The historical reconstruction of the Roman republican political system includes a necessary part of the study of the competence of magistrates and the nature of their official powers. The most complex and controversial issues are the implementation of executive power in the V -first half of the IV century BC, since it was during this chronological period that its structures were formed. During the Early Republic, there was a process of developing optimal ways to manage the civilian collective by those who were called to be its political leaders and military leaders. The search for ways to maintain the viability of civitas and its state strengthening included both the creation of new authorities and the design of methods for its implementation. Moreover, the found ways of exercising the powers of the supreme administration could have a much longer constitutional life than individual structures, having emerged much earlier and clearly exhausted themselves later. Among the Roman magistracies, whose political existence was relatively short, but consolidated a number of important principles of the functioning of executive power, both already known and first appeared (and at the same time corrected their use), was the consular military tribunate, which was used in the state structure in the period 444-367 BC. e. Analysis of the powers of the consular tribunes, clarification of the scope of the real power concentrated in their hands allows us to more accurately determine the nature of this magistracy and to better understand the content of this stage of the formation of the main links of the political system of the Roman community.

References to the competence of the magistrates studied are contained in the names of their positions given by ancient authors. As the full title of Livia, he uses the expression tribuni militum consular! potestate (Liv. IV. 6.8 1, etc.). The same formula is used by Pomponius 2 . Exactly the definition of consular! The potestate retains for the characterization of their powers Eutropius in its Breviary 3 . Titus Livy also designates them tribuni consular! potestate - tribunes with consular power, tribuni consulares-consular tribunes (VI. 1. 1; VIII. 33. 16). Cornelius Tacitus in the Annals notes

Liv. 1 IV. 6. 8: per haec consilia eo deducta est res, ut tribunes militum consulari potestate promisee ex patribus ac plebe creari sinerent, de consulibus creandis nihil mutarentur ("During these conferences, it came to the point that they allowed the election of military tribunes with consular authority from the patricians and Plebeians, in the election of consuls nothing was changed").

Pomp. 2 l. s. enchir. = D. 1. 2. 2. 25: plebs contenderet cum patribus et vellet ex suo quoque corpore consules creare et patres recusrent: factum est, ut tribuni militum crearentur partim ex plebe, partim ex patribus consulari potestate ("The Plebs fought against the patricians and wanted to elect consuls from among them." the patricians did not agree, and it was allowed that military tribunes with consular authority, partly from Plebeians, partly from patricians, should be elected").

Eutr. 3 II. 1. 3: dignitates mutatae sunt, et pro duobus consulibus facti tribuni militares consulari potestate ("Honorary offices were changed and military tribunes with consular authority were created instead of two consuls").

page 41

the consular authority of the military tribunes 4 . Greek authors also have references to the consular authority of military tribunes .5 Thus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus explicitly notes and Diodorus of Sicily calling Plutarch in the biography of Camillus emphasizes that in everything their power and power were consular 8 .

In addition, ancient writers allow us to form an idea that the consular tribunate was introduced in the status of a higher magistracy, replacing the consulate. Titus Livy (IV. 7. 1; 41. 10) contains the expressions tribuni militum pro consulibus - military tribunes as (or instead of, or like) consuls. A similar version is found in Aulus Gellius: tribunes militares qui pro consulibus fuissent (Gell. XIV. 7. 5). Greek authors also usually note the election of consular tribunes "instead of "or" like " consuls: (Dionys. XI. 60. 5; Diod. XII. 32. 1; 38. 1; 53. 1; 58. 1; 60. 1; 80. 1 et al.; Dio Cass. XL. 45. 4; Zonar. VII. 19). Livy also uses the phrase proconsularis imago (V. 2. 9), i.e. the likeness, image, and shadow of the consuls. Rgo-consularis (proconsular) in this case means again "like a consular". The same meaning is found in Dionysius in the expression (XI. 62. 1).

In some cases, sources, fixing the name of the position we are interested in, report (and this is fundamental) that the consular military tribunes had an empire. At the same time, Latin authors directly use the concept of tribuni militum consular! imperio-military tribunes with a consular empire. The presence of imperium in the tribunes of the consuls is noted by Titus Livy, 9 and is also mentioned in the speech of the Emperor Claudius in the Senate, 10 and in Aulus Gellius .11

Thus, the ancient tradition conveys to us the idea that the consular military tribunes had both a consular potestas and a consular imperium. These two most important concepts, which denoted the competence of magistrates, are different from-

page 42

They study the specifics of the Roman executive power, define officials as carriers of delegated state sovereignty. At the same time, as V. V. Efimov noted, "potestas is the authority to act on behalf of the people, and imperium is the commanding power over the cives, over the citizens themselves." 12 Having subjected these categories to a detailed study, I. Bleiken concluded that potestas is an abstract concept for denoting the power of officials and the system of official relations .13 There were potestas par (identical to the Roman collegiality), potestas maior and minor (corresponding to the official hierarchy) and potestas of certain magistrates. I. Bleiken also emphasized that potestas in state competence primarily reflected the ability of magistrates to adopt legally binding acts and in this sense was used both in an abstract sense and to denote a specific action. 14 A. Demandt noted that "the concept of potestas also included the necessary means that an official needed to carry out his decisions" 15 .

Empires as the right to order, as the highest military and civil authority, as the right to dispose of the lives of fellow citizens have been repeatedly studied in special literature .16 A recent article by I. L. Mayak noted the evolution of the content of this polysemantic term17 . We also addressed the analysis of this concept in relation to extraordinary magistrates 18 . Now let us only note that, in our opinion, the imperium extended to all spheres of public life, was inseparable from the right of public auspiciums, and was derived from the state supremacy of patres. We refuse to understand imperium only as a military power as opposed to a civil - administrative one, to consider its application in the spheres of domi and militae as strictly connected with pomerium, and to consider the role of imperium in the republican system as self-sufficient and predominant.

So, if we proceed from the designation of the post by ancient authors, we should recognize the consular military tribunes as magistrates cum imperio, besides, imperius is likened in their title to the consular one. However, questions about whether the consular military tribunes were carriers of the empire and whether the definition of "consular" can be applied to their power at all were given diametrically opposite answers in historiography.

A number of researchers believe that the clarification of consulari potestate in the title of the post was unhistorical, i.e. it did not exist in the real state practice of the Early Republic. They come to this conclusion in two different ways based on the same premise: the position with the name "consul" was absent in the Roman state system during the entire fifth century BC. At the same time, some historians, such as K. Y. Beloch, K. Hahnel, R. Palmer, believed that the concept of consul was in this period of time.

Efimov V. V. 12 Lectures on the History of Roman Law, St. Petersburg, 1898, p. 165.

Bleicken J. 13 Zum Begriff der romischen Amtsgewalt: auspicium - potestas - imperium. Gottingen, 1981. S. 266, 295.

14 Ibid. S. 278.

Demandt A. 15 Antike Staatsformen. Eine vergleichende Verfassungsgeschichte der Alten Welt. В., 1995. S. 402.

16 См., например: Vogel K.-H. Imperium und Fasces // ZSS. 1950. 67. S. 62-111; Giovannini A. Consulare imperium // Schweizerische Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft. Ht 16. Basel, 1983. S. 1-30; Linke B. Von der Verwandtschaft zum Staat. Die Entstehung politischer Organisationsformen in der fruhromischen Geschichte. Stuttgart, 1995. S. 144-149.

Mayak I. L. 17 The concept of power and property in the work of Aulus Gellius / / IVS ANTIQVVM. Ancient law. 1998. N 1 (3). pp. 8-27.

18. Dementyeva V. V. 18 Dictators optima lege and imminuto iure in the early Roman Republic (V-III centuries BC) / / Political structures and public life of Ancient Rome. Yaroslavl, 1993. pp. 10-25; ona. Magistracy of the dictator in the early Roman Republic (V-III centuries BC). Yaroslavl, 1996. p. 30; 56-57, 69-71, 83-85,91-92; Dementyeva V. V., Trukhina N. N. The relationship between the dictator and the cavalry chief in the early Roman Republic (V-III centuries BC). Problems of history, philology, and culture. Issue 2. Magnitogorsk, 1995. pp. 107-114; Dementieva V. V. Roman Republican Interregnum as a political institute. Moscow, 1998. pp. 13-14, 57-64, 84-93.

page 43

time was a definition and was applied both to the magistracy of the praetor and (in 444-367) to the military tribunals that received the highest executive power, which could be called simply consuls for short .19 Denying the historical correctness of the designation of this magistracy as tribuni militum consulari potestate, K. Y. Belokh noted that the annalists did not have reliable information about its name, and K. Hanel emphasized that historians do not have any independent evidence for this, such as an inscription. R. Palmer believed that this version of the position name was created later because of the desire to create a new one. avoid confusion with the actual consular magistracy, established in 366 BC.

Other authors, who also denied the historicity of the name tribuni militum consulari potestate, insisted not only on the absence of the post of consul in the fifth century BC, but also on the general absence of such a concept in Roman political practice. Thus, R. Seely argued that the contemporaries of the consular tribunes, since they did not yet know the term "consuls", simply called them tribuni militum. He left open the question of when, in this case, the Roman tradition began to add the refinement consulari potestate to their title .20

In the historiography of the 90s of the XX century, D. Solberg, D. Flach and R. Bunze adhere to a similar interpretation 21 . Their point of view is based again on the fact that by 444 the consular magistracy did not exist. At the same time, these authors, who do not recognize the historicity of the name tribuni militum consulari potestate, have different ideas about the process of forming the highest executive power in Rome.

Thus, D. Solberg asserts that after the expulsion of the kings, the Roman state was headed by three chiefs of the gentile tribes (simply tribuni), who were simultaneously commanders (praetores) of thousands of soldiers recruited from these tribes. In this form, this first republican magistracy functioned until 367 BC. e. and there was no consular tribunate, in accordance with his point of view. This view runs counter to the data of the ancient tradition, and in the context of the refusal of modern antiquity from a hypercritical approach to it, it is not supported by us. In addition, as V. N. Tokmakov convincingly showed in his monograph, gentile tribes could not be a base for recruiting a foot army .22

R. Bunze insists on the fallacy of all references in the sources of the consular magistracy for the time before the laws of Licinius-Sextius, not recognizing any titulature of military tribunes, which contains words about consular power .23 Reviving in part the hypothesis of G. De Sanctis [24] and finding only praetor maximus and two praetores minores in the role of collegial (but unequal) carriers of the empire before 367 BC, P. Bunze is skeptical of any names of colleges of high officials preserved by the ancient tradition, with the exception of the praetorship.

D. Flach, in turn, believes that adding consular! potestate to the title of the post of military tribunes was created by ancient historiography much later than the time of the existence of the magistracy. He does not deny that it actually functioned in 444-367 BC, but refuses to recognize these years as the time of the consulship's existence as well. Defending the concept of an initially sole republican magistracy in the person of a one-year magister populi, which was replaced by

Beloch К J. 19 Romische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der Punischen Kriege. B. - Lpz, 1926. S. 263; Hanell K. Das altremische eponyme Amt. Lund, 1946. S. 199; Palmer R. The Archaic Community of the Romans. Cambr., 1970. P. 234.

Sealey R. 20 Consular Tribunes Once More // Latomus. 1959. 18. P. 528-530.

Sohlberg D. 21 Militartribunen und verwandte Probleme der friihen romischen Republik // Historia. 1991. XI. S. 257-274; Flach D. Die Gesetze der friihen romischen Republik. Darmstadt, 1994. S. 11-18; Bunse R. Das romische Oberamt in der friihen Republik und das Problem der "Konsulartribunen" (Bochumer Altertumswissenschaftliches Colloquium. Bd 31). Trier, 1998. S. 90-99.

Tokmakov V. N. 22 Military Organization of Rome in the Early Republic (VI-IV centuries BC), Moscow, 1998, pp. 55-57.

Bunse. 23 Op. cit. S. 90-99.

De Sanctis G. 24 Storia dei Romani. V. II. Firenze, 1967. P. 407.

page 44

the military tribunate, D. Flach believes that consuls first appeared only in 366. The title of military tribunes was drawn by the authors of historical works, according to his definition, from "vague sources" 25 .

In Russian historiography, S. I. Kovalev paid attention to this issue, who recognized the historicity of the title tribuni militum consulari potestate, but did not see in it any indication of the actual consular power. Based on the idea that in 444 BC the highest ordinary magistrates were called praetors rather than consuls, he insisted on translating "military tribunes with consular power", meaning collegial power in general, and not exactly consular power .26 Of course, the adjective consularis, as well as the noun consul, are etymologically related to the verb consulere - "to confer" and thus emphasize collegiality as an essential feature of the consular position. However, if we accept the point of view of a number of ancient authors (Cass. Dio ar. Zonar. VII. 19), that the original praetorship was transformed into a consulship after the decemvirate and the second secession of the Plebeians, 27 then it is natural to recognize the existence in 444. at the time of the introduction of the Roman constitutional practice of the consulship tribunate), the consulate as the highest ordinary magistracy and, accordingly, the consular authority. This approach makes it possible to avoid hypercriticism of the ancient tradition, to take its data into account as much as possible, and not to deny the historicity of the title of the post of military tribunes with consular authority. At the same time, this does not remove the question of the specifics of their potestas, nor the question of whether or not they have an empire.

B. Niebuhr, who initiated many problems in the study of Roman statehood in their modern formulation, the essence of the magistracy of consular military tribunes seemed very obscure , 28 and, having made important comparisons with the consulate, he did not give clear formulations about the endowment of these officials with the empire. A. Schwegler wrote only about the consular potestas in relation to them, omitting the question of the empire 29 . T. Mommsen was quite definitely in favor of the presence of imperium among military tribunes with consular power .30 Among his contemporaries, E. Herzog and P. Willems were close to him, but without going into a detailed consideration of the issue .31 L. Lange's interpretation was somewhat peculiar. In his article on the consulary tribunes, he generally considered these magistrates to have an empire (understanding imperium primarily as a military power), 32 but in his generalizing work Roman Antiquities, he recognized a full imperium only for the Patrician consulary tribunes, and for the Plebeian members of the college-only a reduced imperium .33 An original approach to solving the problem was proposed by O. Lorenz, the author of the very first special article on the consular tribunate .34 He outlined the evolution of the official power of the tribuni militum consulari potestate, believing that initially they had no more than a military empire, i.e. they did not have a civil potestas at first. New stage in

Flach. 25 Op. cit. S. 17. About the point of view of D. Flach, see more: Dementieva V. V. Review of the book: Flach D. Die Gesetze der friihen romischen Republik. Text und Kommentar. In Zusammenarbeit mit Stefan von der Lahr. Darmstadt, 1994 // IVS ANTIQVVM. Ancient law. 1999. N 2 (5). pp. 215-220.

Kovalev S. I. 26 Istoriya Rima [History of Rome]. A course of lectures. 2nd ed. L., 1986. p. 89.

27 See Tokmakov V. N. Nekotorye aspekty genezisa consulskoi vlasti v konstitutsii Rima Rannoi Respubliki [Some aspects of the genesis of consular power in the Constitution of Rome of the Early Republic]. Ancient law. 1996. N 1. P. 34.

Niehuhr В. 28 Vortrage liber romische Geschichte. В., 1846. Abt. 1. Bd 1. S. 331.

Schwegler A. 29 Romische Geschichte. Bd 3. Tiibingen, 1858. S. 110.

Mommsen Th. 30 Romisches Staatsrecht. Bd 2. Lpz, 1874. S. 172.

Herzog Е. 31 Geschichte und System der Romischen Staatsverfassung. Bd 1. Lpz, 1884. S. 738; Willems P. Roman State Law. Kiev, 1890. P. 300.

Lange L. 32 Uber Zahl und Amtsgewalt der Consulartribunen (1855) // Lange L. Kleine Schriften aus dem Gebiet der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft. Bd I. Gottingen, 1887. S. 242.

Lange L. 33 Romische Alterthiimer. Bd I. V., 1876. S. 656.

Lorenz O. 34 Uber das Consulartribunat. Besonderer Abdruck. Wien, 1855.

page 45

the history of the magistracy began, in his opinion, in 426 BC, when the consular tribunes began to exercise civil functions. Thus, according to O. Lorenz, it turned out that the competence of these magistrates, gradually expanding, reached the full consular one. Objecting to this interpretation of their powers, L. Lange emphasized that an official could not have an imperium without potestas, 35 since potestas is a prerequisite for the empire, it was given to the magistrate when elected in centuriate comitia, and the empire - in curiate ones, after the adoption of a special law on this matter .36 Let us add that the understanding of the empire as a purely military power, which is characteristic of both O. Lorenz and L. Lange, we consider outdated.

In the historiography of the twentieth century, this problem was not addressed in all the special articles devoted to the consular tribunate. Such authors as F. Munzer 37, J. Pinsent 38, and A. Drummond 39 have avoided it, for example . In general studies, researchers preferred to confine themselves to stating the presence of consular competence in military tribunes, without specifying what exactly is meant, but, apparently, implying potestas 40 . In Russian textbooks of the early 20th century on the history of Roman law, these officials were classified as magistrates cum imperio 41 . Some anti-historians who have directly analyzed the magistracy of military tribunes with consular authority (f. Adcock, W. Kirby), did not focus on the question of the possession of empire, but most likely, as follows from the general context of their articles, they answered it positively 42 . The same impression is formed when reading the corresponding section of the book by E. Ferenczy43 . Inevitably, supporters of the theory about the military nature of the reasons for the emergence of this magistracy had to recognize the presence of imperium in the consular tribunes (most often indirectly). 44, since the essence of their ideas was to increase the needs of the Roman community in the holders of the empire for military needs. Finally , the authors of the generalizing works G. Sieber 45, G. De Sanctis 46, and F. De Vaillant directly pointed out the endowment of the consular tribunes with the empire. De Martino 47, as well as researchers of particular questions directly related to the topic-A. Bernardi 48, S. Staveli 49 and R. Ridley 50 .

A negative and unambiguous answer to the question of whether there were

Lange. 35 Uber Zahl und Amtsgewalt... S. 255.

Lange. 36 Romische Alterthiimer... S. 655.

Miinzer F. 37 Consulartribunen und Censoren // Hermes. 1922. 57. S. 134-149.

Pinsent J. 38 Military Tribunes and Plebeian Consuls: The Fasti From 444 V to 342 V // Historia. 1975. 24. P. 29-61.

Drummond A. 39 Consular Tribunes in Livy and Diodorus // Athenaeum. 1980. 58. P. 58-72.

40 См., например: Beloch. Op. cit. S. 247; Heurgon J. The Rise of the Rome to 264 B.C. L" 1973. P. 173-174; Capozza М. Roma fra monarchia e Decemvirato nell'interpretazione di Eutropio. Roma, 1973. P. 15-16.

Bogolepov N. 41 Uchebnik istorii rimskogo prava [41 Textbook of the History of Roman Law], Moscow, 1907, p. 106; Kolotinsky N. L. Istoriya rimskogo prava. Kazan, 1912. p. 72.

Adcock F.E. 42 Consular Tribunes and Successors // JRS. 1957. 47. P. 9-14; Kirby V. The Consular Tribunate and the Roman Oligarchy // Mundus antiquus. V. 1. Melbourne, 1976. P. 24-29.

Ferenczy Е. 43 From the Patrician State to the Patricio-Plebeian State. Budapest, 1976. P. 35.

Rimskie gosudarstvennye i pravovye drevnosti [Roman State and Legal Antiquities], Moscow, 1893, p. 195; Kornemann E. Zur altitalische Verfassungsgeschichte / / Klio. 1915. 14. S. 203; Soltau W. Zur romischen Verfassungsgeschichte // Philologus. 1916. XXVIII. S. 524-529; Altheim F. Romische Geschichte. Frankfurt a. М. - Wiesbaden, 1951. S. 330; idem. Epochen der romischen Geschichte. Frankfurt a. М., 1934. S. 152; Cornelius F. Untersuchungen zur friihen romischen Geschichte. Munchen, 1940. S. 59; Hanell. Op. cit. S. 34; 199; Dulckeit G. Romische Rechtsgeschichte. Miinchen - Berlin, 1952. S. 28-29; Meyer Er. Romischer Staat und Staatsgedanke. Zurich -Stuttgart, 1961. S. 70-71; Taubler Е. Derromische Staat. Stuttgart, 1985. S. 24.

Siber Н. 45 Romisches Verfassungsrecht in geschichtlicher Entwicklung. Lahr, 1952. S. 77.

De Sanctis. 46 Op. cit. P. 54-56.

De Martino F. 47 Intorno all' origine della repubblica romana e delle magistrature // ANRW. I. 1. В. - N.Y" 1972. P. 248.

Bernardi A. 48 Dagli ausiliari del rex ai magistrati della res publica II Athenaeum. 1952. XXX. P. 39-40.

Staveley E.S. 49 The Significance of the Consular Tribunate // JRS. 1953. 43. P. 30-36.

Ridley R.T. 50 The "Consular Tribunate". The Testimony of Livy // Klio. 1986. 68. P. 457.

page 46

whether the consular tribunes were holders of the imperium was given by R. Seeley 51, who argued that their position was not a higher magistracy at all. Partly similar to this interpretation can be considered the opinion of E. Boddington, 52 who, at the first stage of the existence of the office of consular tribunes, which she highlighted, until the beginning of the IV century BC, considered these magistrates as additional colleagues of the consuls who fought under the auspices of the latter, that is, who did not have their own empire. Then - in her view, after 390-the military tribunes with consular power became not an addition, but an alternative to the consuls and, consequently, became magistrates invested with the empire. Thus, if O. Lorenz understood the development of the magistracy of the consular tribunes along the line from holders of only the military empire to holders of full consular powers, then E. Boddington understood it from the official power of" junior colleagues " of consuls to the independent possession of the highest empire. Other historians, as we have seen, do not see the evolution of the powers of these magistrates, considering them unchanged throughout the political life of the magistracy, but interpreting their content in different and often contradictory ways.

The noted diversity of opinions that exists in the world historiography of the problem makes us once again turn to this issue in order to determine such a fundamentally important characteristic as imperium when constructing our own historical model of the consular tribunate, as well as to get an idea of the potestas of the magistrates studied. To this end, we will analyze the reports of sources about the specific implementation of power functions by consular military tribunes.

It is quite obvious that the tribuni militum consulari potestate had the authority of supreme commanders of the Roman army. Only in this rank could they lead the fighting, and this role is repeatedly reported by Livy (Liv. IV. 31. 1; 46. 1; 49. 8; 59. 1; 61. 5-6; V. 8. 1-2; 10. 1-2; 18. 7; 32. 2; VI. 4. 8; 22. 1; 30.3, etc.). Only in this status could they recruit, which they often did in practice (Liv. V 10. 4; 16. 5; 37. 3; VI. 31. 5 and others). In 403 BC, the Plebeian tribunes even accused the consular military tribunes of unprecedented autocracy: "And neither the kings, nor... neither the consuls, nor the harsh dictatorial imperium, nor the merciless decemvirs imposed such slavery as the incessant military service that military tribunes use when dominating the Roman people." 53 In 397 BC, on the contrary, the tribunes of the consulates did not declare compulsory recruitment, but, as Livy notes, recruited groups of volunteers .54 In any case, the right to recruit troops, as well as the right to command them, belonged only to magistrates with the empire. R. Bunze's opinion that in early times not only imperium carriers could exercise high command, but also private individuals who acted as military leaders 55 seems to us unsubstantiated. Thus, in our opinion, the nature of the participation of military tribunes with consular authority in the preparation and conduct of military operations undoubtedly indicates that they have the highest authority in the field of militae. The difficulties in historiography regarding the interpretation of their military powers are related to the consequences of the end of hostilities, namely, their right to triumph, which was an integral part of the imperium militum.

The fact is that the Byzantine historian John Zonara, who enjoys the reputation of his modern colleagues for conscientiously relying on primary sources, testifies: "They say that none of the military tribunes, although many of them often

Sealey. 51 Op. cit. P. 529.

Boddington A. 52 The Original Nature of the Consular Tribunate // Historia. 1959. 8. P. 358-361.

53 Liv. V. 2. 8: hoc neque reges neque... consules neque triste dictatoris imperium neque importunes decemviros iniunxisse servitutis, ut perennem militiam facerent [quod tribuni militum in plebe Romana regnum exercerent].

Liv. 54 V. 16. 5: A Postumius et L. lulius, non iusto dilectu (etenim ab tribunis plebis impediebantur), sed prope voluntariorum quos adhortando incitauerant coacta manu ("A. Postumius and L. Julius, not having properly recruited - though the tribunes of the Plebs hindered them-but having recruited, by exhortation, a detachment of volunteers"...).

Bunse. 55 Op. cit. S. 108.

page 47

won, did not celebrate the triumph " 56 . Information about the period of the V-IV centuries BC Zonara drew primarily from the books of Dion Cassius that have not come down to us, from which (or from the epitome of this author's work), probably, the above quote is taken. Many researchers interpret this information in the sense that the consular tribunes did not have the right to triumph at all; however, some simply state without comment that they did not have such a right, 57 others attribute this absence to the non-assignment of the tribunes to the empire, 58 others more cautiously note that they must have had the right to triumph, but The tradition about this time is not such that it is possible to justify any conclusions. 59 R. Werner wrote that since it was difficult to hold a triumph with a large board of consular military tribunes, "it seems that the matter was not in the absence of the right to triumph, but in the usual practice of refusing to triumph." 60

Starting with B. Niebuhr, historiography also suggests that the tribuni militum consulari potestate were deprived of the right to triumph due to the non-curatorial nature of their magistracy. Niebuhr emphasized that a complete triumph (not a standing ovation) there was a triumphus curulis (in the original sense of curulis - belonging to a chariot): privilege of an official to be conveyed by cart to the Curia or Senate 61 . This also led him to believe that the rank of consular military tribunes was no higher than that of chief of cavalry (magister equitum under the dictator). A similar view is also present in A. Schwegler, who, developing the position of the identity of the rank of a consular tribune with the status of magister equitum, cited as proof the repeated appointment, during the introduction of the dictatorship, of consular tribunes as cavalry chiefs (Liv. IV. 31. 5; 46. 11; 57. 6; VI. 11. 10) 62 . Mommsen, although he believed that the consular tribune is not suitable for any rank at all, and it is also difficult to correlate it with its status in the category of curulity-non-curulity, still saw differences in the position of consular tribunes and curule magistrates. 63 But the main reason that hindered their triumph, he saw in the fact that they were not actually magistrates, but promagistrats .64 Having proconsular powers, they were invested with the empire, but, in his opinion, could not claim a triumphal procession, since no person, according to Livy, did not hold a magistracy, did not receive a triumph .65 This idea of Mommsen's has been developed in recent historiography by X. Versailles, who concluded that the constitutional barrier to the triumph of consular tribunes was not that they did not have an empire, but that, like the privatus cum imperio or pro consule, the right of triumph did not extend to their office .66

So we have Zonara's claim that the military tribunes with the consular authority did not celebrate a triumph, the absence of any mention of any of them in Livy's work, and the inability to confirm their triumphs on the basis of the Acta triumphalia 67 . Is this enough to deny the right of the tribunes of the consulship to triumph? Can we agree with Mommsen's conjecture about

Lengle. 57 Tribunus militum consular; potestate // RE. II Reihe. Bd VI. Hibd 12. Sp. 2452; Heurgon. Op. cit. P. 173; Tokmakov V. N. Sacral aspects of military discipline in Rome of the Early Republic / / VDI. 1997. N 1. p. 47.

Sealey. 58 Op. cit. P. 529.

Beloch. 59 Op. cit. S. 248.

Werner R. 60 Der Beginn der Romischen Republik. Munchen - Wien, 1963. S. 284.

Niebuhr. 61 Op. cit. S. 570; idem. Vortrage liber romische Geschichte... S. 332.

Schwegler. 62 Op. cit. S. 110-111.

Mommsen. 63 Op. cit. S. 174.

64 Ibid. S. 173.

Liv. 65 XXVIII. 38.4: quia neminem ad earn diem triumphasse qui sine magistratu res gessisset constabat.

Versnel H.S. 66 Triumphus (An Inquiry into the Origin. Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph). Leiden, 1970. P. 186-187.

67 See Mommsen. Op. cit. S. 173; Ridley. Op. cit. P. 456.

page 48

promagistrature of consular tribunes or with the identification of their legal status with the privatus cum imperio made by X. Versnel? With all due respect to Mommsen's theoretical constructions, we do not share his interpretation in this case. For promagistratura is nothing more than an extension of the powers of an official on the basis of the prorogatio imperia procedure. As T. V. Kudryavtseva convincingly showed in her dissertation, promagistratures in Rome appear in the last third of the IV century BC, 68 that is, three decades after the liquidation of the consular tribunate. The first case of obtaining the status of proconsul is recorded by Livy for 328 BC (VIII. 23.12), when the people were asked to make a decision on this, i.e. to extend their powers on the basis of law 69 . Prorogation of the Empire will become a permanent practice only from the time of the Second Punic War70. When Livy refers to the consular tribunes, using the adjective proconsularis or the expression tribuni militum pro consulibus, it is not a question of extending the powers of former consuls on the basis of a vote of the comitia (or at least a senate decision). These concepts are used by him only in the sense that military tribunes replace consuls, act in their stead. Let us also note that the promagistrates always had power outside Rome, first in the army on the territory of Italy, then in the provinces. The consular tribunes were elected as the supreme officials of the Roman community proper, the leaders of the civil collective, solving inter-verbal conflicts as well. A fundamentally important difference is that the tribunes of the consulship exercised executive power in the absence of other high magistrates with the Empire, whereas the proconsuls with the prorogated Empire were never elected as the only high officials. The prorogated imperium in Roman ideas was not complete from a sacred point of view, and if only the bearer of such an imperium remained alive, then he could not preside over electoral comitia, which inevitably led to interregnums71 . And the military tribunes, with consular authority, themselves directed the election of their successors.

Thus, we do not support the point of view of T. Mommsen that the failure of the consular tribunes to conduct triumphs is due to the fact that they occupied not the magistracy, but the pro-registry. We deny the existence of the political and legal mechanism of prorogation of the empire in the fifth and first half of the fourth centuries BC, and consequently of the promagistrature in the constitutional sense of the word. In general, Mommsen sometimes did not distinguish the state identity of the Early Republic (compare the theory of the consulate as the original republican magistracy, etc.), describing it through the concepts and structures of classical time. In our opinion, this was also evident in this case. As for the development of his theory of X. However, in the first two centuries of the Republic, this phenomenon is not known for the first two centuries of the Republic, since it is not even possible to compare the tribunes of the consulship to a private person with the empire (i.e., not even to the consul of the previous year with extended powers). For the first time, as T. N. Kudryavtseva 72 points out, the proconsular imperium was granted to a person who was not consul of the previous year, in 215 BC. This happened when the empire was

Kudryavtseva T. V. 68 Extraordinary powers of military leaders as a source of imperial power in Rome. Dis... Candidate of Historical Sciences, L., 1990, pp. 27-32.

69 The case of 464 BC (Liv. III. 4.10), which is sometimes interpreted as the first presentation of proconsular powers, cannot be considered such, since Titus Quinctius was not prorogated by the empires, but was assigned, while the consul Aulus Postumius was recruiting in Rome, to direct the actions of the Latin and Guernican allies, which in principle could also be carried out by an ordinary military tribune as commander of a phalanx unit. One of the consuls, Spurius Furius, was in the theater of operations, so there was no need to grant the empire to Quinctius.

Kloft Н. 70 Prorogation und auperordentliche Imperium 326-81 v. Chr. (Untersuchungen zur Verfas.sung der romischen Republik). Hein, 1977. S. 28; Dementieva. Magistracy of the dictator ... pp. 75-76.

Dementieva. 71 Roman Republican Interregnum ... pp. 50-51.

Kudryavtseva. 72 Uk. soch. p. 30-31.

page 49

granted to Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Consul 222 BC (Liv. XXIII. 30. 19). In the full sense, a private individual (i.e., a person who had never previously performed a master's degree with the imperium) became privatus cum imperio in 211 BC - this was Publius Cornelius Scipio. Most likely, the granting of the empire to a private person was caused by critical circumstances, it "did not enter into everyday practice and after the Second Punic War was used extremely rarely" 73 .

So, not counting the position of tribuni militum consulari potestate as a pro-magistracy, we believe that it was a magistracy, but an emergency magistracy. In the works covering the constitutional structure of the Early Republic, published both in the XIX and XX centuries, military tribunes with consular power are not often included in the list of extraordinary posts, 74 although this statement is not supported by arguments. Our evidence for this conclusion is presented in a separate article 75 . In our opinion, the consular tribunate was introduced pro consulibus as an extraordinary magistracy instead of an ordinary one, just as a dictatorship was introduced instead of a consulate. But having recognized military tribunes with consular power as magistrates, and not pro-magistrates, we must return to the theory of B. Niebuhr and A. Schwegler about the non-curatorial nature of this magistracy as the reason for the lack of this right in search of an answer to the question of their right to triumph.

It is well known that the endowment of the empire was not a necessary condition for the designation of a magistrate as a curule. Censors and curule aediles were among the sine imperio magistrates, but they had the privileges of curule officials. On the other hand, the presence of an imperium was a condition sufficient for curule honors. Since we are only just justifying the existence of an imperium in the tribuni militum consulari potestate, we will not rely on this position for the time being. (Especially since B. Niebuhr and A. Schwegler did not characterize the powers of consular tribunes by the concept of imperium, and for them this would not be an argument.) According to T. Mommsen, the honorary rights resulting from holding curule positions should include the possibility for a given person, after resigning his magistrate's powers, not only to vote, but also to participate in debates in the Senate, to wear a toga with a purple border on solemn days and to be buried, dressed in it, and for his descendants-the right to exhibit portrait of an ancestor in his family hall 76 . At the same time, Mommsen did not recognize such honors for the consular tribunes, since none of them was called consularis after resigning their positions. However, first of all, it is not entirely clear to what extent this list of honors is related to official career, and to what extent it is related to class privileges (for example, participation in debates is the right of Patrician senators or those who previously held curule positions), because historians cannot even definitively answer the question of what terms were used in this list. former curule and non-curule magistrates in the Senate. According to one of the reports of Aulus Gellius (III. 18. 3-4), which he cites with reference to the grammarian of the first century BC Gavius Bassus, former non-curular magistrates in the Senate were called pedarii,

73 Ibid., p. 32.

74 See, for example: Mommsen. Op. cit. S. 169; Lange. Romische Alterthiimer ... S. 195; Zeller. Uk. op. p. 193; Willems. Uk. soch. P. 300; Sinchursky N. V. Roman antiquities. Moscow, 1995. P. 71; Siber. Op. cit. S. 77; Berger A. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. Philadelphia, 1953. P. 743; Guarino A. Storia del diritto romano. 8 ed. Napoli, 1990. P. 112.

75 The extraordinary nature of the magistracy of the consular tribunes is confirmed by the cases of functioning in the same administrative year of both the magistracy and the consulate, the preservation of the consular position as an ordinary one even if the consular tribunate is used annually for relatively long chronological periods, as well as the intended purpose and specific activities of magistrates. For a detailed argumentation of the conclusion about the extraordinary nature of the magistracy of consular tribunes, see Dementieva V. V. The nature of the magistracy of military tribunes with consular power // Ancient and Medieval studies. Issue 1. Yaroslavl, 1999, pp. 16-32.

Mommsen. 76 Op. cit. S. 174; Mommsen T. Istoriya Rima [History of Rome], St. Petersburg, 1994, pp. 238-239.

page 50

since in ancient times curule magistrates traveled to the Senate in chariots, and non-curule magistrates came to it on foot (however, Gellius himself gives other explanations for the term pedarii - "voting with their feet" or horsemen who came to the Senate who were not yet included there by the censors) .78 Secondly, it is absolutely not clear on what grounds Mommsen denied these privileges to the consular tribunes. The fact that none of the former military tribunes with consular authority were referred to as consularis (with the resulting honors) does not prove anything, since a consular is an ex - consul, and the consular tribunes still held a different position. The words of Zonara (VII. 19) about the refusal of their honorary title (and T. Mommsen referred to them) imply, on the one hand, the exclusion of Plebeians from the position of consul proper, and on the other, that their magistracy was different from the consulate, but do not prove the deprivation of any specific rights. privileges. The fact that the sources nowhere formulate such advantages in the form of a generalized norm in relation to military tribunals with consular power also does not mean anything. However, in contrast to the denial of these rights by the consular tribunes, there is a specific testimony of Cicero in the speech in defense of Lucius Licinius Moray. In it, the orator, referring to Servius Sulpicius, remarks that the proofs of his nobility must be sought not in the gossip of his contemporaries, but in the dust of chronicles, but he, Cicero, does not doubt it (Mig. 16). A notable ancestor of the famous jurist 79 , noted in the annals, is Servius Sulpicius Rufus, a military tribune with consular authority in 388, 384, and 383, who did not hold any other magistracies with the empire, and whose veneration, including ius imaginis, was due to these very merits.

Apparently, when defining magistratus curules and non-curules, it is most accurate to take as a criterion the presence of sella curulis, the curule chair, which, in fact, gave rise to this epithet: if we follow Aulus Gellius (III. 18.4; see above, approx. 77), curule magistrates were called because originally curule was the name of the chair on the chariot-currus, on which they rode to the Senate, and in accordance with the interpretation of Festus (p. 43 L), the definition of "curule" magistrates received from the fact that they rode on the chariot 80 . According to the observations of T. Schaefer, who devoted a special monograph to the insignia of magistrates, the curule chair replaced the royal throne (solium) not at the beginning of the Republic, as Mommsen believed, but during the royal period. It was borrowed from the Etruscans along with the toga praetexta and facets. The Romans associated sella curulis with bonum, auctoritas, and imperium 81 . Did the consular military tribunes sit on an ivory chair? Apparently, yes. Titus Livy (IV. 7.2) notes that they have, along with the imperium, the insignia of consular power: et imperio et insignibus consularibus usos 82 . And even Mommsen, who denied the honor-

77 Senatores enim dicit in ueterum aetate, qui curulem magistratum gessissent, curru solitos honoris gratia in curiam uehi, in quo curru sella esset, super quam considerent, quae ob earn causam "curulis" appellaretur; sed eos senatores, qui magistratum curulem nondum ceperant, pedibus itauisse in curiam; propterea senatores nondum maioribus honoribus "pedarios" nominatos (Cell. III. 18.4).

78 The presence of a chariot in the first hundred senators is also reported by John Lid, whose data was analyzed by L. L. Kofanov (Attributes of the power of magistrates in archaic Rome / / IVS ANTIQVVM. Ancient law. 1998. N 1 (3). Pp. 35-53).

79 For the fact that Servius Sulpicius Rufus, a contemporary of Cicero, belonged to the nobility only on the basis of the ancient consular tribunate of the fourth century BC, see Gelzer M. Die Nobilitat der romischen Republik. Stuttgart, 1983. S. 12-13.

80 See also Kofanov. Attributes of power ... pp. 45-46.

Schafer Th. 81 Imperii insignia. Sella curulis und fasces. Zur Reprasentation romischer Magistrate. Mainz, 1989. S. 26-27.

82 The complete phrase looks like this: Sunt qui propter adiectum Aequorum Volscorumque bello et Ardeatium defectioni Veiens bellum, quia duo consules obire tot simul bella nequirent, tribunes militum tres creatos dicant, sine mentione promulgatae legis de consulibus creandis ex plebe, et imperio et insignibus consularibus usos ("Some believe that by reason of joining the the war with the Equians, Volscians and the Ardaeans ' postponed wars with the Veii, since two consuls were not able to take part in so many wars, three were elected

page 51

He fully recognized the fact that the direct performance of their duties was marked by the insignia of the highest magistrates, including the curule chair .83 He also noted that the role of the former tribunes of the Consulship was associated with the occupation of curule magistracies. The identification of the status of consular tribunes with the rank of magister equitum, which B. Niebuhr and A. Schwegler cite to prove their lack of jurisdiction, does not help here, since the chief of cavalry Cicero (Leg. III. 9) according to his position, he equated him with a praetor, who had both a sella curulis and six lictors with chamfers. So, we do not see any reason to consider the magistracy of the consular tribunes as non-curatorial, and thus we cannot support the hypothesis that explains their lack of the right to triumph.

Thus, we do not find acceptable explanations in historiography for the absence of the right of the consular tribunes to triumph. Turning to the sources, we, in turn, do not find, in fact, any indication that they do not have such a right. Zonara reports only that none of them celebrated a triumph, but not that they were legally restricted from doing so. Indeed, we do not have any facts of a triumphal procession of any of the tribunes and agree that, apparently, there were no such cases. But this does not mean that they had a legal or otherwise legally issued ban on the triumph. The idea of a legal barrier for military tribunes with consular authority to conduct a triumph, which has become fixed in historiography, in our opinion, is nothing more than one of the manifestations of substitution found in the literature, when logical constructions of historians begin to be perceived directly as information from sources, being in fact the result of its subjective interpretation. This situation is similar, for example, to the one that has developed with a stable opinion about the legal prohibition for the first interrex to hold consular elections: the research stereotype of interpreting sources is understood as their unconditional testimony.

In our opinion, the reason for the failure of the consulship tribunes to carry out the triumph is that there is no need to speak about the serious victories they have won, for which such recognition of merit would be due, despite the mention of this in Zonara (VII. 19). We state this on the basis of R. Ridley's detailed analysis of the leadership of military operations by the consular tribunes, and on his conclusion that not a single military tribune has ever achieved a worthy victory. 84 Indeed, in particularly difficult foreign policy situations, when decisive battles were required, the Romans resorted to replacing the consular tribunes with a dictator, who got (or did not get) the laurels of the triumphator. In addition, it was just as difficult to "divide the victory" and give preference to one of the colleagues to the consular tribunes as it was to "divide the command" during combat operations (Liv. IV. 31.2; 46.2). Therefore, R. Werner's remark that it should not be a question of the absence of the right to triumph 85, we we recognize it as fair, but unlike him, we believe that it should not be so much about their refusal to triumph as about the lack of grounds for such celebrations.

Thus, we do not see any reasoned evidence for the thesis that the military powers of the consular tribunes were "flawed" as far as their right to enter the city in triumph was concerned. Thus, we claim that the sphere of militae was covered by a completely full-fledged empire, which they never achieved due to various objective and subjective circumstances, but not because of a legal ban on it.

military tribunes-without mentioning the legislative proposal for the election of consuls from the Plebeians-endowed with the empire and consular insignia"). In the Russian translation by G. Ch. Huseynov (Titus Livy. The history of Rome from the foundation of the City. T. I. M., 1989. P. 184) empires and insignia are referred in this phrase to the consuls of the Plebeians, but we see a different meaning of what Livy said.

Mommsen. 83 Op. cit. S. 172.

Ridley. 84 Op. cit. P. 457-460.

Werner. 85 Op. cit. S. 284.

page 52

Let us now turn to the domain of domi. The rights derived from the Imperium in the field of civil administration included the leadership of the people's assemblies, the appeal to the Senate, the publication of edicts, the administration of judicial functions (which, however, are sometimes considered by researchers as an integral part of the imperium militae). The fact that even during a serious aggravation of the foreign policy situation, at least one of the consular tribunes remained in the city to take care of the internal affairs of Rome is shown by Titus Livy (unus res Romae curaret-IV. 45.7). Although "they neglected to take care of the city as a thankless and inglorious task" and, judging by the description of the events of 418, However, since the majority of the people who lived in the country in the Middle Ages preferred to act as military leaders, even if they quarreled over the distribution of duties , 86 they had to determine by lot, if not by agreement, who would be engaged in civil affairs (Liv. IV. 45.8; VI. 30.3).

The exercise of the right of ius agendi cum patribus et cum populo by the consular tribunes is evidenced by their submission to the Comitia on the basis of a senatorial decree of a proposal to start a war (Liv. IV. 58.8), as well as by their convocation of the Senate on their own initiative (Liv. IV. 36.3). The same right also gave rise to the leadership of electoral committees in the election of higher magistrates, which has been clearly recognized in the literature since the time of I. Rubino87 . According to our calculations, at least 30 times the consular tribunes had to preside over the election of the same new board of their successors. Like the consuls, they also presided over the election of lower magistrates; in particular, Livy (IV. 44. 1) reports a conflict that broke out during the election of Quaestors between the military tribune Aulus Sempronius Atratianus, who presided over the assembly, and the Plebeian tribunes. In passing, we note that the activity of the tribunes of the consulship was not free from intercession on the part of Plebeian intercessors, which, in our opinion, does not serve as evidence in favor of the ordinary nature of their magistracy (the extraordinary interrex was also affected by the same effect). The political decisions of the consular tribunes could be interfered with by their colleagues or the Plebeian tribunes, just as their actions in the civil sphere could be protested by appealing to the people. But this does not detract from their empires, since there were no other cum imperio magistrates at the same time.

A very important indicator of the existence of an empire is the right of the consular tribunes to proclaim a dictator, which they have implemented in practice more than a dozen times: in the dictatorial empire, it seems, no one among historians has ever doubted, and only a magistrate with an empire could declare its sole bearer (which also does not raise doubts). The sacral and legal difficulties that arose when the first time the consular tribune had to proclaim a dictator will be discussed below.

In the research literature when determining the powers of civil administration of the Roman community by the tribuni militum consular! potestate it was often argued that they had no right to appoint praefectus urbi 88 in their place . However, nowhere in the sources do we find any indications of a legal ban on this, of course. Another thing is that there is no mention of cases of such an appointment. But it is quite obvious that with the large board, this was not necessary. After all, the city prefect was usually appointed by the consul who was the last to leave Rome, 89 so that "the city would not be left without a higher authority "(ne urbs sine imperio foret-Tac. Ann. VI. 11). When the tribunes of the Consulship were in office, they could, without prejudice to the command of the army, select one from their midst to perform such duties-

86 Liv. IV. 45.7: certamen subito inter tribunes exortum; se quisque belli ducem potiorem ferre, curam urbis ut ingratam ignobilemque aspemari ("Suddenly a struggle arose between the tribunes: each considered himself capable of waging war, and neglected the care of the city as an ungrateful and inglorious task").

Rubino J. 87 Untersuchungen liber romische Verfassung und Geschichte. Cassel, 1839. S. 21.

88 See: for example: Mommsep. Op. cit. S. 173; Netushil I. V. Essay on Roman State Antiquities. Kharkiv, 1894. P. 170.

Netushil. 89 Uk. soch. p. 164.

page 53

(Liv. IV. 59.1). The same reasons, in our opinion, should be explained by the absence of cases of co-optation of suffects by consular tribunes instead of dead colleagues (which is also often understood as a consequence of a legal ban). Even with a three-member board, this might not be necessary, and with six or eight consular tribunes, it should be eliminated altogether. Thus, we do not find any real evidence of the "inferiority" of the imperial military tribunes with consular authority in the exercise of their functions of directing the peaceful forms of life of civitas.

As we have already pointed out, the magistrate's right to conduct public auspiciaries was inextricably linked to the Empire, or rather, both were two-pronged forms of the highest executive power in the Roman Republic. So let's take a look at what happened with the opportunity for tribuni militum consular! potestate communicate with the gods on behalf of the civic collective. Titus Livy, speaking of the patricians ' desire to prevent the Plebeians from entering the consulship, explains the patrician motivation: none of the Plebeians possess auspices (quod nemo plebeius auspicia haberet-Liv. IV. 6.2). Therefore, it is sometimes assumed that Plebeian magistrates were deprived of the right to conduct auspices for a long time - for example, commentators of the Russian translation of Livy, N.E. Bodanskaya and G. P. Chistyakov, argue that this provision was maintained until 300 BC. 90 Based on this understanding, they believe that "the competence of tribunes with the consular function". the authorities did not include the commission of auspiciums. " 91 At the same time, it is not clear on what grounds they deny the possession of auspices to the Patrician consular military tribunes, which throughout the existence of this magistracy formed a clear majority. Of course, the selective granting of the right of auspicium to only a certain part of the members of one college of magistrates does not seem quite logical, but arguments against granting the right of auspicium to consular tribunes-patricians cannot be given at all. Therefore, even those few researchers (V. Becker, A. Schwegler )who denied the possibility of this type of divination to the Plebeian consular military tribunes, recognized it for their Patrician colleagues. 92

It was impossible to start a single battle without the commander's preliminary instructions, and the fact that during the transition to the consular tribunate, it was the military tribunes with consular authority who were the supreme commanders of the army is more than difficult to seriously dispute. The election of consuls or new tribunes of consulship could not be held without auspiciaries, and the leadership of electoral comitia by the tribuni militum consular! potestate, as we have seen, is also not in doubt. Finally, the procedure for proclaiming a dictator included an important component of conducting bird searches for his person. If we take into account that during the functioning of the consular tribunate, 11 years were marked by the replacement of the consular tribunes by the dictator, which took place 12 times, 93 then it is obvious that these dictators (except, perhaps, 434 BC) were proclaimed by the consular military tribunes, which were supposed to perform auspiciums. However, according to Livy 94, at first there were doubts about whether the proclamation of a dictator, carried out by a military tribune with consular authority (and, accordingly, the holding of special auspiciums on his candidacy), met the standards of piety. In Livy, we are talking about 426 BC, when, who-

Bodanskaya N.E., Chistyakov G. P. 90 Comments / / Tit Livy. The History of Rome ... Vol. 1. P. 534 (approx. 16 to book IV).

91 Ibid., p. 538 (ed. 79 to book IV).

92 Cf. Schwegler. Op. cit. S. 112.

93,434 (Liv. IV. 23. 4-6), 426 (Liv. IV. 31. 1-5), 418 (Liv. IV. 46. 2-10), 408 (Liv. IV. 56. 2; 57. 6), 396 G. (Liv. V 18. 1; 19. 2), 390 G. (Liv. V 36. 11-12; 46. 10-11), 389 G. (Liv. VI. 1. 8; 2. 5), 385 rubles. ( Liv . VI. 11. 1-2; 10), 380 (Liv. VI. 27. 1-28. 3), 368-two dictatorships (Liv. VI. 38. 2-39. 3), 367 (Liv. VI. 42. 4).

Liv. 94 IV. 31. 4; et cum ibi quoque religio obstaret ne non posset nisi ab console dici dictator, augures consulti earn religionem exemere ("But since piety also prevented proclaiming a dictator otherwise than through the consul, they asked the advice of the Augurs, and they recognized it as pious").

page 54

It is possible that for the first time they passed to the dictatorship directly from the consular tribunate, since for the year 434, also marked by the consular tribunate and the dictatorship, the sources also recorded a consular pair (Liv. IV. 23. 1-2), which, it is possible, separated them in time. In the case of the first proclamation of a dictator by means of a consular tribune, this doubt is not altogether surprising. Most likely, it was caused by the fact (this was noticed by L. Lange 95, but his thesis was later forgotten in historiography) that in the text of the lex de dictatore creando, adopted long before the introduction of the consular tribunate, it could, of course, only be about declaring the dictator through the consul (originally - praetor). The question, therefore, arose as to whether the dictator's proclamation through the consular tribune was consistent with this law. Livy goes on to add quite definitely that the difficulty was resolved by appealing to the Augurs, who justified the sacral permissibility of this act .96 In the future, as can be judged from the ancient tradition, such doubts did not arise, and the military tribunes with consular authority freely announced the dictator (like the consuls, in agreement with the Senate, but without the approval of the national assembly 97 ), independently performing preliminary bird assignments.

Thus, it is impossible to imagine the performance of their main official functions without conducting auspices by the consular tribunes, therefore, they must be recognized as having the right to request the will of the gods. L. Lange did not see any reason for uncertainty in this, noting that the auspices of the tribuni militum consulari potestate were the same as those of interrex, i.e. maxima, because without the auspicia maxima, the state could not exist .98 99 E. Herzog did not see any differences in competence, including sacral ones, between Patrician and Plebeian members of the same higher magistracy, emphasizing that "even under the decemvirs, complete collegiality prevailed between patricians and Plebeians, and the concept of intercession, on which par potestas rested, made it possible to distinguish between the two groups." T. Mommsen believed that every member of the college had full privileges, without distinction of class affiliation .101 He noted that the assumption of auspiciaries only for Patrician consular tribunes contradicts the essence of this political institution, since it does not correspond not only to the principle of collegiality, but also to the cyclical order of performance of the duties of the highest authority by individual tribunes. In addition, in this case, it would certainly "require the reservation of at least one seat in the college for patricians" 102, about which the sources say nothing. We are inclined to share Mommsen's opinion on the grounds that it is, in our opinion, impossible to prove the opposite. If we assume that before the Ogulniev Law of 300 BC, Plebeians could not perform public auspices, then it is impossible, for example, to understand who carried them out while the Plebeian dictator was in power. As long as there were no Plebeian representatives in the supreme executive structures, the patricians could claim that Plebeians had no right to communicate with the gods on behalf of the community. But as soon as they appeared, the patricians, in our opinion, had to recognize such an opportunity for members of another class. Otherwise, the functioning of higher magistracies would be disrupted, some of whose members would not be fully politically capable (which, in the conditions of a relatively small number of executive power holders, threatened to adversely affect state life).-

Lunge. 95 Uber Zahl und Amisgewalt... S. 261.

96 See above, note 94.

Kaser М. 97 Rumische Rechtsgeschichte. 2. Aufl. Gottingen, 1978. S. 44. 98 Lange. Uber Zahl und Amtsgewalt. S. 269-271.

99 См. Lohrano G. Plebei magistratus, patricii magistratus, magistratus populi Romani // SDHI. 1975. 41. P. 271.

Herzog. 100 Geschichte und System... S. 738.

Mommsen. 101 Op. cit. S. 172.

102 Ibid. S. 173.

page 55

as a whole). Of course, the right of auspicium has always belonged "by nature" only to the patricians, but the Patrician curiate organization (by adopting the lex curiata de imperio no to each higher official) delegated it for the time being to the Plebeian magistrates.

Military tribunes with consular authority could not only find out the will of the gods by performing bird divinations, but, as Livy tells us, they could also perform expiatory sacrifices on behalf of the community .103 Consequently, their sacred competence as an integral part of the powers of magistrates cum imperio cannot be denied.

Another proof that the collegium of consulary military tribunes belongs to the highest offices, and that they themselves belong to the holders of the imperium, is that they were eponymous magistrates. As such, they appear to us because they appear in the consular fasts 104 ; Mommsen recognized them as such when, shortly before his death, he turned to the analysis of a newly found fragment of the Capitoline fasts 105 . F. Adcock, noting the inconvenience of having six (the most common number of consular tribunes in sources) eponyms of one year, suggested that The Romans solved this difficulty by naming the year after the person who performed the ritual nail-driving ceremony in the temple of Jupiter on the Ides of September, i.e., praetor maximus 106 . According to the author, it could have been one of the consuls or consular tribunes. R. Palmer, analyzing and correcting the information of the fast (dating, in particular, the first appearance of the college of four consular tribunes not in 426, but in 428 BC), emphasized that eponymous magistrates in the V-first half of the IV centuries. There were either praetors-consuls or tribunes of consulship 107 . It seems to us that during the existence of the consular tribunate, the role of eponyms was played by representatives of this college and the consulate (which was no longer the original praetorship by this time), respectively. F.'s assumption We are not convinced by Adcock about the convenience of using the name praetor maximus alone for this purpose. For when, in 363 B.C., a dictator was first appointed clavi figendi causa, bearing in mind that according to the ancient law this rite was performed by praetor maximus, the custom that took place in the first years after the expulsion of the kings was already thoroughly forgotten (Liv. VII. 3.5; 8). Apparently, in the approximately one - hundred-year period of the second half of the fifth and first half of the fourth centuries BC, i.e., just during the existence of the consular tribunate, this rite was not remembered, and there was no official who performed it. According to our reasoning, therefore, it was impossible for him to replace several consular tribunes as one magistrate-eponym.

So, based on the above, we recognize tribuni militum consular! potestate the native empire. At the same time, the set of arguments lacks another one, namely, confirmation by sources of the adoption of the lex curiata de imperio in relation to the consular tribunes, by which the magistrates elected in the centuriate comitia were given the highest authority. The curiate Law on the Empire has repeatedly been the object of special analysis in the research literature , 108 since it was an important link in the delegation of state leadership by the community to the magistrate. As a rule, historians do not find any mention of this law in the ancient tradition

Liv. 103 V. 17. 1: eumque adhibere tribuni militum Cornelius Postumiusque ad prodigii Albani procurationem ac deos rite placandos coepere ("together with him, the military tribunes Cornelius and Postumius, as a result of the Alban sign, began to propitiate the gods according to the rite").

104 CIL. I. V., 1863. P. 17-20.

Mommsen Th. 105 Das Neugefundene Bruchstiick der Capitolinischen Fasten // Hermes. 1903. Bd 38. Ht 1. S. 117.

Adcock. 106 Op. cit. P. 12-13.

Palmer. 107 Op. cit. P. 234.

Luhtow U. van. 108 Die lex curiata de imperio // ZSS. 1952. LXIX. S. 154-171; Nicholls /../. The Content of the lex curiata // AJPh. 1967. LXXXVIII. P. 257-278; Develin R. Lex curiata and the Competence of Magistrates // Mnemosyne. 1977. XXX. Fasc. I. P. 49-65; Tokmakov V. N. Kuriatnye komitsii i voennye magistratury v Rannem Rime [Curiate commissions and military magistracies in Early Rome]. Dokl. conf. Of the Russian Association of Antiquarians in 1996 and 1997, Moscow, 1997, pp. 121-130.

page 56

in the case of these magistrates, and this, apparently, sometimes does not allow them to speak out decisively in favor of recognizing for the consular military tribunes the totality of rights arising from the possession of the empire. Indeed, the authors of the political and legal works of the Late Republic, written when the consular tribunate had long since become the property of the distant past, did not mention it in connection with the lex curiata de imperio. In the historical narrative, however, our chief informant, Titus Livy, when describing the events of the period of the existence of the office of military tribunes with consular power, usually does not mention the adoption of the curiate law either in connection with them or with the consuls. Apparently, for the author of Ab urbe condita, it did not make sense to list all the procedures for electing and assuming the office of new magistrates every time, endlessly repeating. Nevertheless, Livy has a very definite and eloquent testimony to this effect. It is contained not in the books describing the times of the consular tribunate, but in the IX book of his work. Recounting the dictatorship of Lucius Papirius Cursor 309 BC and on the adoption of the Curia's law granting Togo the empire, Livy notes that the first to vote was the Curia of Faucia, which was associated with two disasters for Rome - its fall in the Gallic invasion and the peace of Caudine .109 Since the city was captured by the Gauls in 390 BC under the consulship of the military tribunes (Liv. V. 36. 12; 48.8; VI. 1.5), it follows that the Curia of Faucia was the first to vote in the adoption of the lex curiata de imperio on these magistrates, and not on any other. This argument finally proves what we already think is obvious: the tribuni militum consulari potestate were magistrates with the Empire.

In historiography, there is another controversial issue related to the endowment of an empire to consular tribunes (for researchers who recognize their presence) - the problem of" splitting " the empire between tribunes. More precisely, there are still two questions (they sometimes mix, and the authors conduct a correspondence polemic, talking about different things). The first question is whether all of the military tribunes appointed in a certain year-the commanders of the structural divisions of the Roman army-were elevated to the rank of consuls (by voting in the centuriate comitia and granting the empire in the curiate ones) or only some part of them. The second question is whether all of the consular tribunes who received the empire at any time during their official term possessed it equally. According to the first of them, there are two opposite points of view. One of them was clearly formulated by G. De Sanctis and consists in the fact that all military tribunes of one year (and their number, in his opinion, was related to the number of thousands of military recruitment) received the consular imperium 110 . Another is represented by S. Stavely, who believed that not all tribuni militum were endowed with the empire, but only a part of them, which was determined by the Senate depending on their total number, but no more than six .111 The quantitative composition of this magistracy and the factors that influenced it should be considered in a special article, but now we will only note that, in our opinion, the change in the number of seats in the collegium of consular tribunes was determined by voting in centuriate comitia, and not only by a senate resolution (Liv. V. 1.2). Turning to the second of the above-mentioned ones, questions - about the actual use of the empire either as equally distributed among all the consular tribunes, or as not subject to division-let's say that V. N. Tokmakov has already given a reasoned answer to it 112 . Its essence boils down to the fact that there was no fragmentation of the imperium in the Roman Republic; during the functioning of the consulate, it passed (which is confirmed by the transition of the symbols of the imperium - lictors with chamfers) alternately from one consul to another (monthly, and in war - hedgehog-

Liv. 109 IX. 38. 15: atque ei legem curiatam de imperio ferenti triste omen diem diffidit, quod Faucia curia fuit principium, duabus insignis cladibus, captae urbis et Caudinae pacis, quod utroque anno eiusdem curiae fuerat principium.

De Sanctis. 110 Op. cit. P. 54-56.

Staveley. 111 Op. cit. P. 32.

Tokmakov. 112 Sacral aspects ... pp. 46-47.

page 57

day by lot or agreement), but in cases where both consuls simultaneously commanded different troops, each of them was granted a full imperium. The same applies, according to V. N. Tokmakov, to military tribunals with consular authority, with which we fully agree. Of course, all military tribunes who received the status of consuls in the comitia had the right to possess the empire, but this does not mean that in practice everyone had only a "piece" of it, equal to a third, quarter, sixth or eighth part of the summum imperium. The mechanism of implementation of imperium in republican times provided for its "division" among the highest magistrates not in such a literal sense, but in the sense of the order of performance of heavy duties that followed from it.

So, we come to the conclusion that the consular military tribunes were the bearers of the potestas of the highest officials and had the imperium "not cut off" in either military or civil powers, which was carried out in the normal order for a collegial magistracy. It remains only to compare their general competence with the consular one, since historiography provides various results of such a comparison. One point of view, which was initiated by E. Herzog, defends the limited nature of the powers of the consular tribunes in comparison with the consular ones .113 He believed that by making concessions to the Plebeians in the form of the creation of a magistracy of consular tribunes, the Patricians in practice reduced their power, having previously taken care that the law that introduced the new structure did not address the issues of authority. In his opinion, there was "a general perception of the limited power of the consular tribunes" 114 , which was expressed, in particular, in doubts about the possibility of a new constitution in 426. proclamation of the dictator through one of them. T. Mommsen suggested a different approach, considering that the competence of the consular tribunes was identical to that of the consuls, but their position was not equal in respect of honors and privileges following the resignation of the president . This interpretation has been accepted by many researchers with variations ranging from the wording: potestas and imperium-consular, but the rank is lower than consular 116, to the statement: potestas-consular, imperium - not clear, and honors - not consular 117 .

Summing up what we have said earlier, we note with reference to the comparison of the two magistracies that we consider the consular tribunes as curule magistrates, without any doubt that in the performance of their official duties they had insignia that symbolized not only real power, but also the respect paid to them by their fellow citizens. As for the concordance in the scope of powers that we recognize, it is particularly significant that the majority of researchers ignore the fact that, although the office of censors was created in 443 BC, the compilation of the list of senators (senatus lectio) before the reorganization of the magistracy system under the laws of Licinius-Sextius was carried out by the consular tribunes, as well as by the consuls. Festus explicitly states that the consular tribunes performed this procedure on an equal basis with the consuls .119 Titus Livy reports that censors at that time conducted a census of citizens (Liv. IV. 8.3; 22.7), solved the problem of debts (Liv. VI. 27.4; 31.2), but never notes that censors conducted a senatus lectio during the existence of the consular tribunate, i.e. its data do not contradict the testimony of Festus. Therefore, we agree with R. Ridley that this right passed to the censors only at the end of the IV century BC. 120 and therefore the creation of censorship was not so direct a consequence of the desire of the patricians to exclude from the jurisdiction of the new magistracy, which included

Herzog. 113 Geschichte und System. S. 735-738.

114 Ibid. S. 738.

Mommsen. 115 Rumisches Staatsrecht... S. 172-174.

Willems. 116 U k op. p. 300.

Heurgon. 117 Op.cit. P. 175.

118 With the exception of G. De Sanctis (Op. cit. p. 58) and R. Ridley (Op. cit. p.448).

Fest. 119 P. 290 L: post exactos eos consules quoque et tribuni militum consulari potestate... legebant.

Ridley. 120 Op. cit. P. 448.

page 58

open access to the Plebeians (the consular tribunate), the formation of the Senate, as it is often understood in the literature 121 . Thus, when establishing the magistracy of consular military tribunes, fundamental restrictions on the scope of their powers were not laid down.

We began our analysis of the problem by noting the fact that it is precisely the consular nature of power that is used in the ancient tradition of the title of the position of consular tribunes. In what sense was their competence "consular"? Our answer: in the sense that there were no issues within the competence of the consuls that would have been excluded from the sphere of activity of the consular military tribunes. Even what was denied or questioned in the research literature, for example, the right to triumph as an integral part of the military imperium or the right to appoint a city prefect as a manifestation of imperium in civil administration, in our opinion, did not distinguish the consular tribunate from the consulate. In other words, the scope of their powers completely coincided. But what was the difference between them, what was the vaguely reflected difference in the sources, with which researchers tried to find the terms "rank" or"position"? In our historical model, we define it as a difference in the nature of magistracies: one (the consulate) was the highest ordinary, the other (the consular tribunate) was the highest extraordinary. The highest executive power in the Roman Republic, both ordinary and extraordinary, had the same content. Its limitations or extensions did not concern the competence of magistrates, not the empire itself (which was not only "indivisible" between officials, but also "non-separable" in the sense of partial application), but either the term of office, or the ability to challenge the decision of the magistrate by provocation or intercession. At the same time, collegial magistrates (both ordinary and extraordinary) had a maximum one-year term of office, but their decisions were not free from appeal in comitia and protest from colleagues or plebeian tribunes. It is to the powers of the highest collegial magistrates that the concept of "consular power" was primarily applied, as in the narrow sense advisory. In a broad sense, according to our ideas, the concept of "consular power "in the Roman political and legal consciousness of the Republic was synonymous with the concept of"supreme executive power". Therefore, its use in the name tribuni militum consular! potestate did not mean the ordinary nature of the magistracy, but testified, on the one hand, to its collegiality, and on the other, to the supremacy in public administration. The scope of the powers of military tribunes with consular authority is thus defined as potestas par with respect to each other, potestas maior with respect to other concurrent magistrates, potestas consularis and imperium summum with respect to Roman citizens.

THE COMPETENCE OF ROMAN CONSULAR MILITARY TRIBUNES

V.V. Dementyeva

The article ascertains the competence of tribuni militum consular! potestate in the period of 444-367 ВС on the basis of Greek and Latin writers' data. The disputable questions treated here are: historicity of this magistrate's name in the ancient tradition, its characteristics as a magistrate or promagistrate, its status as a curule magistrate, the applicability of the term "consular" to it, its relation to imperium, etc.

Analyzing the sources on consular tribunes' exercising their power the author concludes that they were endowed with imperium in military, civil and sacral spheres. Specially discussed are the questions of their right to triumph, to appoint praefectus urhi, to conduct public auspices, etc. It is maintained that there were no legal regulations restricting their power. In the author's opinion, the term "consular" was applied to these magistrates' power (1) in a narrow sense, denoting its collegiality; (2) in a broader sense, as a synonym of supreme executive power.

Consular military tribunate is interpreted as a supreme extraordinary magistrate. Military tribunes' power is qualified as potestas par in respect of each other, potestas maior in respect of other magistrates and as potestas consularis and imperium summum in respect of Roman citizens.

Sclwegler See, for example: 121 Op. cit. S. 117; Staveley. Op. cit . P. 30.

Permanent link to this publication: