the conspiracy of egnatius rufus and the election of suffect consuls under augustus

The Conspiracy of Egnatius Rufus and the Election of Suffect Consuls under AugustusAuthor(s): Darryl A. PhillipsSource: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 46, H. 1 (1st Qtr., 1997), pp. 103-112Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436453 .

Accessed: 13/03/2014 16:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 153.9.241.102 on Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:03:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436453?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE CONSPIRACY OF EGNATIUS RUFUS AND THE ELECTION OF SUFFECT CONSULS UNDER AUGUSTUS

The institution of suffect consulships became a regular feature of Roman government toward the middle of Augustus' principate. Though the develop- ment of this institution is noted by constitutional and political historians, little detailed attention has been paid to the procedural particulars that brought the suffect consuls to office. Many studies of government offer generalized re- marks that blur the details surrounding the adoption of regular suffect magistracies, stating, for example, that two suffects were elected for every year after 5 B.C. for a six-month term of office.' Specialized studies of elections in the principate of Augustus are seldom concerned with the procedure for electing suffecti to office, focusing instead on the identity of the suffecti and their role in Augustus' regime.2

This paper aims to clarify the procedural process for the election of suffect consuls, with particular attention to those elected during the last decades of the first century B.C. I will demonstrate that before 1 B.C. there was no set date on which suffect consuls were elected to or entered into office. The available evidence for the dates of suffect consuls is collected and surveyed below, with particular attention paid to the mid-year elections in 19 B.C. for which we have a comparatively full account.

R. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton, 1984) 21, offers the general remark: "From 5 B.C. Augustus doubled the number of consuls each year by replacing the traditional pair of 'ordinary' consuls (who continued to open the year) with two 'suffects' on I July." Similarly, T.P. Wiseman, New Men in the Roman Senate 139 B.C. - A.D. 14 (Oxford, 1971) 164-65, states that there were "two [suffecti] per year after 5 B.C., when the office became a six-monthly tenure." Suffect consuls receive only brief mention in Kubler's articles in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopadie der klassischen Altertumswis- senschaft (hereafter RE), s.v. "consul", 4.1.1112-38 (1900) and s.v. "suffectus," 7.652 (1931). T. Mommsen, Le Droit Public Romain (Paris, 1889-96) Vol. 1, 247-48; Vol. 3, 93-96, discusses the comitial procedure for electing suffect consuls, but does not attempt to reconstruct with precision the length of the term of suffect consuls or the date of their election.

2 R. Syme, Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford, 1986) passim, especially 1-103; P.A. Brunt, "Lex Valeria Cornelia," JRS 51 (1961) 71-83, especially Appendix I, 79-8 1; G. Tibiletti, Principe e magistrati repubblicani (Rome, 1953) 112-13, discusses the election of suffecti, but is primarily interested in the election of suffect consuls as it relates to his interpretation of the Lex Valeria Cornelia of A.D. 5.

Historia, Band XLVI/1 (1997) C Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart



104 DARRYL A. PHILLIPS

Suffect magistrates replaced other holders of office after the start of their term. Tradition holds that the institution of suffect magistracies was introduced in 509 B.C., the flrst year of the Republic. Livy records that L. Tarquinius Collatinus resigned as one of the first consuls and L. lunius Brutus, now sole consul, oversaw the election of a new colleague.3 Later in the same year Brutus died and the suffect consul P. Valerius had to conduct an election to replace him. Sp. Lucretius was duly elected, but soon he too died. Finally, M. Horatius Pulvillus was elected suffect consul to serve the remainder of the year with Valerius.4 Thus from the start of the Republic we find that suffect consuls might be elected to replace either a consul who resigned from office or one who died in office.5

Suffect consuls, just like their counterparts the consules ordinarii who normally took office at the start of the year, had to be elected by the comitia centuriata to properly effect their creatio.6 Several examples illustrate this point. In 217 B.C., after C. Flaminius died at the battle of Lake Trasimene, M. Atilius Regulus was elected suffect consul in his place. Livy marks the election by using a technical phrase: consule creato M. Atilio Regulo (22.25.16). Two years later, Ti Sempronius Gracchus, as consul, presided over the election of a colleague to replace L. Postumius Albinus, who had died while consul designate. Livy writes: comitia consuli uni rogando in locum L. Postumii edicuntur. Creatur ingenti consensu Marcellus (23.31.12-13). Finally, in a letter Cicero makes explicit reference to the procedure used by the comitia centuriata when Caesar presided over the impromptu election of a suffect consul for the final

day of 44 B.C.: Ille [Caesar] autem, qui comitiis tributis esset auspicatus, centuriata habuit; consulem hora septima renuntiavit, qui usque ad Kalendas Ian. esset; quae erantfuturae mane postridie (Fam. 7.30.1).

Once elected, the suffect consul would need to have his authority confirmed by the passage of a lex curiata and have his assumption of office marked by the

3 Livy 2.2. 10-1 1: [Brutus] collegam sibi comitiis centuriatis creavit P. Valeriumn. For other

references to the consuls of this year, see T.R.S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the

Roman Republic, Vol. I (New York, 1951) 1-3.

4 Livy 2.8.3-4: [P. Valeriusj tum demum comitia collegae subrogando habuit. Creatus Sp.

Lucretius consul, qui magno natu non sufficientibus iam viribus ad consularia munera

obeunda intra paucos dies moritur. Suffectus in Lucreti locum M. Horatius Pulvillus.

5 There are numerous other examples of suffect consuls elected to replace deceased

magistrates, for example: M'. Acilius Glabrio in 154 B.C. (A. Degrassi, ed., Inscriptiones

Italicae 13.1.1, 3 [Rome, 1947], [hereafter Inscript. Ital.]), and Ap. Claudius Pulcher in

130 B.C. (Inscript. Ital. 13.1.3). Q. Fabius Maximus replaced M. Claudius Marcellus

after his abdication in 215 B.C. (Livy, 23.31.14).

6 Mommsen, Vol. 1, 247-48. It is possible for a consul ordinarius not to be elected until

later in the year. For an example, see below the case of Q. Lucretius Vespillo who was not

elected consul ordinarius until well into the summer of 19 B.C.



The Conspiracy of Egnatius Rufus and the Election of Suffect Consuls 105

first official taking of auspices.7 By the late Republic, the pasage of a lex curiata was a mere formality, conferring imperium upon a consul who had taken up his office. A lex curiata was, in a sense, a confirmation of authority and seems always to have been passed without impediment. But difficulties did arrise in the taking of auspices, which officially marked the assumption of office.

When Ti. Sempronius Gracchus oversaw the election of a suffect consul in 215 B.C., the victorious candidate, C. Claudius Marcellus, received an adverse sign when taking the auspices to enter into office.8 Marcellus abdicated his position, for although duly elected, the omen prevented him from taking office as consul suffectus. Although Marcellus took the auspices right after being elected, designated officials could delay the taking of auspices and thus post- pone their assumption of office. During the Republic, when suffect consuls were usually elected to replace a consul who had died in office, there would be no need to put off the assumption of office. In the imperial period, however, when pre-planned suffect magistracies were introduced to increase the number of consulships available, it would often be expedient to elect suffect consuls well in advance of the planned start of their term in office. Two clear examples come from the reign of Nero. T. Sextius Africanus, elected as consul suffectus for A.D. 59 at some point between March 5 and 28, did not take up office until later in the year, likely the first of July.9 Similarly, C. Ancius Cerealis was consul designate in April of A.D. 65 although he did not take office until July or August. 10

Suffect consulships were relatively uncommon throughout the Republican period, but gradually became a regular feature of imperial government.11 The

7 Mommsen, Vol. 1, 92; Vol. 3, 278-86. Generally on the comitia curiata, see L.R. Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies (Ann Arbor, 1966) 3-5.

8 This case is discussed in detail by J. Linderski, "The Augural Law," ANRW 2.16.3 (1986) 2 168-73.

9 G. Henze, ed., Acta Fratrum Arvalium (Berlin, 1874) LXXII-LXXIII names Sextius as present at sacrifices on March 4 and 5 of A.D. 59. He is named again on March 28 as consul designatus (LXXIV). Sextius probably took office on July 1: the ordinarii were still in office on June 23 (LXXIV; CIL 4.3340 tab. 147); Sextius was in office by July 10 (CIL 4.3340 tab. 143). The case is discussed by Talbert, 203. See also P.A. Gallivan, "Some Comments on the Fasti for the Reign of Nero," CQ 24 (1974) 291.

10 Tac., Ann. 15.74. Ancius' career is discussed by Gallivan, 310. 11 The Triumviral years saw gross irregularities in the conduct of elections, and numerous

suffect magistrates were elected, including the incredible number of 67 praetors in the year 36 B.C. (Cass. Dio, 48.43.2). F. Millar, "Triumvirate and Principate," JRS 63 (1973) 50-67, provides an excellent discussion of elections during this period. Cf. C. Meier, "C. Caesar Divi filius and the Formation of the Alternative in Rome," in M. Toher and K. A. Raaflaub, eds., Between Republic and Empire. Interpretations of Augustus and His

Principate (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1990) 54-70, who addresses the lack of an alternative to the Republican structure of government.




first suffect consul under Augustus was elected to replace the princeps, who stepped down from his eleventh consulship on July 1, 23 B.C. Suffect consuls were later elected for the years 19, 16, and 12 B.C., and for almost every year after 5 B.C.12 With the introduction of annual suffect consuiships, we would expect to find a clear limit to the terms of office of the magistrates and set dates for the annual election of suffect officials. Our evidence, however, suggests that no fixed rules existed for the terms of office or for the date of election of suffect consuls, at least not before 1 B.C.

The date on which the suffect consuls took office from A.D. 1 to the end of Augustus' principate is clearly indicated in the Capitoline fasti as the kalends of July.'3 Unfortunately, the recording system used prior to A.D. I did not include the date of entry into office. Recent work on the Capitoline fasti by J. Bodel has has shed some light on this change in the recording practice.'4 Tablets I - IV of

the Capitoline fasti simply indent the names of the suffect consuls to separate them from the others. Tablet V, the first surviving entry on which is the suffect consul of A.D. 1, lists suffect consuls in a single column, indented, and preceded by the date of their entry into office. Thus, the set date of July 1, recorded for the assumption of suffect consulships starting with the year A.D. 1, reflects a change in recording practices and a chance survival in our sources, it

does not necessarily indicate a change in Roman electoral practices. Other

evidence, however, does let us draw some conclusions about the date of entry into office of suffect consuls before A.D. 1.

The evidence for the terms of office of all consuls in the years of Augustus' principate in which there were suffect consuls is collected below. After each

annual heading, reference is made to the extant fasti. The consules ordinarii and

the suffecti are listed, followed by a summary of their tenure of office when

known. Under each heading, the evidence for dating the term of offices for the

consuls, both ordinarii and suffecti, is set forth.'5

23 B.C. (Inscript. Ital. 13.1.1, 2, 9, 18, 20, 22) Ordinarius: Augustus XI (abdicates July 1)

Suffectus: L. Sestius Quirinalis (from July 1) Ordinarius: Cn. Calpurnius Piso

12 Only the years 3 B.C. and A.D. 14 did not have suffect consuls. The names of all of the

consuls during Augustus' principate are know except for the suffect consuls of A.D. 13,

the only incomplete year on the fasti. 13 Inscript. Ital. 13.1.1. 14 J. Bodel, "Chronology and Succession 1: Fasti Capitolini Fr. XXXIId, the Sicilian Fasti,

and the Suffect Consuls of 36 B.C.," ZPE 96 (1993) 259-66.

15 Degrassi, Inscript. Ital. 13.1, 512-33, collects the testimonia that allow for more precise

dating of the terms of office of the consuls under Augustus. Degrassi's work is used

extensively here with minor additions and corrections.




Augustus and Calpurnius Piso begin the year in office. Augustus resigns from his consulship and assumes tribunician power on the first of July (Cass. Dio, 53.32). L. Sestius Quirinalis presumably took office on this date, having been elected at some earlier time.

19 B.C. (Inscript. Ital. 13.1.19, 20, 21) Ordinarius: C. Sentius Saturninus (sole consul until at least August 1,

abdicates before October 12) Suffectus: M. Vinicius (consul by October 12)

Ordinarius: Q. Lucretius Vespillo (consul after August 1, by October 12)16

Sentius was sole consul at the start of the year. The second consulship seems to have been reserved for Augustus (Vell. Pat. 2.92.2: Sentius forte et solus et absente Caesare consul; Cass. Dio 54.10.1: o ya'p At5YoUcrro; 0ou& 'COTE T1lp11toav oi tiv dpXiv C86'axo). Sentius is alone in office on August 1 (CIL 2.2255). Res Gestae 11 states that Lucretius and Vinicius were consuls when Augustus arrived back in Rome on October 12. The elections of 19 B.C. are discussed in greater detail below.

16 B.C. (Inscript. Ital. 13.1.18, 20, 21) Ordinarius: L. Domitius Ahenobarbus Ordinarius: P. Cornelius Scipio

Suffectus: L. Tarius Rufus

No dates of office are known for the consuls of this year.

12 B.C. (Inscript. Ital. 13.1.1, 7, 18, 20, 21) Ordinarius: M. Valerius Messalla (dies by March 6)

Suffecti: C. Valgius Rufus (by March 6, abdicates after August 29) C. Caninius Rebilius (after August 29, dies in office)

Ordinarius: P. Sulpicius Quirinus (abdicates after August 29) Suffectus: L. Volusius Saturninus (after August 29)

Valerius Messalla and Sulpicius Quirinus begin the year in office. Valerius dies by March 6, for Sulpicius and Valgius are consuls when Augustus was elected pontifex maximus on that date (Res Gestae 10). They are still in office on August 29 (CIL 6.21158). At some point near the end of the year Volusius is sole consul in office (CIL 3.727).

5 B.C. (Inscript. Ital. 13.1.10, 20) Ordinarius: Augustus XII (abdicates after April 11 or July 1)

16 Vita Vergili 35 records that Cn. Sentius (a mistake for C.) and Q. Lucretius were consuls at Virgil's death on September 21, but the author is likely giving the names of the ordinarii of the year. Starting toward the end of Augustus' reign, dating practices generally made use of the consuls ordinarii for the entire year. See Mommsen, Vol. III, 103-105.




Suffectus: Q. Haterius (after April 11 or July 1) Ordinarius: L. Cornelius Sulla (abdicates after April 1 1)

Suffecti: L. Vinicius (after April 11, abdicates by July 16 - Aug. 13) C. Sulpicius Galba (by July 16 - August 13)

Augustus and Cornelius Sulla begin the year in office. They are both still in office on April 11 (Pliny, HN 7.60). Augustus may still have been in office on July 1 (CIL 6.1244: COS XII TRIBUNIC POTESTAT XIX, could refer to 5 or 4 B.C.). Haterius and Vinicius take over at some unknown point, but Sulpicius Galba replaces Vinicius before the period July 16- August 13 (CIL 6.9319c).

4 B.C. (Inscript. Ital. 13.1.10, 20, 23) Ordinarius: C. Calvisius Sabinus

Suffectus: C. Caelius Ordinarius: L. Passienus Rufus (abdicates after July 7)

Suffectus: Galus Sulpicius (after July 7)

Calvisius Sabinus and Passienus Rufus are in office at the start of the year. Passienus is still in office on July 7 (CIL 15.4588). No other dates are known.

2 B.C. (Inscript. Ital. 13.1.20, 23) Ordinarius: Augustus XIII (abdicates after August 1, before Sept. 18)

Suffecti: C. Fufius Geminus (by September 18) Q. Fabricius (by December 1)

Ordinarius: M. Plautius Silvanus (abdicates after Jan. 28, before Aug. 1) Suffectus: L. Caninius Gallus (by August 1)

Augustus and Plautius Silvanus begin the year in office. They are still in office on January 28 (CIL 6.9730). Silvanus abdicates before August 1, for Augustus and Caninius Gallus are consuls when the temple of Mars Ultor is dedicated (Vell. Pat. 2.100). Fufius Geminus replaces Augustus by September 18 (CIL 6.36809=ILS 9250). Fabricius replaces Fufius Geminus by December 1

(CIL 1.749).

1 B.C. (Inscript. Ital. 13.1.20, 23, 24) Ordinarius: Cossus Cornelius Lentulus (abdicates after March 16)

Suffectus: A. Plautius (after March 16) Ordinarius: L. Calpurnius Piso (abdicates after March 16)

Suffectus: A. Caecina Severus (after March 16)

Cossus Cornelius Lentulus and Calpurnius Piso begin the year in office and

are still in office on March 16 (RE 17.2.1429-30 n. 91). Plautius and Caecina Severus replace them after March 16.

A.D. 1- 12 Suffecti take office on July 1 (Inscript. Ital. 13.1.1)




The pattern of suffect consuls taking over on the first of July that became the norm around A.D. 1 may in fact go back to Augustus' resignation date in 23 B.C. But evidence for the years between 12 B.C. and 1 B.C. reveals that July 1 cannot always have been the set date for assuming suffect magistracies. In 12 B.C., Valgius Rufus replaced the deceased consul Valerius Messalla before March 6, and the later suffect consuls Caninius Rebilius and Volusius Saturni- nus were not in office until after August 29. No clear dates are indicated for 5 B.C., but July 1 cannot hold for all of the magistracies. In this year we again find three suffect consuls holding office, Vinicius who was in office sometime between April 11 and July 16 - August 13, Haterius who took over after April 11 or July 1, and Sulpicius Galba who later replaced Vinicius by late July or early August. Passienus Rufus, a consul ordinarius of 4 B.C., was still in office on July 7. The year 2 B.C. once again had three suffecti, one in office by August 1, another after August 1, but before September 18, and the last by December 1. Finally, in 1 B.C., the suffect consuls took office after March 16.

From the above survey of dates, it appears possible that the tradition of suffect consulates beginning on the first of July could have been established in 1 B.C. at the earliest, for Augustus was the consul ordinarius in 2 B.C. and did not step down until after August 1. Thus, starting in either 1 B.C. or A.D. 1, the suffect consuls regularly took office on the first of July. Before this date there is a great deal of variance in the terms of office of the suffect consuls.

With the available evidence for the terms of office for suffect consuls under Augustus thus surveyed, what evidence is there for the dates of the elections of suffect consuls to office? Given the general dearth of information regarding the dates of elections under Augustus, we are fortunate to have a rather detailed account of the mid-year elections of 19 B.C. because of the interest of our sources in the conspiracy of Egnatius Rufus. The year 19 B.C. can thus serve as a case study for the schedule of elections for suffect consuls in the first half of Augustus' principate.

Our understanding of the conspiracy of Egnatius Rufus is somewhat con- fused because our main source, Velleius Paterculus, comes to the events not within his normal chronological framework, but in a digression on conspiracies against Augustus.'7 After briefly recounting the uprising and the death of Egnatius Rufus, Velleius returns to this episode once again, but this time focusing on the actions of C. Sentius Saturninus, the consul in 19 B.C. who had

17 Vell. Pat. 2.91.2-4. A.J. Woodman, Velleius Paterculus. The Caesarian and Augustan

Narrative (2.41-93) (Cambridge, IJ.K., 1983) 269-78, discusses the structure of Velleius'

digression on domestic affairs. Cassius Dio, 54.10.1-2, is our other main source. Though Dio is clearly describing the same events as Velleius, he never names Egnatius Rufus as

the leader of the conspiracy. Brief mentions of the conspiracy are also found in several

other authors: Tac., Ann. 1.10.3; Sen., Brev. Vit., 4.5; Sen., Clem. 1.9.6; and Suet., Aug.

19.1.




prohibited Rufus from standing for office.18 To reconstruct the events in se- quence, it is necessary to combine the two accounts given by Velleius with Cassius Dio's briefer description of the conspiracy.

The career of Egnatius Rufus can be reconstructed with accuracy. Velleius (2.92.4) tells us that Egnatius hoped: ut praeturam aedilitati, ita consulatum praeturae se iuncturum. He led his conspiracy after he failed to be considered for the available consulship in 19 B.C. Thus, his praetorship should be placed in 20 B.C. and his aedileship in 21 B.C.19

As aedile, Egnatius Rufus had gathered a large popular following and had earned the hatred of Augustus.20 Immediately after his tenure as aedile, Rufus held a praetorship and continued to rise in popularity. In 19 B.C., at the height of his popularity, Rufus decided to try for the consulship that had been vacant since the start of the year. Sentius, the sole consul, refused to accept Rufus' declaration of candidacy.2' Velleius provides no reason for Sentius' refusal, but he had earlier hinted at Rufus' shady past and precarious financial situation, and the holding of consecutive magistracies may have been illegal.22 Sentius' veto

18 Vell. Pat. 2.92.1-6. 19 P. Badot, "A propos de la conspiration de M. Egnatius Rufus," Latomus 32 (1973) 606-

15, sets out the evidence and the interpretations of scholars for the dates of Rufus' offices. Badot, 611-12, mistakenly assuming that Rufus was campaigning for the consulship for 18 B.C. and not the available consulship for the remainder of 19 B.C., comes to the conclusion that Rufus was aedile in 20 B.C. and praetor in 19 B.C. The fact that Sentius was the presiding consul at the time of Rufus' bid for the consulship makes it clear that the election was for the vacant post for 19 B.C., for Sentius was later replaced by a suffect consul and could not preside over the elections for 18 B.C. Only brief mention is made of the conspiracy of Egnatius Rufus in the recent work by K.A. Raaflaub and L.J. Samons II, "Opposition to Augustus," in M. Toher and K. Raaflaub, eds., Between Republic and Empire (cit. n. II) 427.

20 Cass. Dio 53.24.4-6. 21 Vell. Pat. 2.92.4: et Egnatium florentem favore publico sperantemque ut praeturam

aedilitati, ita consulatum praeturae se iuncturum, profiteri vetuit. ... A.J. Holladay, "The

Elections of Magistrates in the Early Principate," Latomus 37 (1978) 879, mistakenly thinks that Augustus may have been exerting formal control over the list of candidates at this time, though it is clear that Sentius as presiding consul was responsible for refusing Rufus' candidacy.

22 Veil. Pat. 2.91.3: cum esset omniflagitiorum scelerumque conscientia mersus nec melior

illi resfamiliaris quam mensforet. ... The biennium, the one-year mandatory interval

between offices, seems not to have applied to Rufus' praetorship which followed immediately upon his aedileship, but could have barred him from standing for the consulship for the year following his praetorship. The case of Rufus' career raises interesting problems that the Romans themselves may not have been able to solve. The unusual circumstances of the mid-year consular election made it possible for Rufus, not then holding an office, to seek to be consul ordinarius for the year immediately following his praetorship. On the biennium, see A.E. Austin, "The Lex Annalis before Sulla," Latomus 17 (1958) 49-64, passim and especially 64 n. 1; E. Badian, "Caesar's cursus and the Intervals between Offices," JRS 49 (1959) 85.




of his candidacy apparently did not deter Rufus from campaigning, and he continued to rouse his supporters. Sentius went on to threaten that even if the people were to elect Rufus, he, as consul, would not announce the returns.23 Rufus and his supporters turned to arms. In the middle of the armed crisis, Dio tells us, the Senate sent envoys to Augustus who was on his way back to Rome from the east. The consular elections had apparently not yet taken place, for Augustus recommended one of the envoys, Q. Lucretius, to fill the vacant consulship.24 The envoys returned to Rome well ahead of Augustus. The rebellion of Egnatius Rufus was quickly put down and the conspirators were executed.25

Augustus was slowly making his way through Italy when the consular elections were finally held at Rome. The exact date of these elections is not known, but a date in late September or early October seems most likely.26 Q. Lucretius, the envoy endorsed by Augustus, and M. Vinicius were elected to serve as consuls for the remainder of the year. Q. Lucretius filled the vacant seat as consul ordinarius for the year; M. Vinicius, as consul suffectus, replaced C. Sentius who had served alone since the start of the year.27 The Senate voted extraordinary honors to Augustus, and sent out a large entourage, including the newly elected consul Q. Lucretius, to escort Augustus back into Rome.28 The

23 Vell. Pat. 2.92.4: et cum id non obtinuisset, iuravit, etiam sifactus esset consul suffragiis populi, tamen se eum non renuntiaturum. The constitutional question raised here has been much discussed. Was Rufus allowed to stand for office although his name was not entered onto an official list of candidates by the consul conducting the elections? Mommsen, Vol. 2, 117, and A.E. Austin, "'Professio' in the Abortive Election of 184 B.C.," Historia I 1

(1962) 252-55, esp. 255 n.18, accept the likelihood that Rufus could only be prevented from standing for office if he was not qualified. The larger constitutional point that this case raises need not be debated here, for it is clear that the actual election was not held until after Rufus and his supporters had been arrested.

24 Cass. Dio 54.10.1-2. Dio states that Augustus appointed Q. Lucretius consul in 19 B.C., though it is clear that a meeting of the comitia centuriata was held at a later date and Lucretius, as well as M. Vinicius, was formally elected consul. Dio fails to note the proper procedure, though he may in fact give the correct reading of the event in that Augustus' recommendation of Lucretius' candidature proved decisive in his bid for election. Dio is interested in the de facto result more than the de iure process.

25 Veil. Pat. 2.91.4. 26 Sentius was sole consul until at least August 1 (CIL 2.2255). Vinicius and Lucretius were

in office by October 12 (Res Gestae 11). 27 Res Gestae 11 clearly states that Lucretius and Vinicius were consuls when Augustus

arrived back in Rome. Consular elections must have been held shortly after the conspiracy of Egnatius Rufus was put down, and C. Sentius must have abdicated his office, possibly on the suggestion of Augustus, though no reason is known.

28 Cass. Dio 54.10.4; Res Gestae I 1-12. Dio makes it clear that there were two distinct embassies sent to Augustus on his return from the east, though this point has often been overlooked. The first embassy was a small official party sent to inform Augustus about the conspiracy of Egnatius Rufus (Dio 54.10.1-2). The second was a large welcoming committee sent out after




day Augustus reentered the city, October 12, was named the Augustalia. On the first comitial day following his return, the comitia met formally to vote consular imperium for Augustus.29

The rather extraordinary example of 19 B.C. reveals that elections for a suffect consul could be held in the course of the year, even as late as September or October. The consul ordinarius of the year, C. Sentius Saturninus, presided over the election of his co-consul ordinarius as well as the election of the consul suffectus who took Sentius' place in office. Shortly after the assembly organ- ized by Sentius, another assembly was held, presumably under the direction of the new consuls Vinicius and Lucretius Vespillo, to vote consular imperium for Augustus.

The election of the suffect consul of 19 B.C. can serve as a model for the election of other suffecti before I B.C. Until the developed schedule for the terms of office for suffect officials was introduced in 1 B.C. or A.D. 1, it is unlikely that any fixed date for elections existed. Before 1 B.C., we should not even assume that suffect magistracies were planned from the start of the year. C. Sentius Saturninus' abdication of his consulship in 19 B.C. seems to have come as a surprise. Similarly, in the year 2 B.C., it seems unlikely that it was planned in advance to have three suffect consuls whose terms in office varied so greatly. Without fixed terms of office and without a fixed number of suffecti scheduled to assume magistracies, the elections for suffect magistrates would have had to be scheduled during the course of the year. The case of C. Sentius Saturninus shows that the responsibility for conducting these elections would normally fall to a consul ordinarius.

The introduction of regular suffect consulships did not come about in 5 B.C., at least not in its developed form. The evidence for suffect magistracies between 23 B.C. and l B.C. shows a marked variance in the dates and lengths of tenure of office. After several years of experimentation with annual suffect consulships starting in 5 B.C., a set pattern emerged shortly after 1 B.C. and served as the model for suffect magistracies for years to come.

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN Darryl A. Phillips

the conspiracy was crushed to escort Augustus into Rome. Q. Lucretius was on both delega-

tions, as a special envoy of praetorian rank in the first, as the new consul in the second. F.

Shipley (Res Gestae [Loeb Classical Text, Cambridge, 1961] 363 n.C) has the chronology

wrong when he offers the correction that Lucretius was not yet consul when the deputation

was sent out to escort Augustus to Rome. P.A. Brunt and J.M. Moore (Res Gestae Divi

Augusti [Oxford, 19671 53) pass over the point by presenting a vague chronology.

29 Cass. Dio 54.10.4-6. Dio simply states that the vote took place on the next day. The

comitia, however, could not meet until the 17th of October, unless the assembly was held

on the 12th itself. It is not at all certain whether the trinum nundinum, the traditional

three-week waiting period before a vote, would have been respected. Cf. P.A. Brunt, "Lex

de Imperio Vespasiani," JRS 67 (1977) 99-100, for a discussion of the trinum nundinum

in the Imperial period.



the conspiracy of egnatius rufus and the election of suffect consuls under augustus

Documents