discussions about the nature of the relationship between a Dictator and his Master of the Horse. Closely examining the origins as well as the different versions of the story reported by Livy, Konrad can trace back the general questions about the absolute power of the Dictator to Fabius Pictor and thus to the late third century BCE.
The general questions which arise from this first example are the starting point for chapters 2-4, which address mostly theoretical questions on the nature of imperium and auspicia and the powers of the Dictator and Master of the Horse. Chapter 2 on “Imperium and Auspices” mainly addresses questions of “Staatsrecht” and thereby challenges especially the recent attempt of F. K. Drogula to redefine the traditional view on imperium.[3] In the sphere militiae, the imperium of the Consul was according to Konrad maius to that of the Praetor. Closely examining different forms of auspices Konrad especially questions “auspices of departure” as modern scholarly fiction. Given the few reported cases when magistrates return to Rome to repeat the auspices, Konrad aims to show that auspices in the military sphere (militiae) are basically the same as at home (domi).
Chapter 3 on the Dictator continues with a close analysis of the magistrates’ imperium, by examining examples of the presence of Lictors from the Middle Republic to the times of Caesar’s civil war. Thereafter, it turns to the difficult question of the relationship between the imperium of a Dictator and the imperium of other magistrates, especially the Consuls, which has consequences for the respective auspices as well.[4] To Konrad the auspices as well as the imperium of a Dictator technically were not different – or maius – to the imperium of the Consuls. In the physical presence of the Dictator, who had more power than the Consul, the Consuls like all other magistrates lost the ability to exercise their imperium. The examination of the “term limits” of a Dictator, who did not automatically lose his office after six months but had to abdicate, also contains a discussion of the few cases of Dictators serving without Masters of the Horse and henceforth leads to the following chapter on the nature and the competences of this basically subordinate office.
Returning amongst other examples to the case of the Dictator, L. Papirius Cursor, and his Master of the Horse, Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus, in 324 BCE, Konrad first examines the evidence for the auspices of the Master of the horse. While a Master of the Horse generally possessed auspices and in absence of his Dictator could even act suis auspiciis, his auspices still in principle were dependent on the auspices of the Dictator as the supreme magistrate nominating his Master of the Horse. Therefore, as is shown by the following discussion, a Dictator could also claim a triumph for a victory achieved by his Master of the Horse even in his absence. In two separate and somewhat disjointed sections, Konrad discusses the very uncommon appointment of a Consul as Master of the Horse as well as the protest of the augurs against the nomination of Marcus Antonius as Caesar’s Master of the Horse by a Consul in 48 BCE, primarily addressing the duration of the office and not as much the – although exceptional – assignment by the Consul as such.
Based on these general discussions, the following four chapters examine various examples of magistrates challenging the auspices, starting with the famous stories of the Consuls P. Claudius Pulcher and L. Iunius Pullus, both of whom ignored inconvenient auspices in the year 249 BCE and suffered heavy losses at sea against the Carthaginians in the course of the First Punic War. Both times, the bad omen was shown by the fact that the chickens, which were destined for the auspication, refused to eat. In a lengthy discussion of the evidence available on the outrage of P. Claudius Pulcher, Konrad stresses the interpretation that the incident must have happened shortly before the disastrous battle at Drepana. Likewise, L. Iunius Pullus might have consulted the chickens as well just before losing his fleet in a storm at Cape Pachynus. In the context of these stories, at the end of the chapter follows a short and somewhat isolated discussion on the case of the Consul Q. Lutatius Cerco, who in the year 241 BCE was prohibited by the Senate from consulting the oracle of Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste probably as an alternative to his own auspices. Refraining from his attempt, he successfully brought the First Punic War to an end.
In chapter 6, Konrad closely examines the affair of the Consuls, C. Flaminius and P. Furius Philus in 223 BCE. He also offers a new explanation for an uncommon entry in the Fasti consulares Capitolini on the year 217/6 BCE noting Q. Fabius Q. f. Q. n. Maxim(us) Verrucoss(us) as dictat(or) interregni caus(sa). In his view, both instances must date to the year 223 BCE. Therefore, the entry in the Fasti might accidentally have been recorded for the wrong year. In 223 the Consuls C. Flaminius and P. Furius Philus according to the augurs were vitio creati and therefore were urged to abdicate. When the Consuls, unaware of the fact that their auspices after their departure from Rome were declared invalid, still won a battle against the Gauls, C. Flaminius questioned the ruling of the augurs and consequently refused to abdicate. To prevent C. Flaminius (who back in Rome held a triumph, as did P. Furius Philus) from holding the electoral assemblies for the next year, Konrad suggests that Q. Fabius Maximus was made dictator interregni caussa as was noted by the Fasti consulares Capitolini for the year 217/6. By naming C. Flaminius as his Master of Horse, Q. Fabius Maximus finally forced the abdication of the defiant Consul, who due to his nomination could save face as well.
Returning to C. Flaminius, Konrad discusses in chapter 7 probably the most famous story of a magistrate challenging the auspices and ending in downfall, the defeat of the Consul-elect at Lake Trasumene in 217 BCE. To set the stage, in the beginning of the chapter, Konrad also discusses at length the military campaigns and the movements of troops of the Consuls as well as of Hannibal in early 217. In the following discussion, the various bad omens foreshadowing the loss at Lake Trasumene are analyzed in detail. Konrad explicates the various literary traditions and thereby also tries to figure out the precise moments when the respective auspices must have been gathered. C. Flaminius, who according to Livy has set off from Rome inauspicato and took office at Ariminium, from the beginning wanted to prove that a Roman commander was not in need of auspices, but – in the Romans’ view, consequently – ended in catastrophe.
Continuing with the aftermath of the heavy defeat at Lake Trasumene, the last chapter revisits the several instances reported for the second half of the third century BCE where magistrates questioned the auspices. The further course of Roman Republican history indicates that the catastrophe of C. Flaminius in 217 probably put an end to the various attempts in challenging the auspices, as is shown immediately by the abdication of the consul vitio factus M. Claudius Marcellus in the year 215. From this time on, the auspices until the end of the Republic seem to have been respected even in times of political struggle. This consensus among the elites was also not affected by the obvious misuse of the auspices to withhold political processes.
The last chapter thereby in a way is to be seen as well as a summary to the whole book, which is rounded off by an appendix on “Consular Abdication and Interregnum”, a bibliography, a detailed and useful general index, and a welcome index locorum. Yet, regarding especially the various themes handled within the several chapters, one wishes for short summaries at the end of the sections, which would have offered space as well for a more focused discussion of the key themes of the volume. The single chapters nonetheless contain refreshing discussions of various issues regarding the questioning of the auspices especially in the late third century BCE and will stimulate further debates, even if some interpretations might provoke discussions as well. For example, the reinterpretation of the affairs of 223 only works if one accepts the reshaping of the entries in the Fasti consulares Capitolini.
In sum, the volume offers important insights to various aspects of the Roman auspices and therefore will enrich the studies on this key theme of Roman religious practice as well as on politics in the middle Roman republic. Besides traditional studies on Roman religion and augural practices also recent studies on Roman magisterial power show an increasing interest in the religious aspects of Roman government as a key theme of roman political practice. By closely examining several case studies as important keys to the understanding of the importance of augural practices to Roman politics the book under review fruitfully connects the fields of politics and religion and thereby will find his place within the series of publications on Roman religion as well as on Roman government.
Notes
[1] On the auspices cf. for example J. Bleicken, Zum Begriff der römischen Amtsgewalt. auspicium – potestas – imperium, Göttingen 1981, especially 5-24. A. Heuß, Gedanken und Vermutungen zur frühen römischen Regierungsgewalt, Göttingen 1983. J. Linderski, „The Augural Law,“ ANRW II 16, 3 (1986), 2146-2312. W. Kunkel/R. Wittmann, Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der Römischen Republik. Zweiter Abschnitt. Die Magistratur (HdbA 10, 3, 2, 2), München 1995, 28-37. Y. Berthelet, Gouverner avec les dieux. Autorité, auspices et pouvoir, sous al République romaine et sous Auguste, Paris 2015. C. B. Champion, The Peace of the Gods. Elite Religious Practices in the Middle Roman Republic, Princeton 2017. L. G. Driediger-Murphy, Roman Republican Augury. Freedom and Control, Oxford 2019.
[2] Cic. Dom. 14, 38.
[3] F. K. Drogula, „Imperium, Potestas and the Pomerium in the Roman Republic,” Historia 56 (2007), 419-452.
[4] For a recent comprehensive study on the Roman Dictatorship cf. M. B. Wilson, Dictator. The Evolution of the Roman Dictatorship, Ann Arbor 2021.