[Ebooks PDF] download The magister equitum in the Roman Republic The Evolution of an Extraordinary Magistracy 1st Edition Bradley Jordan full chapters

Visit https://ebookgate.
com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks
The magister equitum in the Roman Republic The

Evolution of an Extraordinary Magistracy 1st Edition
Bradley Jordan
_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-magister-equitum-in-
the-roman-republic-the-evolution-of-an-extraordinary-
magistracy-1st-edition-bradley-jordan/
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookgate.com

Here are some recommended products that might interest you.
You can download now and explore!
Empire of Images Visualizing the Conquered in the Roman

Republic 1st Edition Alyson Roy
https://ebookgate.com/product/empire-of-images-visualizing-the-
conquered-in-the-roman-republic-1st-edition-alyson-roy/
ebookgate.com
Philippi 42 BC The Death of the Roman Republic First

Edition Si Sheppard
https://ebookgate.com/product/philippi-42-bc-the-death-of-the-roman-
republic-first-edition-si-sheppard/
ebookgate.com
Slave theater in the Roman republic Plautus and popular

comedy First Paperback Edition Plautus
https://ebookgate.com/product/slave-theater-in-the-roman-republic-
plautus-and-popular-comedy-first-paperback-edition-plautus/
ebookgate.com
The Architecture of Roman Temples The Republic to the

Middle Empire reduced 1. ed. Edition John W. Stamper
https://ebookgate.com/product/the-architecture-of-roman-temples-the-
republic-to-the-middle-empire-reduced-1-ed-edition-john-w-stamper/
ebookgate.com
Roman Military Service Ideologies of Discipline in the
Late Republic and Early Principate 1st Edition Sara Elise
Phang
https://ebookgate.com/product/roman-military-service-ideologies-of-
discipline-in-the-late-republic-and-early-principate-1st-edition-sara-
elise-phang/
ebookgate.com
Extraordinary Jobs in the Food Industry Extraordinary Jobs

1st Edition Alecia T. Devantier
https://ebookgate.com/product/extraordinary-jobs-in-the-food-industry-
extraordinary-jobs-1st-edition-alecia-t-devantier/
ebookgate.com
The Merkel Republic An Appraisal 1st Edition Eric

Langenbacher
https://ebookgate.com/product/the-merkel-republic-an-appraisal-1st-
edition-eric-langenbacher/
ebookgate.com
Spirit Communication An investigation into the

extraordinary world of mediums psychics and the afterlife
Roy Stemman
https://ebookgate.com/product/spirit-communication-an-investigation-
into-the-extraordinary-world-of-mediums-psychics-and-the-afterlife-
roy-stemman/
ebookgate.com
Friendship and Empire Roman Diplomacy and Imperialism in

the Middle Republic 353 146 BC 1st Edition Paul J. Burton
https://ebookgate.com/product/friendship-and-empire-roman-diplomacy-
and-imperialism-in-the-middle-republic-353-146-bc-1st-edition-paul-j-
burton/
ebookgate.com
Bradley Jordan
The magister equitum in the Roman Republic
KLIO
Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte
Beihefte. Neue Folge
Herausgegeben von
Hartwin Brandt and Martin Jehne
unter Mitarbeit von

Manfred Clauss, Peter Funke,
Hans-Joachim Gehrke und Christian Mann
Band 38
Bradley Jordan
The magister equitum
in the Roman Republic
The Evolution of an Extraordinary Magistracy

ISBN 978-3-11-133858-3
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-133997-9
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-134022-7
ISSN 1438-7689
Library of Congress Control Number: 2023950760
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
www.degruyter.com
Acknowledgements
This book started life as a thesis submitted at the University of Melbourne in 2015.
Myriad distractions led to its realisation taking far longer than I anticipated while I
was still young and naïve. As such it is a pleasure to thank the numerous individuals
who helped bring this project to fruition. Most obviously, this could not have been ach-
ieved without the intensive support from my supervisor, Frederik Vervaet, to whom I
am especially grateful. Throughout my time in Melbourne (and since) he always provid-
ed quick, comprehensive, and incisive feedback, showed a remarkable tolerance for my
frequent queries, and consistently pressed me to pursue the publication of this work.
I would further like to thank my two examiners, Georgy Kantor and Catherine
Steel, for their judicious comments which were critical to refining and improving
the work. Daniele Miano, David Rafferty, and Sonya Wurster all read and commented
on multiple chapters: I am exceedingly thankful to each for their comments, criticisms,
and suggested revisions. This research would not have been possible with financial sup-
port, initially via an Australian Postgraduate Award and subsequently with funding
from the British Institute at Ankara and the Department for Archaeology, Conservation
and History (IAKH) at the University of Oslo. Elements were presented at conferences
in Sydney (2014), Melbourne (2014), and Auckland (2016), and I have benefitted from
conversations with, and observations made by, too many to list here but including Ka-
thryn Welch, Jeroen Wijnendaele, Chris Dart, Jeremy Armstrong, Fred Drogula, Guy
Bradley, and Lewis Webb.
Finally, I have to express my heartfelt thanks to Kim Webb, the one constant
throughout this long process, whose tireless reading and editing of the text throughout
all its forms has immeasurably improved it and without whose encouragement this
final book would not have been possible.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111339979-001
Contents
Abbreviations IX
Introduction 1
1 The Origins of the magister equitum 7

1.1 Finding the Early magister equitum 7
1.2 The tribunus celerum: The magister equitum Refracted? 12
1.3 Reflections on the Origins and Antecedents of the magister equitum 17
2 The Second in Rank and Successor to the Dictator? A Reassessment of the

potestas of the magister equitum 20
2.1 Definitions: potestas, imperium and auspicium in Current Scholarship 20
2.2 The potestas of the magister equitum 21
2.3 The Appointment and Collegiality of the magister equitum 34
2.4 Conclusions 50
3 The Role of the magister equitum in the City and the Field 53
3.1 The Role of the magister equitum: The State of the Question 53
3.2 The Ancient Sources and the magister equitum in the Field 55
3.3 The magister equitum in the City 67
3.4 Conclusions 74
4 The Senatorial Rank of the magister equitum 77

4.1 Definitions and Method 77
4.2 Evidence and Analysis 80
4.2.1 501 – 366 89
4.2.2 367 – 292 92
4.2.3 292 – 219 98
4.2.4 218 – 202 104
4.3 Conclusions 117
5 The Revival of the magister equitum in the First Century bce 119
5.1 L. Cornelius Sulla and the magister equitum 119
5.2 C. Iulius Caesar’s magistri equitum 123
5.3 The magistri equitum designati and Caesar’s Intentions 130
Conclusions 145
Appendix: List of Attested magistri equitum, 501 – 44 bce 149

VIII Contents
Bibliography 160
Index 170
Abbreviations
Ancient sources are referenced in the style of Der Neue Pauly. Journal titles follow the conventions of L’An-
née Philologique. All dates are bce unless otherwise stated. Other abbreviations are as follows:
ANRW Haase, W. & Temporini, H. (eds.) (1972—) Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte
und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, Berlin.
CAH 2 (1970 – 2005) The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd edn., Cambridge.
CIL Henzen, W., Hülsen, C. & Mommsen, T. (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Rome.
DNP Cancik, H. & Schneider, H. (eds.) (1996—) Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike, Stuttgart.
FGrH Jacoby, F. (ed.) (1923—) Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, Berlin.
FRH Cornell, T.C. (ed.) (2013) The Fragments of the Roman Historians, 3 vols., Oxford.
ILS Dessau, H. (ed.) (1892 – 1916) Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, Berlin.
Inscr. It. Degrassi, A. (ed.) (1931 – 1963) Inscriptiones Italiae. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato, Rome.
MRR Broughton, T.R.S. (1951 – 1960) The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 3 vols., New York.
OCD Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford.
ORF Malcovati, E. (ed.) (1976) Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta, Milan.
RE Pauly, A., Wissowa, G. & Kroll, W. (eds.) (1893—) Realencyclopädie des classischen Altertumswis-
senschaft, Stuttgart.
RS Crawford, M.H. et al. (eds.) (1996) Roman Statutes, 2 vols., London.
Introduction
In 368, at the culmination of the conflict between the patricians and plebeians over ac-
cess to the consulship, the highest regular magistracy of the Roman state, the Senate
decided that a dictator must be appointed to quell the civil unrest. After the legendary
M. Furius Camillus—hero of Veii and five-times dictator—failed to resolve the situation
and resigned, P. Manlius Capitolinus was appointed in his place. Manlius’ first act was
to name as his magister equitum C. Licinius Calvus, a plebeian. Livy, recounting the ep-
isode, comments that id aegre patres passos accipio; dictatorem propinqua cognatione
Licini se apud patres excusare solitum (“this, I gather, the patricians took poorly; the
dictator was accustomed to excuse himself to them on the grounds of a close relation-
ship”). The author goes on to draw a direct line between Manlius’ choice of subordinate
and the ultimate success of the plebeians, one year later, in securing the election of the
first plebeian consul.¹ But what was the office of magister equitum, and how was it able
to play such pivotal role at this crux in Roman history?
The magister equitum, often translated into English as the “Master of Horse”, was
assumed by Roman antiquarians to be named after its original function. Writing in the
first century, M. Terentius Varro states that magister equitum, quod summa potestas
huius in equites et accensos, ut est summa populi dictator, a quo is quoque magister pop-
uli appellatus (“the magister equitum, [was called such] because he has supreme com-
mand over the cavalry and light troops, as the dictator does over the people, on account
of which he too is called the magister populi”). The magistracy served as the dictator’s
coeval and subordinate: almost every dictator as their first act upon appointment se-
lected a magister equitum. The magister equitum was, therefore, a prominent position
within the Roman state, integral to the employment of the most powerful extraordina-
ry magistrate under the constitution.²
Despite its importance, there is little contemporary work on the Republican mag-
istracy. The typical account still relies on Mommsen’s account in his monumental Rö-
misches Staatsrecht, which placed significant weight on Cicero’s outline of the office in
de Legibus, which describes the magister equitum as equal in “power” (ius, but often
taken as implying imperium) to the urban praetor.³ Standard reference works largely
follow Mommsen with the result that our understanding of the office has barely ad-
vanced over the past century or more.⁴ However, as has been increasingly recognised,
1 Liv. 6.39.3 – 4. For convenience, all dates prior to 300 will use Varronian chronology, which includes
four “dictator years” not attested in Livy’s narrative and whose events he reports under the preceding
consulship (see Drummond 1978). To emphasise this problem, events occurring in those years will be
reported under 334/333, 325/324, 310/309, 302/301.
2 Varro Ling. 5.82. Wilson 2021, 212 – 219.
3 Cic. Leg. 3.9 – 10. Mommsen 18873, 2.1.173 – 180.
4 RE s.v. “magister equitum” (Westermayer 1931); OCD (Lintott & Sherwin-White 1970, though updated
by Jordan forthcoming); Kunkel & Wittmann 1995; BNP (Gizewski 2003).
2 Introduction
Cicero’s goal in this work was to present an ideal, rationalised Roman constitution.⁵ In-
deed, evidence from antiquarian research (e. g., Varro) and historiographical accounts
(e. g., fragments of Fabius Pictor, Cato the Elder, and Licinius Macer; Dionysius of Hal-
icarnassus; Livy) contradict this neat picture. The topic has also suffered from a lack of
published work on the dictatorship. Marianne E. Hartfield’s unpublished 1982 thesis on
the dictatorship built considerably on Fritz Bandel’s slim volume (1910), but still engag-
ed with the magister equitum in only a limited fashion. More recently, Mark B. Wilson
has corrected a major gap in the literature with a detailed, well-argued analysis of the
dictatorship, which spends some time on the role of the magister equitum as a neces-
sary colleague to the dictator.⁶ Finally, C.F. Konrad has analysed the thorny issue of the
auspices during the late fourth and third centuries, in the course of which he has at-
tempted to resolve the problem of the powers of the dictator and magister equitum. ⁷
Nevertheless, the role, rank, and conception of the magistracy more generally are be-
yond the scope of their work and remain to be explored in depth.
The magister equitum is a highly significant republican magistrate in its own right.
As Wilson has demonstrated, it was an integral element of the dictatorship: a frequent
recourse and the most potent means available for resolving crises during the Early and
Middle Republic. Like its superior, the magister equitum was perceived to have emerged
during the earliest days of the res publica and to have exercised real power at crucial
moments. Magistri equitum appear as critical actors in several key events of Roman
history, including those of institutional significance: for example, C. Servilius Ahala
[5] in 439, who murdered the would-be tyrant Sp. Maelius; the aforementioned C. Lic-
inius Calvus [19] in 368, who prefigured the first plebeian consul; M. Minucius Rufus
[61] in 217, who formed a locus for discontent against his dictator, Q. Fabius Maximus
Cunctator, during the campaign against Hannibal; and M. Antonius [72] in 48/47, who
administered Italy as a proxy for C. Iulius Caesar during the civil war. The history of
the republican magistracy consists of two distinct phases. First, the magistri equitum
under original dictatorship, which appears to have been employed regularly through-
out the fifth, fourth and third centuries. During this period, though a flexible office
which evolved in response to the particular pressures surrounding its appointment,
it seems to have developed incrementally. Second, after the dictatorship’s revival in
the first century by L. Cornelius Sulla and Caesar, the magister equitum seems to
have taken on a new role. This monograph will provide an in-depth study which focus-
es on this hitherto neglected magistracy and through this lens ask new question of the
perception of the Roman lived constitution and the upheaval associated with the last
days of the Republic.
The book aims to provide a definitive analysis of the republican magistrate the
magister equitum. It addresses three central questions. First, and most importantly,
5 E. g., Dyck 2004, 425 – 429; Paulson 2014.

6 Hartfield 1982; Wilson 2021. Cf. Bandel 1910.
7 Konrad 2022, esp. 66 – 147.
Introduction 3
what were the powers and role of the office and to what extent were these defined? As
noted, most accounts of the magister equitum in modern scholarship draw heavily on
Theodor Mommsen’s Römisches Staatsrecht, which, though a useful starting point, has
now been surpassed. Those works which do engage with this core question understand-
ably do so in brief and subordinate this to the questions motivating their enquiry. An
updated and comprehensive analysis of the office, in line with twenty-first century
scholarship, remains a desideratum. Second, what senatorial rank was the magister
equitum allocated? Most treatments of the magistracy have dismissed this question
as inextricably rooted in the former. However, the fasti of attested holders suggests
that the answer is not so simple and potentially varied over time with the socio-polit-
ical context. A careful prosopographical analysis of the c. 75 attested officeholders can
elucidate how the Romans approached the problem of extraordinary magistracies.
Moreover, the apparent exploitation of dictators appointed to hold elections during
the Second Punic War to engineer the elevation of chosen magistri equitum to the con-
sulship may provide a striking answer to why the dictatorship was phased out at the
end of the third century bce. Finally, how did the magister equitum evolve under the
revived first century dictators, Sulla and Caesar? It is often argued that these figures
fundamentally reinvented the dictatorship to suit their own (distinct) aims.⁸ However,
it is important to note that the magister equitum’s role was also very different, espe-
cially under Caesar. Given recently published evidence from Privernum, which demon-
strates that the dictator designated multiple magistri equitum for 44 – 42, it seems that
Caesar profoundly altered the traditional concept of the office to provide a high-rank-
ing administrative official outside of the electoral cursus. ⁹ Taken together, answers to
these three questions have the potential to inform debates across a wide range of schol-
arship on Roman republican institutions.
According to tradition, the first dictator and magister equitum were appointed
within the first decade of the res publica in 501. The surviving source material for
this early period of Roman history is limited, challenging, and comparatively late.
Roman historiography began only with Q. Fabius Pictor, who was active during the Sec-
ond Punic War in the late third century, whose work now survives only as scattered
fragments, hindering a practical assessment of his sources and methods.¹⁰ Although
fragments and testimonia survive for numerous republican authors, the earliest ac-
counts to do so in meaningful quantities date to the mid-first century and our most
complete narratives, those of Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Livy, were written during
the rule of Augustus. The extent to which the sources can be trusted is subject to on-
going debate. At one end of the spectrum is Cornell’s argument that the historiography
of the Early Republic contains at its core a kernel of what he termed “structural facts”
around which authors built a superstructure of embellished, exaggerated, and expand-
8 E. g., Vervaet 2004; 2018; Drogula 2015, 162 – 163, 179 – 180; Wilson 2021.
9 Zevi 2016; 2017.
10 Bispham & Cornell 2013a, 1.160 – 178, with earlier bibliography.
4 Introduction
ed material. At the other extreme, Woodman argued that ancient historiography was a
branch of rhetoric and should be seen as an exercise in creativity rather than accura-
cy.¹¹ However, Roman historians generally exhibit a concern for veracity (or, at mini-
mum, plausibility) in constructing their narrative. Notwithstanding the scanty material
which they had at their disposal—subject to its own issues of bias, selectivity, and mis-
understandings—ancient historians were expected to aim for a true (verus) account.¹²
Roman authors were constrained by public knowledge and memory of historical
events: wholesale invention or blatant falsehood were not possible. Even where precise
reconstruction was not possible, veracity and plausibility were key.¹³
Indeed, it is important to acknowledge that a variety of sources were available to
Livy and a vibrant culture of critical historiography existed in first century Rome.¹⁴
Central to most optimistic interpretations regarding a historical kernel are the fasti,
lists of magistrates dating from the first century, the most famous of which, the fasti
Capitolini, purport to give a list of magistrates of the res publica from the expulsion
of the kings until the Augustan period. It is often assumed that these reflect an official
record, compiled at a relatively early date.¹⁵ However, as James H. Richardson has
noted, later authors consistently emphasised the difficulties in compiling an authorita-
tive list of consuls. Cicero noted the propensity of funeral speeches or tituli accompa-
nying ancestral imagines to include falsi triumphes, plures consulatus, genera etiam
falsa et ad plebem transitiones (“false triumphs, too many consulships, even false ge-
nealogies, and transitions to the plebs”).¹⁶ Livy, too, repeatedly refers to these familial
sources as confusing the record and makes clear that, even in the late first century,
there was no definitive list.¹⁷ Finally, both Plutarch and Livy make clear that prior
to the beginning of the fourth century, very few documentary sources survived.¹⁸
Another problem is that accounts reflect and refract contemporary concerns,
events, and institutions into earlier period. The surviving sources preserve references
to earlier forms of institutional organisation: they acknowledge that the lead magis-
trates in the Early Republic were known as praetores rather than consules, for exam-
ple; that the comitia curiata played a much more prominent role in the appointment of
magistrates than in the Late Republic; and that, in the decades preceding 367, the state
frequently elected eponymous magistrates known as tribuni militum consulari potes-
tate, whose precise role and relationship to the consulship and praetorship is unclear.¹⁹
11 Woodman 1988, 76 – 95.

12 Cic. De or. 2.51. Lendon 2009, 50 – 57; Northwood 2008, 228 – 231, 237– 243.
13 Cornell 1995, 17– 18; 2005, 49, 58 – 59.
14 Ridley 2013.
15 Rich 2013, 148 – 151. Cf. Cornell 1995, 4 – 16; Forsythe 2005, 69 – 74, 151 – 156.
16 Cic. Brut. 62.
17 Liv. 2.21.4. On the familial traditions: 4.16.3 – 4, 34.6 – 7; 8.40.3 – 5; 27.27.12 – 14.
18 Liv. 6.1.2; Plut. Num. 1.1. Ridley 1983; 2013; Richardson 2017.
19 For recent innovative (and challenging) reconstructions: Armstrong 2016, esp. 130 – 135, 176 – 177; Dro-
gula 2017; Tietz 2020. On the tribuni militum consulari potestate, the bibliography is considerable: e. g.,
Introduction 5
What the sources uniformly agree on is that the year 367, after which consuls were rou-
tinely elected and the praetorship was instituted in its final form, marked a turning
point in the Roman imagination after which the lists of magistrates seem to become
more trustworthy.²⁰ Consequently, the Augustan fasti must be viewed as a late attempt
to rationalise legendary and historical exempla into a single authoritative list.
Consequently, acknowledging these issues, this study adopts a similar approach to
the evidence for the early period as Armstrong’s recent analysis of early Roman soci-
ety, aiming for a sceptical and balanced treatment of the evidence, which nevertheless
allows one to construct a useful model. Armstrong uses two principles: first, “the
amount of reliable information within the literary evidence cannot exceed the amount
of information which could have been reliably transmitted from early Rome to the Late
Republic”, which is to say that narrative accounts should be assessed against the poten-
tial original sources when considering historicity or otherwise; and, second, “[to as-
sume] that neither the writers of the existing sources for early Rome, nor their sources,
set out to intentionally lie to or mislead the reader”.²¹ In this study, which is concerned
with the broader sweep of republican history, these principles should be sufficient to
arrive at a working model for how the Romans saw the magister equitum’s role and
powers. Later authors were unlikely to include elements in their narrative which
they viewed as false, allowing us to build up an image of the magister equitum as it
was understood in the Late Republic. The sources contain details of the activities
and role of the magistrate, details surrounding its ritual appointment, its powers,
and the rank of its holders as the authors themselves saw it. In view of the clear differ-
ences in how the original office and the revived first-century version are treated in the
sources, we may cautiously infer how the magistracy operated during the earlier peri-
od before tracing the emergence of a very different office under Caesar in the mid-first
century.
To be clear at the outset, this work is not an analysis of the dictatorship, for which
office Wilson’s recent monograph provides an incisive and thorough analysis.²² Natu-
rally, my research touches on aspects of that office, especially where relevant to the
magister equitum, and will take issue with his characterisation of certain aspects,
for example, the collegiality of the dictator and magister equitum. However, this
work has a distinctive focus on the junior magistracy. Similarly, this work makes no
attempt to solve the controversies surrounding the institutional structure of the fifth
and early fourth century Roman state. As noted in the discussion of the sources,
there is an increasing recognition that the historiographical material for early
von Fritz 1950, 37– 41; Drummond 1980; Ridley 1986; Stewart 1998, 53 – 96; Holloway 2008; Armstrong
2017, 130 – 140; Richardson 2017, 92 – 96.
20 Wiseman 1979, 9 – 26, 106 – 107; 2009, 235; Richardson 2008, 378 – 379; Armstrong 2017, 126 – 130. Drogu-
la (2015, 41 – 42) points out the absence of firm evidence for annually elected consuls before the early
third century, but this seems overly cautious.
21 Armstrong 2016, 37; see also Armstrong & Richardson 2017.
22 Wilson 2021.
6 Introduction
Roman history is deficient in supplying an accurate narrative of the development of

the res publica. Nor do these approaches get us closer to the historical office of magis-
ter equitum. Though I draw on this material, where relevant, it is not my primary aim.
Instead, the book takes as its narrow subject the historical office of the magister
equitum during the Roman Republic. It draws on historiographical and epigraphic ma-
terial to construct an account of its powers, role, and rank within the Roman state dur-
ing the fourth and third centuries. It then uses that framework to assess the revival of
the office under the dictatorships of the first century and to offer some insights into the
revolutionary changes at the heart of the res publica in that period. Three major claims
advanced are: i) the magister equitum was a unique and unparalleled magistracy with-
in the Roman Republic, which, though a literal lieutenant to the dictator, possessed real
agency; ii) the magister equitum, like the dictator, evolved with the res publica to ad-
dress changing needs of the state and its rulers; and iii) that the magister equitum
was a key factor in several historical moments, crucial to the development of the
Roman state. Overall, this study aims to shed new light on this unusual and important
magistrate, bringing the position back into the history of the Roman Republic.
1 The Origins of the magister equitum
1.1 Finding the Early magister equitum
According to Livy, in 501, less than ten years after the expulsion of the last rex, L. Tar-
quinius Superbus, and with Rome still fighting to preserve its fledgling independence,
the Senate authorised the appointment of the first dictator. T. Larcius Flavus (cos. 501)
was selected and immediately named Sp. Cassius Vecellinus [1], his predecessor as con-
sul, as his magister equitum. Despite the introduction of the republican principles of
annuity and collegiality, the Romans had decided that a temporary return to the
rule of one man was necessary.¹ The language of crisis is consistently employed by
the sources to describe this choice.² The obscurity of the regal period and Early Repub-
lic to the ancient authors, however, necessarily shrouded the origins of these magis-
trates in mystery. Consequently, scholars have drawn particularly diverse conclusions
regarding their possible antecedents.
As noted in the introduction, there are substantial problems with the sources for
the regal and Early Republican periods. The earliest surviving sources post-date the tra-
ditional foundation of the Republic by more than four centuries, with the historio-
graphical tradition from which these works draw itself only beginning in the late
third century with Fabius Pictor. Also pertinent is the Roman belief in the essential con-
tinuity of their state: the primacy of the mos maiorum and precedent in the politico-
legal sphere led to a Roman conservatism in the interpretation of their own history.³
That said, these accounts of the origins of the dictator and magister equitum are crucial
for realising how the offices were conceived of in an ancient context. How did the an-
cient authors believe the magister equitum came into existence? What did they view as
its antecedent(s)? The remainder of this chapter will analyse the accounts offered by
the ancient authors on the origins of the dictator and magister equitum for common
threads, seeking the generally held beliefs on this topic and addressing discrepancies.
It closes by examining the implications of their views for understanding how the office
was viewed.
The most complete accounts for the origin of the dictatorship and magister equi-
tum are the narratives of Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Close contemporaries,
they wrote in the changing world following the final collapse of the republican system,
culminating in the eventual domination of a single ruler, Augustus. Their works offer
diverse perspectives and reflect different concerns: Livy, a Roman citizen from recently
enfranchised Gallia Cisalpina, focused on Rome’s relationship with the Italic peoples,
1 E. g., Cic. Rep. 2.56; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.70.3 – 4, 73.1; Liv. 2.18.1, 4 – 6.; Macrob. Sat. 1.8.1; Lyd. Mag. 1.37.
2 For example, Livy dwells on Roman metus (‘fear’) and the coniuratio (‘conspiracy’) of the Latins, as
well as reporting the sollicitio (‘agitation’) of the citizens; Dionysius describes the ἀμηχανία (‘hardship’),
ταραχή (‘disorder’), and spirit of στάσις (‘sedition’, ‘discord’) which affected the state.
3 See introduction, nn. 18 – 19.
8 1 The Origins of the magister equitum
where Dionysius, a Hellenised intellectual, sought to emphasise the similarities be-

tween Rome and the Hellenistic world.⁴ However, both had access to and critically
used the same Annalistic material. Later imperial works, too, follow a similar course.
While Cornell and others have argued for a kernel of accurate data hidden within the
narrative, it is worth restating that any reconstruction of the “actual” situation at the
turn of the fifth century would push the evidence far beyond its limits.⁵ What is clearly
recorded, however, are ancient views of the motives for introducing the offices of dic-
tator and magister equitum and the relationship between these magistracies and their
perceived predecessors. This is valuable information in itself since it shows how au-
thors fitted the magister equitum into their own distant past and reveals some funda-
mental assumptions about its role.
Livy presents only a brief description of the background to the first Roman dicta-
torship and magister equitum. In the consular year 501, Sabine youths provoked a scuf-
fle which provided a pretext for war with Rome. More disturbingly, rumours of a con-
iuratio of thirty Latin peoples, under the joint command of Octavius Mamilius and Sex.
Tarquinius, were provoking alarm. Moreover, Livy records that the consuls of the year
were supporters of the Tarquinii. Amidst substantial political uncertainty, the dictator-
ship was instituted. Noting confusion regarding both the date and occupant of this new
office, the historian follows “the oldest authors” in assigning it to T. Larcius (dict. 501;
cos. 501, 498). He adds that Sp. Cassius (cos. 502, 493, 486) was appointed the first mag-
ister equitum. ⁶ He goes on to state that Larcius’ fasces were supplemented by axes, sig-
nifying that his judgement was not subject to appeal, which induced awe among the
plebeians. For this reason, the Sabines sued for peace, and the rest of the year passed
without conflict.⁷
Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ account is far lengthier. In his summary of 498, he ex-
plicitly relates the decision to institute the new offices to the Latins’ selection of Octa-
vius Mamilius and Sex. Tarquinius to the supreme command of their forces. Despite the
urgent threat to Rome’s newly won liberty, the plebeians showed little interest in fight-
ing to preserve it.⁸ As such, the Senate decided to abolish the consulship temporarily,
and in its place appoint a magistrate possessing full authority over war and peace and,
more ambiguously, any other necessary matters.⁹ Dionysius states that there were
many reasons for the introduction of the dictatorship, but that the most important
4 E. g., Forsythe 2005, 66 – 67.

5 Cornell 2005, 47– 74; Lendon 2009.
6 Livy prefers these names to that of the otherwise unknown M’. Valerius Volesi on account of a lex de
dictatore creando, requiring that the appointees be of consular rank. This was demonstrably not the
case in practice. Cagnat 1900, 1523, esp. nn. 4 – 8; Wilson 2021, 33 – 34.
7 Liv. 2.18.2 – 11.
8 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.61.1 – 3, 63.1 – 2.
9 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.70.1, ἑτέραν δέ τινα ἀρχὴν ἀποδεῖξαι πολέμου τε καὶ εἰρήνης καὶ παντὸς ἄλλου
πράγματος κυρίαν (“to create some other magistracy with full authority over war and peace and every
other matter, possessed of absolute power and subject to no accounting for either its counsels or its ac-
tions”).
was to subvert the lex Valeria de provocatione, prohibiting magistrates from inflicting
capital punishment without a trial, to threaten the plebeians into respecting the levy.¹⁰
After explaining the etymology of the name dictator for his readers, Dionysius then as-
serts that the new office was, in essence, a tyranny (δυναστεία), emphasising its sim-
ilarity to several Greek examples. Indeed, he explains elsewhere that Roman
commanders in this period were not at all “tyrannical” (τυραννικός), in stark contrast
to his own contemporaries.¹¹ Finally, he notes that the first action which T. Larcius,
who assumed the office, took was to name Sp. Cassius his ἱππάρχης (magister equitum).
He also, inaccurately, notes that the custom of naming a magister equitum was followed
by every dictator even up to his own day. The narrative concludes with the plebeians
cowed into submission by the display of axes in Larcius’ fasces and a brief skirmish,
which together with some diplomatic efforts, caused the Latin coalition to disband.¹²
Beyond these two narratives, discussion of this event is limited to scattered, pri-
marily late, references. Cicero dates the event decem fere annis post primos consules
(“almost ten years after the first consuls”) and states that T. Larcius was the first to
hold the new type of imperium. ¹³ Eutropius is more precise, locating the introduction
of the office nine years after the expulsion of the Tarquinii. He claims that the dictator-
ship, which he styles a nova dignitas, was created along with a magister equitum who
would obey (obsequerer) the dictator. He further records the men appointed as T. Lar-
cius and Sp. Cassius.¹⁴ Orosius follows Livy, claiming that the dictatorship was created
in response to a Sabine threat, though he does not name the first occupant of the of-
fice.¹⁵ Cassiodorus records that during the consular year 501, T. Largus (sic) and Sp. Cas-
sius were appointed as the first dictator and magister equitum respectively.¹⁶ John
Lydus links the decision to establish the dictatorship to internal dissension, saying
that the Romans accepted the office ταραττομένων τῶν πραγμάτων (“since the state
was disordered”). They appointed T. Marcius [sic], who in turn appointed Sp. Cassius
his magister equitum, which Lydus compares to Romulus’ appointment of Celer as τρι-
βοῦνον τῶν ἱππέων (‘tribune of the cavalry’).¹⁷ Finally, the Byzantine Suda claims, s.v.
δικτάτωρ, that the dictator was first appointed when “Malios” (sic, presumably Mami-
lius), summoned the Latin peoples to avenge the expulsion of his relatives, the Tarqui-
nii. Under the entry for ἵππαρχος, it states that when Marcius (sic) [Larcius] was chosen
dictator, he appointed Sporios [sic] (sc. Spurius [Cassius]) as his ἵππαρχος, πρῶτον κατὰ
10 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.70.3 – 4. The lex Valeria was likely not in force before 300, but ancient authors
regarded it as integral to the res publica. Cf. Kunkel & Wittmann 1995, 166 – 167.
11 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.73.2 – 74.4. On the different characters of early and late Republican command-
ers, 5.60.2.
12 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.75.2 – 76.4. Cf. Zon. 7.14.1.
13 Cic. Rep. 2.56.
14 Eutr. 1.12. Cf. Jer. Chron. p. 189 (Pearse).
15 Oros. 2.5.4.
16 Cassiod. Chron. 104 – 105.
17 Lyd. Mag. 1.36 – 37.
τοῦτον καὶ τῆς ἱππαρχικῆς ἐπινοηθείσης ἡγεμονίας, δευτερευούσης κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν
τοῦ δικτάτωρος (“an office which would be first with respect to the cavalry and second
with respect to the pre-eminence of the dictatorship”).¹⁸
Taken together the ancient sources give a consistent picture. For these authors, the
dictatorship and magister equitum were introduced simultaneously shortly after the ex-
pulsion of the Tarquinii and the establishment of a republican constitution. They col-
lectively believe that the two magistracies were indissolubly linked from the begin-
ning.¹⁹ Each suggests that the new position of dictator was held more authority than
the consulship, and that the original occupants of both offices were of consular
rank. They were introduced in response to a crisis which possessed both foreign and
domestic factors. The sources emphasise the threat posed by the Latin peoples and
the ousted Tarquinii, but the spectre of internal dissension is also raised by Dionysius
and Lydus especially. Hartfield cogently argues that these were two sides of the same
coin: the military situation required domestic unity, which was only achievable
through the institution of a new powerful magistracy.²⁰ This agrees well with the
role of the early dictatorships in the sources, discussed in Chapter 3, which provided
a more authoritative commander for the field, who doubled as a magistrate with the
standing to effectively encourage reconciliation within the broader community.²¹
These passages clarify the standard ancient view on the timing of magister equi-
tum’s introduction but—except Lydus—shed little light on whether they believed
there was an antecedent to the office. Although each presents the magistracies as
being unambiguously of republican date, other largely fragmentary works do link dic-
tator and magister equitum to earlier models. Dionysius of Halicarnassus preserves the
assertion of Licinius Macer that a dictatorship at Alba Longa served as a blueprint for
the Roman version: after the extinction of the royal line, he claims, the Albans appoint-
ed annual magistrates, named dictatores, to wield the power previously held by the
rex. ²² While epigraphic testimony of an Alban dictatorship in the second to third cen-
turies ce demonstrates the later existence of such a title, the repeated references in
Livy to the reges of Alba Longa in his early books cast doubt upon the accuracy of
the wider claim.²³ The well-attested dictatorships of individual Latin peoples offer an-
other view, apparently playing a role analogous to the Roman consuls, as annual mag-
istrates leading their respective communities.²⁴ As Konrad notes, these officials are
18 Suda s.v. δικτάτωρ; s.v. ἵππαρχος.

19 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.75.2 – 3; Liv. 2.18.5; Eutr. 1.12; Lyd. Mag. 1.37; Suda s.v. ἱππαρχος.
20 Hartfield 1982, 36 – 37. Cf. Bandel 1910, 4 – 12.
21 Cornell 2015; Wilson 2021.
22 C. Licinius Macer FRH 27 F15 = Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.74.4.
23 CIL 6.2161; 14. suppl. 1.4452; Liv. 1.22.7, 23.4, 7. Oakley 2013, 429 – 430.
24 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 3.2.1, 5.3, 7.3; Liv. 1.23.4; 3.18.2; 6.26.4.
most commonly associated with religious tasks rather than military activity, though
this may be a product of our dearth of sources.²⁵
Moreover, a fragment from Cato’s Origines seems to refer to a dictator Latinus,
which acted as federal magistrate of the Latin peoples. The text, as preserved in Pris-
cian, reads: lucum Dianium in nemore Aricino Egerius Baebius Tusculanus dedicauit dic-
tator Latinus. Hi populi communiter: Tusculanus, Aricinus, Laurens, Coranus, Tiburtis,
Pometinus, Ardeatis Rutulus (“Egerius Baebius from Tusculum, the dictator Latinus,
dedicated the grove of Diana in the Arician woodland. These communities did so joint-
ly: Tusculum, Aricia, Laurentum, Cora, Tibur, Pometia, Ardea of the Rutuli”).²⁶ While it
is uncertain whether the list of peoples is complete, the absence of Rome from the list
is generally deemed significant. The prominence of Tusculum has led to suggestions
that the passage refers to activities of the so-called Latin League, prior to their accept-
ance of Roman hegemony (traditionally dated to 493). Like its later municipal counter-
parts, however, there is little to link this magistracy to military command. Although
Ridley observes that Livy directly links the institution of the dictatorship to the threat
posed by the Latins under the leadership of Octavius Mamilius, arguing that his posi-
tion of sole authority was its inspiration, the Roman historian generally avoids the title
dictator to describe Mamilius, preferring dux or imperator. ²⁷ Only once, referring ex-
plicitly to his position at Tusculum, does Livy refer to him as dictator.²⁸ Moreover, Dio-
nysius clearly states that the command of the Latin forces was split between Mamilius
and Sex. Tarquinius, who are called στρατηγοὶ αὐτοκράτορες.²⁹ This term is a common
Greek gloss for the Latin dictator but, given Dionysius’ clear explanation of the Roman
office at 5.71.1 – 73.4., and their apparent co-leadership, a more literal reading of “su-
preme commanders” should be preferred here. Crucially, for the purposes of this en-
quiry, these Latin officials are nowhere attested alongside a figure resembling the mag-
ister equitum. ³⁰
Significantly, one of the best manuscripts for the fragment, a ninth century ce copy
held in Paris (BNF Lat. 7496), reads dicator in place of the more common dictator. The
lectio difficilior is plausible and supported by the independent attestation of dicatores
at Spoletium in the mid-third century bce, and at Capua during the Flavian period.³¹ In
the former instance, this official was also responsible for ensuring the protection of a
25 Ridley 1979, 306 – 307, with Liv. 3.18.7. Dictators are found at Aricia, Fidenae, Lanuvium, Nomentum,
and Tusculum. RE s.v. “dictator”, 389 with references; Konrad 2022, 89 – 92.
26 M. Porcius Cato FRH 5 F36 = Priscian GL. 2.129. Compare, Festus (128.15 – 16 L): Manius Egeri<us
lucum> Nemorensem Dianae consecravit (“M’. Egerius consecrated the grove of Diana at Nemi”). Ampo-
lo’s claim (1983, 324 – 325) that Manius Egerius and Egerius Baebius are distinct individuals is possible,
but not persuasive.
27 Liv. 2.18.3 – 5, 19.7, 10, 20.7. Ridley 1979, 308 – 309; see already Soltau 1914.
28 Liv. 3.18.2.
29 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.61.3.
30 Konrad 2022, 89.
31 Capua: CIL 10.3828; Spoletium: CIL 11.4766.
sacred grove, possibly of Jupiter, matching with the situation recorded by Cato.³² As
Mazzarino highlights, however, ancient glossaries assumed that this spelling was a sim-
ple variant of the more common dictator rather than a distinct office.³³ Konrad has re-
cently suggested an aetiology which sees these dic(t)atores as literal “speakers”, civil
and religious authorities, whose words “gave effect”, in his terms, to ritual acts.³⁴
This picks up the religious and mystical elements of Cohen’s interpretation of the dic-
tator as pre-Republican magistracy with a “sacral function (…) as the king’s deputy in
the regal period”. He speculated that the magister equitum was a vestigial position at-
tached to the dictatorship, retained purely due to its sacral nature.³⁵ For Konrad, the
merger of this function with the command role of the magister populi created the re-
publican dictatorship. This is an attractive hypothesis, although it lacks definitive sup-
port from the evidence.
In sum, Ridley’s proposal that the dictatorship was instituted in response to region-
al developments remains plausible, and recourse to a single “supreme commander”,
unfettered by the right of provocatio could be immensely useful, particularly to enforce
the dilectus. ³⁶ While the Latin dictatorship, imagined in a traditional sense, does not
seem to have influenced the introduction of the Roman dictatorship, it is feasible
that some local innovations catalysed its conception. Ultimately, a definitive answer
is not possible, given the state of our sources. Nevertheless, the surviving accounts
do provide an important insight into how the dictatorship and magister equitum
were conceived in an ancient context.
1.2 The tribunus celerum: The magister equitum Refracted?
Imperial sources consistently link the magister equitum to a regal antecedent, the trib-
unus celerum. The second century ce jurist Pomponius claims in his Enchiridium that
the magister equitum was attached to the dictator in the same way that the tribunus
celerum was to the rex. He takes the analogy further by adding the praetorian prefect
(praefectus praetorio) of the Imperial period, emphasising the legitimacy that this ge-
nealogy of magistracies conveyed on the latter.³⁷ Two centuries later Aurelius Arcadius
Charisius, citing “certain authors”, also stated that the magister equitum was the inspi-
32 ILS 4911. Rudolph 1935, 11 – 14; Sherwin-White 19732, 12 – 13.

33 Mazzarino 1967.
34 Konrad 2022, 92 – 94.
35 Cohen 1957, 303 – 304, 312 – 314.
36 Liv. 2.18.8, 29.11; 3.20.8; [Pomp.] Dig. 1.2.2.13; Zon. 7.13.13.
37 [Pomp.] Dig. 1.2.2.19: Et his dictatoribus magistri equitum iniungebantur sic, quo modo regibus tribuni
celerum: quod officium fere tale erat, quale hodie praefectorum praetorio, magistratus tamen habebantur
legitimi (“And to these dictators were attached the magistri equitum, as in the way of the tribuni celerum
to the kings: whose duties were almost the same as those today for the praetorian prefects; and they
were regarded as legitimate magistrates”).
ration for the praetorian prefect, since both were selected by the ultimate authority,
the former by the dictator and the latter by the princeps. ³⁸ Lydus, as noted above,
claimed that Larcius appointed Cassius as ἵππαρχος just as Romulus appointed Celer
as τριβοῦνον τῶν ἱππέων (i. e., tribunus equitum), again seeming to draw a specific
link between the two offices.³⁹ He, too, stresses the praetorian prefecture’s derivation
from the office of magister equitum, quoting Aurelius in support of this assertion.⁴⁰
These accounts regard the tribunus celerum, magister equitum and imperial praetorian
prefect as performing the same basic role with each taking the place of its predecessor
as it fell into disuse.
This antiquarian view of the magister equitum as a re-invention of the regal posi-
tion of the tribunus celerum is entirely predictable. Roman historians tended to view
earlier periods as basically similar to their own contemporary context. While they un-
derstood that there were fundamental differences in the constitutional structure be-
tween periods, the existing record contains numerous anachronisms apparently caused
by imputing later values onto earlier events.⁴¹ In part, this may have arisen out of the
Roman respect for the mos maiorum, loosely ‘the customs of the ancestors’, and polit-
ical precedent. Since their political structure itself tilted towards conservatism, it is un-
surprising that historians saw the past as a distorted reflection of the present.⁴² This
could lead to tension in their treatment of newly instituted magistracies: Cicero simul-
taneously refers to the dictatorship as novumque id genus imperii (“this new type of
imperium”), while explicitly linking it to the kingship, describing it as proximum sim-
ilitudini regiae (“closest in similarity to kingship”).⁴³ As noted, for ancient authors, if
two offices shared overt similarities, it was natural to surmise that they were linked.
Although this allows anachronism to seep into the historical record, it can also prove
useful, as in this case. Given the clear belief, on the part of the sources, that the mag-
ister equitum was analogous to the tribunus celerum and the paucity of information
about the latter, it would be reasonable to find details ascribed to the tribunus celerum
based on the better attested powers and actions of its putative successor. At the very
least, accounts of the tribunus celerum allow us the perception of later sources on
the development of the magister equitum from its earliest origins, and the subsequent
analysis should allow for a more developed picture.
According to Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the tribunus celerum was the
commander of celeres, a bodyguard of 300 horsemen for Romulus and his successors
made up of the noblest members of the Roman youth.⁴⁴ However, Pliny, writing in
38 [Arcad.] Dig. 1.11.1.pr.

39 Lyd. Mag. 1.37.
40 Lyd. Mag. 1.14. Cf. 2.6.
41 See introduction.
42 Walter 2004, 14 – 15, 54 – 56.
43 Cic. Rep. 2.56.
44 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.13.1 – 4; Liv. 1.15.8. Cf. Plut. Rom. 26.2; Num. 7.8. For a full summary of the sour-
ces for the celeres see: Bertolini 1888, 1 – 32.
the first century ce, believed that celeres was the original name for the equites, the sec-
ond highest ordo (‘[social] order’) after the Senate in the Late Republic and early Prin-
cipate.⁴⁵ The names of the celeres and, by extension, the tribunus celerum are attested
as deriving etymologically from the adjective celer (‘swift’) or aetiologically from the
name of their first commander, a shadowy figure named Celer. The scattered references
to Celer describe him as a faithful lieutenant of Romulus.⁴⁶ One tradition even presents
him as the murderer of Remus, in place of Romulus himself.⁴⁷ The fasti Praenestini, a
calendar compiled by the antiquarian Verrius Flaccus in the early Principate, link the
office to the Salian ritual, which might allude to the antiquity of the office.⁴⁸ The office
of tribunus celerum appears only briefly in the narrative sources: Dionysius of Halicar-
nassus describes the magistrate as διαφανέστατος (‘most conspicuous’), and records
that three centurions served beneath him.⁴⁹ Aside from Celer, the sources record
only one tribunus celerum. ⁵⁰ Livy and Dionysius agree that L. Iunius Brutus
(cos. 509) held the office at the moment that L. Tarquinius Superbus was expelled
from Rome. Both narratives emphasise that Brutus summoned the comitia centuriata
and promulgated a law abrogating the imperium of the rex and exiling the Tarquinii by
virtue of the powers granted by his office.⁵¹ This is congruent with the claims of Pom-
ponius that the tribunus celerum held second place only to the rex, as well as the more
overstated claim of Lydus that he πάσης αὐτὸν δυνάμεως καὶ τύχης καὶ διοικήσεως
κρατεῖν ἐγκελευσάμενος: ὡς ἕτερον οὐθὲν ἤ μόνον τὸν στέφανον τὴν βασιλείαν παρὰ
τῶν ἱππάρχων κατασχεῖν ἐξουσιάν ἀδέσποτον ἑαυτῇ (“should have power over all
rights, fortunes and administration, so that, save for the crown alone, the king could
exercise power over no more than the hipparchos [sc. tribunus celerum]”). No source
records any other regal office which could exercise the ius habendi senatus and plau-
sibly imperium, even if only by delegation, under the regnum. ⁵² Taken together, the tra-
dition regarded the tribunus celerum as the most powerful magistracy of the regal pe-
riod, with its roots in the earliest days of the city itself.
45 Plin. HN 33.35. Brunt 1988, 145 – 146.

46 Commander: Valerius Antias FRH 25 F4 = Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.13.2; Fest. 48; Lyd. Mag. 1.9, 14.
47 Murderer of Remus: Diod. Sic. 8.6.3; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.87.4; Ov. Fast. 4.837– 844; 5.467– 474; Plut.
Rom. 10.2 – 3; [Auct.] vir ill. 1.4.
48 Inscr. Ital. 13.2.17, Mart. 19. On the role of Verrius Flaccus: Suet. Gram. 17, cf. Quint. Inst. 10.1.95. Com-
pare the comments ad loc. Valerius Antias FRH 25 F4.
49 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.13.3.
50 Note Richardson (2017, 78 – 79) on this absence of the Roman nobility from regal narratives.
51 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.71.6 – 84.4; Liv. 1.59.1 – 12. Cf. [Pomp.] Dig. 1.2.2.15. Note also the potential parallel
in the continuity in Octavian’s position as IIIvir rei publicae constituendae and evolution to Princeps in
31 – 27, on which see Vervaet 2010.
52 [Pomp.] Dig. 1.2.2.15; Lyd. Mag. 1.14. Lydus emphasises the almost total equality of the rex and trib-
unus celerum, which does not accord with what we know of the later dictatorship/magister equitum
pairing, nor indeed the strictly hierarchical position of princeps and praetorian prefect. Given the
very real power exercised by several later praefecti, however, one might infer that Lydus was influenced
by the reality of the later Imperial period. Cf. Alföldi 1967, 237– 238.
Military duties were the major concern of the tribunus celerum, though the sources
do attest wide-ranging powers. The size of his command is given invariably as 300, even
under Romulus. When placed alongside the evidence that the earliest organisation of
the Roman state was along tribal lines, with the three original tribes, Titienses, Ram-
nenses, and Luceres, each supplying 1000 infantry and 100 cavalry for military expedi-
tions, this signifies that the ancient sources conceived of the celeres as both the body-
guard of the rex and the original cavalry of the Roman state.⁵³ Traditionally the rex
Servius Tullius reformed this tribal structure in the mid-sixth century, introducing a
system based on economic resources. According to most ancient authors, the levy
was divided into five classes, with each group to equip themselves in a style appropri-
ate to their means.⁵⁴ However, Cato the Elder speaks of a single classis and those who
were infra classem, complicating this picture. Mommsen therefore proposed, given the
negligible difference in equipment specified, that the first three classes were originally
one unit called the classis. ⁵⁵ While the exact nature of the reform remains disputed,
the strong connection between military service and economic status should not be re-
jected. The traditional mid-sixth century date does coincide with an increase in the
number of hoplite panoplies in the wider region, and Dionysius makes it clear that
the Romans fought as hoplites prior to the introduction of manipular tactics.⁵⁶ While
some scholars have asserted that the strict hierarchy of Roman society precluded
such a development, because there were too few patricians to form a viable “hoplite
class”, Rich emphasises that wealthy plebeians, though excluded from political or reli-
gious participation, could have filled this niche.⁵⁷
Significantly, however, no ancient description of the Servian reforms includes in-
formation regarding the disposition of the cavalry. Alföldi argued that they were mem-
bers of the upper classis based on Livy and Dionysius’ emphasis on their noble birth.
He links them to the patres, the post-regal senatorial elite, and claims that this privi-
leged position was based on the practical reality that only the wealthy could afford
to fight as cavalry.⁵⁸ Momigliano vigorously opposed this position, asserting that the ex-
clusion of the equitatus from the ancient accounts reflects a marginalisation of the cav-
alry. For him, precisely because the celeres were the bodyguard of the rex, they were
excluded from political power after the expulsion of the reges. On this basis, he accept-
53 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.13.1 – 4, 49.4 – 5; Liv. 1.15.8; Plut. Rom. 13.1, 20.1; Serv. Aen. 5.560; Varro Ling. 5.55,
91. Bertolini 1888, 42 – 43 contra Lange 1876, 1.283. Cf. Sumner 1970, 75 – 76; Valditara 1989, 370 – 401; Cor-
nell 1995, 114 – 115; Smith 2006, 194 – 195.
54 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.15.6 – 22.2; Liv. 1.42.4 – 43.11. Thomsen 1980, 144 – 211. Cf. Cic. Rep. 2.39 – 40.
55 Gell. NA 6.13; cf. Liv. 4.34.6. Mommsen 1844, 138 – 140; Thomsen 1980, 169 – 171; cf. Cornell 1995, 179 –
183; Forsythe 2007, 31.
56 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.21, 23.2; Liv. 8.8.3; [Ineditum Vaticanum] FGrH 839 F1. Rawson 1971, 28; Thomsen
1980, 162 – 163; Valditara 1989, 381 – 392; Smith 1996, 203 – 205. Compare Diod. Sic. 23.2.1; Sall. Catil.
51.37– 38; Ath. 6.273e-f.
57 Rich also stresses the small-scale nature of warfare in this period. Rich 2007, 15 – 19 contra Snodgrass
1965, 119 – 121; Spivey & Stoddart 1990, 127– 139.
58 Alföldi 1965, 44 – 45; 1968, 446 – 448. Cf. Bertolini 1888, 36 – 37.
ed Pliny’s note that the celeres became the Late Republican equites. ⁵⁹ According to Mo-
migliano, where the tribunus celerum had commanded the most significant arm of the
regal army, the king’s personal forces, the magister equitum, by contrast, controlled the
two least significant divisions of the Early Republican forces: the cavalry and the light
troops. In a conscious effort to reduce the importance of the social group who made up
the cavalry, the Romans privileged the infantry, thereby reducing the role of the mag-
ister equitum. ⁶⁰
Both archaeological and textual evidence problematises this position, however, by
revealing that cavalry held a privileged and vital position in the early Roman army.
Though some scholars have argued that the Roman cavalry consisted of minimal num-
bers and was ineffective on the battlefield, McCall has demonstrated the necessity of a
successful mounted wing even for infantry heavy armies.⁶¹ Moreover, sixth century
friezes from the Palatine as well as mortuary architecture in Campania consistently de-
pict lightly armed cavalrymen. Their equipment matches well with the description of
early Roman cavalry provided by Polybius, suggesting that the link between the elite
and the equestrian arm of the military existed in this period.⁶² Nevertheless, the prob-
lem of differentiating between the hoplites of the classis and the cavalry remains. The
sources, however, helpfully associate the latter with the youth. Livy describes the
Roman cavalry at Lake Regillus (which he dates to 498) as iuventutis proceres, echoing
Dionysius’ claim that the celeres were: ἐκ τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων οἴκων τοὺς ἐρρωμενε-
στάτους τοῖς σώμασιν ἐπιλεξάμενος (“selected from the most robust of body and the
most illustrious families”).⁶³ Moreover, in both narratives and the exemplary sources
from the Early Republic, there is an emphasis on equestrian duels, reflecting the aris-
tocratic competition for prestige.⁶⁴ We might also note the tradition recorded in Diony-
sius that several kings of Rome served as “commanders of the cavalry” (ἡγεμόνες τῶν
ἱππέων) for their predecessors, emphasising this office as a stepping stone to power.⁶⁵
As a contrast, seeking a Latin origin for the magister equitum, Rosenberg argued
that the office did not derive from the tribunus celerum, but from what he terms,
“einem Quasimagistrat der ‚Jugend‘”.⁶⁶ He pointed to epigraphic attestations from
around Latium for titles such as mag(ister) iuv(enum), at Capena, as well as pr(aetori)
iuv(entutis) at Sutrium and praef(ectus) iuventutis at Lanuvium as evidence of Latin of-
fices which might have possessed a similar function.⁶⁷ He claims that such magistrates
59 Plin. HN 33.35. Momigliano 1966, 16 – 18; 1969a, 385 – 387.

60 Momigliano 1966, 21 – 22; 1969a, 387.
61 McCall 2002, 13 – 25. Cf. Adcock 1940, 25; Hill 1952, 22 – 26; Culham 1989, 195 – 205.
62 Pol. 6.25; cf. Plaut. Trin. 455 – 456; Varro Ling. 7.57. Nicolet 1962, 463 – 468; Rawson 1971, 20 – 21, 29; Cris-
tofani 1990, 92 – 95; Massa-Pairault 1995, 44 – 45; Smith 1996, 205.
63 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.13.1 Liv. 2.20.11. Massa-Pairault 1995, 37.
64 E. g., Pol. 6.25; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6.3.1 – 13.5; Liv. 2.19.21 – 20.13. Massa-Pairault 1995, 37; McCall 2002,
82 – 99.
65 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.3.2, 6.4. Bianchi 1985, 61, 67.
66 Rosenberg 1913, 95.
67 CIL 11.3256, 3938.
likely served as commanders of the cavalry, which was made up of the elite youth, and
came eventually to be called magistri equitum. ⁶⁸ However, the early imperial date of
these inscriptions would count against such an interpretation. The similar principes iu-
ventutis is well attested as a descriptive term for the senatorial youth during the Late
Republic and early Principate.⁶⁹ The earliest secure attestation of its use as a title is in 5
bce, when C. Iulius Caesar (cos. 1 ce) was acclaimed as such by the equites. ⁷⁰ There is no
evidence to support Rosenberg’s theory in the early period: no literary source men-
tions these offices and the epigraphic evidence which he cites dates to the imperial
era. However, this link between the Roman cavalry and the iuvenes was crucial. The
narratives clearly link both the celeres and early equites to the noblest youth. The
light arms favoured by the cavalry of this time suggest that by contrast to the heavily
armoured foot, agility and swiftness would be required: the employment of younger
men in this position is consequently intuitive. Such an interpretation also accords
well with the situation in the Mid-to-Late Republic, where the sons of senators often
served with the equites. ⁷¹ It could also explain the otherwise mysterious exclusion of
the cavalry from accounts of the Servian reform: it was simply a subset of the classis.
In sum, the ancient sources viewed the tribunus celerum as the commander of the
early Roman cavalry, which was formed from younger members of the elite. It was, in
the historical memory of the Romans, a prestigious office, linked closely to the regal
power. Accordingly, its occupants, where named, were significant figures without out-
sized historical influence. Considering the overt similarities between this office and
that of the magister equitum, it is clear why the sources treated these magistracies
as contiguous.
1.3 Reflections on the Origins and Antecedents of the magister

equitum
This survey of the ancient sources on the origins of the dictatorship and magister equi-
tum must end, ultimately, in aporia regarding the historical establishment of these
magistracies. The surviving material is late, fragmentary, and grounded in a substan-
tially different cultural context. Nevertheless, the ancient sources’ view of the process
underscores several important points. First, they unanimously present the dictator and
magister equitum as creations of the earliest Republic and as peculiarly Roman. For
them, the magistracies arose in the context of a serious military struggle against
their Latin neighbours, which according to some authors was the catalyst for domestic
unrest. Second, they exclusively viewed the dictatorship as an adaptation of kingship,
not a federal Latin office for which the evidence is weak and contradictory. Third, they
68 Rosenberg 1913, 92 – 94; Varcl 1949, 14.

69 Demougin 1988, 258 – 259; Eck 2001, 331. Cf. Cic. Fam. 3.11.3; Liv. 2.12.16; 9.25.4; 39.25.6; 42.61.5.
70 Tac. Ann. 1.3; Cass. Dio 55.9.9.
71 McCall 2002, 2 – 9, 83 – 90.
generally frame the magister equitum as an analogue and successor to the tribunus
celerum, an office imagined as the commander of the king’s mounted bodyguard.
The celeres, in turn, appear to have been equated with the early Roman cavalry, spe-
cifically the noble youth, a connection which Livy and Dionysius continued to stress
even after the expulsion of the reges.
Critically, the sources differentiate between the role of tribunus celerum and mag-
ister equitum in one respect. The rex is consistently imagined as a mounted commander
and the function of the celeres was defined as attending to him and protecting his per-
son.⁷² Plutarch and Zonaras note, however, that in 217 Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator
(dict. 217; cos. 233, 228, 215, 214, 209) was prevented by an archaic law from mounting
a horse and required a senatus consultum to bypass this restriction. Plutarch suggests
that the reasons for the statute were:
εἴτε τῆς ἀλκῆς τὸ πλεῖστον ἐν τῷ πεζῷ τιθεμένων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὸν στρατηγὸν οἰομένων δεῖν παρα-
μένειν τῇ φάλαγγι καὶ μὴ προλείπειν, εἴθ᾽, ὅτι τυραννικὸν εἰς ἅπαντα τἆλλα καὶ μέγα τὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς
κράτος ἐστίν, ἔν γε τούτῳ βουλομένων τὸν δικτάτορα τοῦ δήμου φαίνεσθαι δεόμενον (“either be-
cause the Romans placed their greatest strength in their infantry, and for this reason thought that
their command ought to be with the phalanx and not leave it; or because they wished, since the
power of the office in all other respects is as great as that of a tyrant, that in this point at least the
dictator should be seen to rely on the people”).⁷³
Even if the law is likely to have been obsolete by the third century, both inferences are
plausible: the principal element of the early Roman field army was likely the phalanx,
later succeeded by manipular infantry. However, the second reason, that the dictator
should be differentiated from a τύραννος or rex, by being removed from command
of the cavalry, underscores the crucial role of the magister equitum. Where, in the
Roman imagination, the tribunus celerum’s concern was restricted to the king’s person,
the magister equitum had a greater responsibility and, consequently, greater initiative.
Since the early Roman dictator could not functionally command the cavalry on the bat-
tlefield: the magister equitum, by necessity, had to take practical command.⁷⁴ In this
vital respect, the sources believed that the magister equitum had greater independence
than its antecedent. While the dictator was seen, in Mommsen’s terms, as “die Wieder-
aufnahme des Königthums auf Zeit sei”, unlike his regal antecedent, he could not com-
mand the cavalry, but was bound to remain with the infantry.⁷⁵ Instead a deputy was
required to lead this key elite force on the battlefield, a position of no small honour and
responsibility.
The surviving sources clearly believed that the magister equitum was a creation of
the republican period. Along with the dictatorship, it emerged in the earliest years of
the res publica, in response to the threat posed by the exiled Tarquinii and their allies.
72 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.13.3 – 4; Liv. 1.15.8.

73 Plut. Fab. 4.1; Zon. 7.13.13. Cf. Liv. 23.14.2.
74 Westermayer 1931, 632 – 633; Kunkel & Wittmann 1995, 675 – 676; Stemmler 1997, 91.
75 Mommsen 18873, 2.1.168.
There is no convincing evidence that the Roman dictatorship was based on a pre-exist-
ing Latin magistracy or that the magister equitum arose from an office termed the mag-
ister or praetor iuventutis. The sources evince an overt connection between the dicta-
torship and the rex. Given the magistracy’s freedom from interference by virtue of
imperium maius vis-à-vis the consuls, and ability to coerce, by virtue of its freedom
from the lex de provocatione, it was, as Cicero claimed, similar to kingship. Building
on this connection, the ancient authors overwhelmingly viewed the magister equitum’s
relationship to the dictator as analogous to that of the tribunus celerum to the rex. How-
ever, where the rex had the freedom to choose his practical command on the battle-
field, the dictator was constrained to remain with the infantry. Consequently, the sour-
ces conclusively suggest that the magister equitum filled from its institution the specific
position of de facto commander of the Roman cavalry.
2 The Second in Rank and Successor to the
Dictator? A Reassessment of the potestas of the
magister equitum
2.1 Definitions: potestas, imperium and auspicium in Current

Scholarship
The Oxford Classical Dictionary entry for magister equitum (in the third and fourth ed-
itions) refers to the office as an “emergency magistrate” which acted as the dictator’s
deputy and lieutenant “whether at Rome or on military service”. Its powers are de-
scribed succinctly as “[holding] imperium derived from the dictator and ranking
with the praetors”. A brief survey of reference texts after Westermayer’s 1931 RE
entry on the same topic shows this reflects a scholarly consensus: the office is most
often regarded as a full magistracy of the Roman People, linked inextricably to the dic-
tatorship, possessing imperium equal to a praetor; while the auspices remain largely
unmentioned, it could not command suis auspiciis and consequently could not tri-
umph.¹ This understanding, which must be seen as an orthodoxy, has not been compre-
hensively challenged in over a century.
However, these assertions are not beyond contest. One of the earliest authors to
discuss the office in detail was Dupond who, in his 1875 doctoral thesis, claimed that
the magister equitum was not a magistratus or honos in the true sense of the word.
Instead, he argued that the position was simply seen as a privatus empowered with
consulare imperium and auspicium by virtue of his appointment by the dictator.² Sim-
ilarly, Lange characterised the magister equitum as a magistratus minor which could
not hold imperium but held a consular potestas. ³ This early dissension serves merely
to illustrate some of the problems which this question touches on, specifically the com-
plex and crucial concepts of potestas, imperium, and auspicium. These words defy easy
definition: generally, potestas is taken to describe the “power(s)” of a magistracy, given
legitimacy through custom or statute. For magistrates without imperium, potestas de-
fined the limits of their official authority. Conversely, imperium itself is conventionally
considered either a distinct potestas or an element of potestas, necessary to exercise
military command. Finally, auspicium is often understood as the religious, or ritualised,
counterpoint to imperium. ⁴ Debate over the nature and relative significance of the con-
cepts of imperium, potestas, and auspicium during the Republican period, always
fraught, has intensified over the last decade. Different interpretations of these key con-
1 RE s.v. “magister equitum”; Lintott & Sherwin-White 1970, 885; Kunkel & Wittmann 1995, 717– 719; Lin-
tott 1999, 112; Gizewski 2003, 674; Klein 2013, 4232 – 4233. Compare Mommsen 18873, 173 – 180.
2 Dupond 1875, 39 – 42. Cf. Juv. 8.7– 8; Liv. 6.39.4; 23.11.10.
3 Lange 1876, 1.765 – 768.
4 E. g., Rüpke 1990, 41 – 45; Kunkel & Wittmann 1995, 21 – 28; Lintott 1999, 95 – 96.
cepts inevitably lead to different views on the powers of the magister equitum. As
scholarship on these topics has leapt forward, an assessment of the implications for
our interpretation of this office is necessary.
There are four key areas of disagreement in contemporary scholarship around
these concepts. First, what is the nature of imperium? Did it encompass all magisterial
power, as Mommsen believed? Or was it restricted to areas of military command as
Bleicken and, more recently, Drogula have argued? Second, and related to this issue,
what was the qualitative significance of the pomerium and the distinction between
the urbs and extra-urban environments for these powers and rights? Third, what
was the nature and purpose of the so-called lex curiata de imperio? Did it convey im-
perium or auspicium, or did it somehow validate one or both? Finally, what was the
nature of collegiality between magistrates and how did this relate to the interplay be-
tween powers and the auspices?⁵ Despite the complicated ongoing debate, an updated,
detailed, and more nuanced assessment of the rights and powers of the magister equi-
tum is possible. This chapter attempts to offer just such an analysis, addressing in turn
the questions of the potestas of the office, including the level of its imperium, and its
relationship to the auspices, including its relationship with the dictatorship as a matter
of public law. Overall, this chapter intends to provide an up-to-date survey of the mag-
ister equitum as a magistracy incorporating and aligning with twenty-first century
scholarship.
2.2 The potestas of the magister equitum
Any discussion of the powers—i. e., the potestas and imperium—of the magister equi-
tum must commence from a working definition of these concepts. The crucial question
to consider is what was the distinction between the two and how do they relate to one
another? As is often the case, Mommsen’s views remain foundational: he argued that
imperium was originally conceived of as the unlimited “earthly power” of the rex, to
which auspicium formed a “heavenly” counterpoint.⁶ He described the concept of po-
testas only in the vaguest of terms as representing the magisterial “Werth”: i. e., potes-
tas was literally the “power” of a magistrate, in the sense of the authorisation to act.
Mommsen believed that where a magistrate possessed both imperium and potestas, the
two terms were essentially synonyms, though admitting that there was a technical dis-
tinction.⁷ Under the Republic, the “royal power”, i. e., imperium, was transferred to the
two annually elected consuls and, over time, was progressively limited and divided by
legislative and constitutional changes. For example, the praetorship was introduced as
a juridical office, taking a role previously reserved for the consuls.⁸ For Mommsen, the
5 On this last point, see now, Webb 2023.

6 Mommsen 18873, 1.76, 90.
7 Mommsen 18873, 1.22 – 23.
8 Mommsen 18873, 2.1.93.
22 2 The Second in Rank and Successor to the Dictator?
dictatorship, consulship, and praetorship each had its own grade of imperium from its
inception.⁹ Furthermore, Mommsen argued forcefully that there was a geographic dis-
tinction between the quality of imperium exercised within the pomerium, the sacred
boundary of Rome, and without: i. e., domi and militiae. Each time a magistrate crossed
the pomerium he was required to perform an auspicial ceremony to validate his impe-
rium within the relevant sphere, while the imperium of promagistrates would expire
upon re-entering the City.¹⁰ While several aspects have been subject to extensive cri-
tique, as Beck observes, no scholar has yet challenged the underlying assumption
that imperium auspiciumque sustained the very fabric of the Roman constitutional sys-
tem.¹¹
An influential alternative model views imperium as a strictly military power, that
is, it was only correctly exercised militiae. For example, Bleicken, although acknowledg-
ing that, by the Late Republic, it was normal to equate both potestas with imperium
and auspicium with the ius auspicii, argued strongly that imperium originally applied
solely to military command. By contrast, potestas was “ein abstrakter Begriff für Amts-
gewalt”, a convenient measure of the relative strength of different magistracies. For ex-
ample, a consul possessed maior potestas vis-à-vis a praetor, but par potestas vis-à-vis
his colleague.¹² Both of these concepts derived ultimately from auspicium: the right to
consult the gods, and thus exercise earthly power.¹³ For Bleicken, the increasing em-
phasis on military success led to imperium being used as a shorthand for imperium aus-
piciumque, and more generally as a label for “legitimate authority”.¹⁴ Significantly, un-
like Mommsen, this argument takes as its premise that the imperium of the Early
Republic and the powers of the Early Republican magistrates were positively defined
and naturally limited from their inception.¹⁵
Recently, Drogula, building on Bleicken’s views, has contended strongly that impe-
rium was only ever a power exercised outside the pomerium by ordinary magistrates.
Instead, magistrates held potestas by virtue of their position, which granted all the au-
thority they required to carry out their functions intra pomerium. ¹⁶ Drogula’s position
neatly disposes of several problems inherent to Mommsen’s model but also tests the
limits of the textual evidence. The ancient sources refer to the power of magistrates,
Mommsen’s “Amtsgewalt”, as both potestas and imperium in situations both domi
and militiae. ¹⁷ Though, Drogula is correct that potestas is almost exclusively used of ac-
9 Mommsen 18873, 1.23.

10 Mommsen 18873, 1.61 – 75. Cf. Rüpke 1990, 41 – 51.
11 Beck 2011, 82. Though note, importantly, Giovannini (1983) insisting on a qualitative rather than spa-
tial distinction between imperium exercised domi and militiae.
12 Bleicken 1981, 287– 294. See already, Heuss 1944, 64; Coli 1951, 156 – 159.
13 Bleicken 1981, 260 – 278, 294 – 295.
14 Bleicken 1981, 259 – 263, 293 – 294.
15 Beck 2011, 80 – 81.
16 Drogula 2007, 419 – 431, 451; 2015, 46 – 130, esp. 81 – 125. Compare, now, Konrad 2022, 32 – 39.
17 Cf. Cic. Leg. 3.8.; Leg. agr. 1.9; 2.20, 24; Varro Ling. 5.82, 87.
tions within the pomerium there is no positive ancient testimony to suggest that it rep-
resents the civil equivalent of a purely military imperium. Moreover, it would be meth-
odologically unsound to reject each reference to imperium exercised domi as inaccu-
rate or mistaken.¹⁸ Further to this, the apparent tautology of imperio potestateque,
which Drogula believes differentiates between two separate aspects, is plausibly iden-
tified by Vervaet as simply covering the range of magistrates cum et sine imperio. ¹⁹
Most significantly, Drogula’s inversion of the single republican literary occurrence of
the phrase imperium domi militiaeque overly distorts the evidence. Sallust claims
that the text of the so-called senatus consultum ultimum granted the consuls, among
other things, domi militiaeque imperium atque iudicium summum habere (“exercise
[of ] the highest imperium, both in domestic and military sphere, and jurisdiction”).²⁰
Far from indicating an abnormal scenario in which the consuls were allowed to exer-
cise their imperium both within and without the pomerium, this passage reinforces the
impression that imperium was a potestas, which was firmly reiterated by the Senate
alongside further, more specific, potestates. Indeed, Sallust’s text reinforces the inter-
pretation that potestas was a specific “power” granted to a magistrate, and further
clarifies that, for the consuls, praetors, and dictators, the potestas of their magistracy
encompassed their imperium. ²¹ By contrast, the censores and the magistratus minores
did not possess imperium as part of their magisterial potestas.
The starting point of Mommsen’s understanding of the magister equitum’s powers
was an apparently unambiguous statement of Cicero. In de Legibus, Cicero describes an
ideal constitution which draws heavily on existing republican forms. After outlining
the office of dictator, he states: equitatumque qui regat habeto pari iure cum eo quicum-
que erit iuris disceptator (“let he who commands the cavalry [sc. magister equitum]
hold equal power with whosoever shall be ‘arbitrator of the law’”).²² The circumlocu-
tion iuris disceptator refers to the praetor, and Mommsen took this remark to mean
that the magister equitum possessed equal imperium with a praetor, i. e., praetorium
imperium. ²³ Epigraphic evidence has often been taken to support this conclusion. Frag-
ments of the Tabula Bembina produce a list of magistrates apparently in order of the
strength of their imperium and then potestas: dic(tator), co(n)s(ul), pr(aetor), mag(ister)
eq(uitum), cens(or), aid(ilis), tr(ibunus) pl(ebis), q(uaestor), IIIvir cap(italis), IIIvir a(gris)
d(andis) a(ssignandis), ioudex. The lex repetundarum and a lex Glaucia cited by Cicero
also preserve the first section of this list, dictator, consul, praetor, magister equitum,
18 As, for example, Drogula (2007, 420 – 421) implies: “Such distinctions [i. e., between the technical and
non-technical of imperium] are difficult to identify, especially given the tendency of ancient authors to
identify post and power: Livy uses imperium almost as a synonym for the consulship”.
19 Vervaet 2014, 22 n. 19 contra Drogula 2007, 426; 2015, 91 – 93.
20 Sall. Catil. 29.3.
21 Kunkel & Wittmann 1995, 22 – 26; Lintott 1999, 95 – 96; Vervaet 2014, 21 – 22; Konrad 2022, 37– 39.
22 Cic. Leg. 3.9.2. Cf. 3.8.1.
23 Mommsen 18873, 2.1.176.
and this may have been a standard formula during the Late Republic.²⁴ For Mommsen
—followed by many others—, the magister equitum stood ahead of the magistratus mi-
nores and after the other magistratus maiores, including the praetor, but possessed
powers exactly equal to those of the praetor.
However, it is worth re-emphasising that de Legibus does not present a literal de-
scription of the res publica, but instead a highly idealised version. Cicero even has one
of his own interlocutors, his brother Quintus, remark on the novelty of his sugges-
tions.²⁵ As Dyck notes, the equation of magister equitum with praetor allows Cicero
to fit a potentially awkward office into a neat hierarchy: as the dictator is a replace-
ment to the consuls, so the magister equitum serves at a level equivalent to a praetor.²⁶
Indeed, other evidence appears to contradict this neat, rationalised picture of the mag-
istracy.
The most radical dissension from the standard position comes from Brennan, who
argues forcefully that the magister equitum did not possess imperium and should be
seen as a magistratus minor. For Brennan, as its duties were not consonant with
those of a senior magistrate, the position only required and thus only received potestas.
He bases his argument on two key points: first, that there is little positive evidence
demonstrating that the office held imperium; second, that the few references which
do suggest that the magister equitum possessed imperium are either corrupt or incor-
rect.²⁷ Unlike Mommsen, he deduces from the epigraphic tradition that the magister
equitum possessed higher potestas than a censor, but lower potestas than a praetor,
which he regards as the last magistrate cum imperio. For Brennan, the magister equi-
tum, “does not round off the list of magistracies with imperium, but rather heads the
list of those who do not have it”.²⁸ While these lists are commonly assumed to have
been an entrenched, unchanging hierarchy to be inserted where necessary, there
are examples of differences. It is striking that Cicero, when citing the lex Cornelia de
sicariis et veneficiis, reproduces a different list of minor magistrates from the Tabula
Bembina, with the military tribunes of the four legions preceding quaestors and the
tribunes of the plebs. ²⁹ Similarly, Livy records a senatus consultum of 177 which lists
24 RS. 1.8; 7.15; 20.3. Cf. Cic. Rab. Post. 14.6. Mommsen 18873, 1.547– 548.
25 sed ea paene nostrae civitatis, etsi a te paulum adlatum est novi (“but these are almost [the laws] of
our state, but with a few novelties proposed by you”). Cic. Leg. 3.12.1. Cf. Brennan 2000, 1.48; Dyck 2004,
425 – 429, 463; Wilson 2021, 15 – 18.
26 Dyck 2004, 463.
27 Brennan 2000, 1.41 – 49.
28 Brennan 2000, 1.45. However, this sits poorly with his own assertion that the consular potestas was
distinct from imperium. It seems odd that the potestas censoria be regarded as less privileged than the
potestas of a praetor.
29 qui tribunus militum legionibus quattuor primis, quiue quaestor, tribunus plebis … (“those who [serve
as] military tribune in the first four legions, or who [serve as] quaestor, tribune of the plebs …”). Cic.
Clu. 148 = RS. 30.6. Cf. RS. 1.8, 7.15.
the interrex and censors before the praetors.³⁰ These deviations indicate that the con-
fidence consigned to the Tabula Bembina may have been misplaced.
The main weakness of both positions, that the magister equitum held either prae-
torian or no imperium, is that they do not account in detail for the contradictory testi-
mony of several major sources, including Polybius, Varro, Livy, and Plutarch. For exam-
ple, in his narrative for the year 217, Polybius notes the appointment of Q. Fabius
Maximus Cunctator as dictator in the aftermath of the Roman defeat at Lake Trasi-
mene. Recognising that his readers might lack familiarity with the position, he offered
a brief excursus on the magistracy, describing it as an αὐτοκράτωρ στρατηγός “general
with full powers”. He concluded this digression with an assessment of the magister
equitum: οὗτος [sc. the magister equitum] δὲ τέτακται μὲν ὑπὸ τὸν αὐτοκράτορα, γίνε-
ται δ᾽ οἱονεὶ διάδοχος τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐν τοῖς ἐκείνου περισπασμοῖς (“this [office] is a
subordinate to the dictator, but becomes as if a successor to its power in the event
of its distraction”).³¹ Polybius describes the magister equitum as a διάδοχος to the dic-
tator, which Mommsen interprets as meaning an effective second-in-command in the
field.³² While most translations render the word as “successor”, it possesses a broader
semantic range than the English word can convey.³³ The τῆς ἀρχῆς … ἐκείνου indicates
that Polybius saw the office as taking on the power of the dictator in the event of “dis-
tracting circumstances”, the most natural translation of περισπασμοῖς here.³⁴ This im-
plies, at minimum, a belief that the magister equitum could act with a similar degree of
authority to the dictator in his superior’s absence. While Mommsen, followed by oth-
ers, argued that this applied only militiae, Polybius himself draws no such distinction.³⁵
Indeed, his belief that the dictator superseded all magistrates in office, alongside his
lack of further clarification, demonstrates that he thought of this power as extending
into the domestic sphere. Polybius, among our earliest sources for the office and unin-
fluenced by the Late Republican revival of the office, clearly indicates that the magister
equitum could wield power of a similar efficacy to the dictator, domi militiaeque, when
the latter was absent.³⁶
Plutarch offers corroboration for this position in his life of Marcus Antonius [72]
who was selected for the office by C. Iulius Caesar in September 48. In describing
the honour accorded to Antonius, Plutarch is equally unambiguous, stating ἔστι δὲ ἡ
ἀρχὴ δευτέρα τοῦ δικτάτορος παρόντος, ἂν δὲ μὴ παρῇ, πρώτη καὶ μόνη σχεδόν
(“this office is second in rank when the dictator is present, when he is not, it is
30 Liv. 41.9.11.
31 Pol. 3.87.9, with my emphasis. Oddly Walbank (1957, ad loc.) chooses not to comment on this important
point.
32 Mommsen 18873, 2.1.179; Kunkel & Wittmann 1995, 285, n. 45.
33 Shuckburgh 1889: “…takes his [i. e., the dictator’s] place when engaged elsewhere”; Paton 1922 – 1927:
“…becomes as it were his successor, when the dictator is otherwise occupied”.
34 For this sense of τοῖς περισπασμοῖς: e. g., Pol. 4.32.5; Diod. Sic. 12.38.
35 Kunkel & Wittmann 1995, 285, n. 45; Mommsen 18873, 2.1.179.
36 Vervaet 2007, 227.
more or less the first and only”).³⁷ Plutarch saw a clear hierarchy during a dictator-
ship: the dictator is followed by a magister equitum, who then stands above all others.
With the evidence of Polybius, this would imply that the magister equitum outranked
the consuls, the most powerful ordinary magistrates. Appian too substantiates this im-
pression in his narrative of 44. After the death of Caesar, he describes the magister
equitum, M. Aemilius Lepidus [73], as taking command of troops outside the city and
marching them to the campus Martius to execute the orders of Antonius. Appian
gives a clear explanation for this decision to give up first place: ᾿Aντωνίῳ γὰρ ἐξίστατο,
φίλῳ τε τοῦ Καίσαρος ὄντι μᾶλλον καὶ ὑπάτῳ (“he yielded to Antonius as the closer
friend to Caesar and the consul”).³⁸ This incident will be discussed in greater detail
below, but for now it is sufficient to note that Appian clearly indicates that Lepidus
had a claim to primacy vis-à-vis Antonius, despite the latter’s position of sole consul,
and actively chose to put aside his right to take charge.³⁹
Brennan stresses the extended period of desuetude for the office between 202 and
82/81, and suggests that either Sulla or Caesar—he favours the latter—deliberately en-
hanced the powers or imperium of the magister equitum. ⁴⁰ There is, however, no evi-
dence for such a change, which would invalidate these late examples and, given the
strong statement of Polybius—writing in the second century bce—that the office
could succeed to the position of the dictator, it seems clear that they reflect the inher-
ent nature of the magistracy. Admittedly, the Greek sources do occasionally misunder-
stand elements of the Roman constitution. One oft-cited example is the observation of
Polybius, repeated by Dionysius and Plutarch, that under a dictatorship all ordinary
magistrates except the tribunes of the plebs cease to hold their magistracy. However,
given that Livy explicitly records that consuls were to dismiss their lictors in the pres-
ence of the dictator—a demonstration that the dictator alone held the summum impe-
rium auspiciumque and the consequent right to initiative—this misinterpretation on
the part of Greek observers is understandable.⁴¹ Moreover, Roman sources too empha-
sise the magister equitum’s significance. The well-known first century antiquarian, M.
Terentius Varro claims that the dictator and magister equitum were named such on ac-
count of their privileged position vis-à-vis the other magistrates:
37 Plut. Ant. 8.3, with my emphasis.

38 App. B Civ. 2.118.
39 Vervaet 2007, 227. Importantly, this example shows that Wilson (2021, 221) is incorrect to assume that
magistri equitum could not continue in office after the death of their dictator. That the magister equitum
could normatively continue to exercise imperium after the death of a dictator is intuitive, although we
could expect a prompt abdication as in Lepidus’ case in 44. In lieu of other attested examples (the fate of
Q. Hortensius’ magister equitum in 287 is unrecorded), it is also possible that the principle had not been
tested previously.
40 Brennan 2000, 1.48.
41 Pol. 3.87.8; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.70.1 – 4, 77.1 – 2, 11.20.3; Plut. Ant. 8.4 – 5; Cam. 5.1; Fab. 9.2; Quaest.
Rom. 81. Compare: Liv. 22.11.5. Vervaet 2014, 33 esp. n. 11. For a thorough argument that the Greek sources
are, fundamentally, correct, see now Konrad 2022, 78 – 84.
dictator, quod a consule dicebantur, cui dicto audientes omnes essent. magister equitum, quod
summa potestas huius in equites et accensos, ut est summa populi dictator, a quo is quoque magister
populi appellatus. reliqui, quod minores quam hi magistri, dicti magistratus, ut ab albo, albatus
(“the dictator [is called this] because he is ‘named’ by the consul, as the one whose ‘command’
all should obey. The magister equitum [is called this], because his is the highest potestas over
the equites and light troops, just as the dictator is the highest for the people, from which he is
also called magister populi. The other [officials], because they are lesser than these ‘masters’
are called ‘magistrates’, just as albatus (‘white-clad’) is derived from albo (‘white’)”).⁴²
Irrespective of whether the etymology is valid, Varro clearly believed that the magister
equitum and magister populi were so-called on account of being “greater” than the
other magistrates.⁴³ For this statement not to be nonsensical, his audience must
have understood that the magister equitum stood above the ordinary magistrates, in-
cluding the consuls. As far as Varro was concerned, the Greek sources were correct:
the magister equitum stood closest to the dictator and possessed more power than
all other magistrates.
More significant information regarding the potestas of the magister equitum comes
from Livy’s narrative in his account of the Licinio-Sextian rogations. Beginning from
377, the tribunes of the plebs, C. Licinius Stolo and P. Sextius consistently vetoed the
election of magistrates to force through plebeian access to the consulship. After several
years of anarchy, the tribunes allowed the election of colleges of tribuni militum con-
sulari potestate and occasional dictators in order to deal with a series of military
threats. In 368, P. Manlius was appointed dictator rei gerundae causa by the Senate
and antagonised the patrician senators by selecting one C. Licinius Calvus [19] as his
magister equitum, the first plebeian to be appointed to the office.⁴⁴
P. Manlius deinde dictator rem in causam plebis inclinauit C. Licinio, qui tribunus militum fuerat,
magistro equitum de plebe dicto. id aegre patres passos accipio: dictatorem propinqua cognatione
Licini se apud patres excusare solitum simul negantem magistri equitum maius quam tribuni con-
sularis imperium esse (“then, P. Manlius, the dictator, shifted the matter towards the cause of the
plebeians, having named C. Licinius from the plebs, who had been tribunus militum, as magister
equitum. I gather that the patres took this poorly: the dictator was accustomed to excuse himself to
the patres on account of a close relationship to Licinius, while at the same time denying that the
imperium of a magister equitum was greater than that of a consular tribune”).⁴⁵
Livy states explicitly that Manlius denied that the magister equitum had imperium
maius vis-à-vis the consular tribunate. Given the context of this episode, the plebeian
struggle for access to the consulship, the obvious inference is that there was a belief
42 Varro Ling. 5.82.

43 Humm 2012a: 105 – 107. Compare the link between the Latin magister and the Etruscan macstrna/
Mastarna, allegedly the name or title of the rex Servius Tullius (ILS 212 ll. 16 – 23). Heurgon 1967,
103 – 104; Bianchi 1985; Valditara 1989, 73 – 74, 92 – 134.
44 On his identity, Oakley 1997, 1.692.
45 Liv. 6.39.3 – 4. Cf. Plut. Cam. 39.5; Cass. Dio fr. 29.5.
that this may be the case. Although it remains disputed whether the military tribunate
with consular power exercised imperium, it is clear that by the Late Republic Roman
authors believed that it did.⁴⁶ Indeed, the crucial distinction between this office and the
consulship was, in the Roman imagination, that the former was open to plebeians,
while the latter was not, implying that the issue at stake was the ius auspicii rather
than imperium per se.⁴⁷ Manlius’ carefully worded denial, then, sidesteps the issue
at hand by focusing on the question of imperium, the authority wielded by the office,
rather the possession of the auspicia, about which the patricians were exercised. Nev-
ertheless, the corollary to this statement is that the magister equitum possessed impe-
rium equal with that of a tribunus militum consulari potestate, viz. consular imperi-
um. ⁴⁸
Undeniably, there are problems with the Livian account as presented.⁴⁹ Oakley
highlights the prominent role accorded to the great M. Furius Camillus in the events
of 368 – 366 as reason for caution. More significant is the apparent role of the historian
C. Licinius Macer in shaping this narrative. Macer wrote during the early-first century
and is identified with the tribune of the plebs active in 73, who battled to overturn the
reforms of Sulla disempowering that office.⁵⁰ Livy cites him frequently in his early
books and notes explicitly that Licinius’ predilection for emphasising his own gens’
achievements rendered his testimony suspect.⁵¹ Both Livy and Cicero are alive to the
possibility that individual families could promote their own competing narratives
through their laudationes funebris and imagines, and Ridley interprets the plethora
of Fabii, Valerii, and Licinii involved in the Early Republican narratives as indicating
that this was a widespread practice.⁵² Walt highlights the regular occurrence of Licinii
at key points in Livy’s narrative. Particularly notable are the Calvi, who bear the same
cognomen as Macer’s own son.⁵³ One P. Licinius is recorded among the first tribunes of
the plebs in 481; P. Licinius Calvus is listed by Livy as the first plebeian tribunus militum
consulare potestate in 400, and was elected to the office again in 396, when he abdicat-
ed in favour of his son C. Licinius Calvus, the later magister equitum. ⁵⁴ As Oakley notes,
there is plentiful evidence that Macer, at the very least, inflated the significance of the
Licinii at these key moments. Moreover, the communis opinio holds that his history had
46 Varro ap. Gell. NA 14.7.4 – 5; Liv. 4.7.2; Gell. NA 17.21.19; ILS 212 ll.35 – 36. Ogilvie 1965, 541; Richardson
2017, 92 – 94; Armstrong 2017, 136 – 140 contra Badian 1990a: 469.
47 Liv. 5.12.9. See also: 4.6.8 – 9. See Richardson 2017, 92 – 94, with references.
48 Vervaet 2007, 227; pace Mommsen 18873, 2.1.176. It should also be noted that, prior to the introduction
of the praetorship in 366, a model for imperium less than consular is not attested.
49 E. g., von Fritz 1950, now critiqued by Pellam 2014.
50 Sall. Hist. 3.48. Oakley 2013, 322; cf. Hartfield 1982, 24 – 34.
51 Liv. 7.9.5, quaesita ea propriae familiae laus leviorem auctorem Licinius facit (“the praise Licinius
seeks to bestow on his own family makes him a less weighty author”).
52 Cic. Brut. 61 – 62; Liv. 8.40.3 – 4. Ridley 1983, passim, esp. 378 – 382; Walt 1997, 185 – 187. Cf. Beloch 1926,
44 – 46, 63, 75; Richardson 2011, 51.
53 Val. Max. 9.12.7.
54 Liv. 2.43.3 – 4; 5.12.9, 18.1 – 6, 20.4. Walt 1997, 187– 189; cf. Richardson 2014, 22, 27, 34 – 35.
a pro-plebeian stance, largely based on his political actions.⁵⁵ There is, however, little
direct evidence of this in the surviving fragments, and as Strasburger noted a recurring
motif was the concordia ordinum. ⁵⁶ The Livian narrative reflects this concern, and
Dio’s account also emphasises Manlius’ actions as an attempt to reconcile the patriciate
and plebs. As such, given the prominence of the Licinii in this episode and the proxim-
ity of these events to Livy’s note on Macer’s praise of his own gens, it would be reason-
able to posit that he served as a major source for the Augustan historian for this period.
However, this does not invalidate the utility of the information provided by Livy.
While the annalistic authors could be error-prone or actively inventive, there is, as I
have argued above, sufficient evidence to show that most were not vigorously falsifying
their information. While gentes appear to have produced competing narratives and
fasti based on their family history, the historians’ concern for this issue shows that
an unsubtle promotion of one’s own ancestors was viewed negatively.⁵⁷ The surviving
sources show clearly that the mid-fourth century was a period of intense institutional
change, even if the traditional narrative of the so-called “Struggle of the Orders” is re-
jected. The years 368 – 366 were presented as a major turning point: according to the
traditional chronology, the last witnessed the introduction of the praetorship, curule
aedileship, and the election of the first plebeian consul, L. Sextius. The Romans viewed
the overt inclusion of plebeians in government as a monumental shift, and scholars
increasingly view this period as the birth of a res publica recognisably approaching
the structures familiar from the Middle and Late Republic.⁵⁸ It would be reasonable
to infer that the appointment of the first plebeian magister equitum also took place dur-
ing exactly this critical juncture. Furthermore, the relative obscurity of Manlius and
the self-evident logic of his responses to patrician concerns also suggest that this epi-
sode reflects or refracts an historical event. Ultimately, however, the accuracy of the
assertion does not depend on the veracity of the incident. The most important consid-
eration for a historian of the period was plausibility: Manlius’ argument had to be con-
vincing to Macer’s and Livy’s audience.⁵⁹ Despite the attempts of Brennan to paint Livy
as uninformed and imprecise, he demonstrates elsewhere his firm grasp of constitu-
tional matters.⁶⁰ Together with the views of the Greek sources and Varro, his statement
that the imperium of the magister equitum did not exceed imperium consulare should
be accepted for what it is: as strong evidence that the magister equitum possessed im-
perium equal to that of the consuls.
55 Soltau 1897, 417– 423; Walter 2004, 38 – 40; Wiseman 2009, 22; Oakley 2013, 328 – 329.
56 Strasburger 1931, 11.
57 Damon 2007, 443; Lendon 2009, 53 – 56.
58 Brennan 2000, 1.58 – 64; Hartfield 1982, 28 – 34; Hölkeskamp 1987, 60 – 61; Oakley 1997, 1.649 – 661,
esp. 649 – 651; Forsythe 2005, 262 – 266; Beck 2005, 44 – 47; 2011, 82; Bergk 2011, 64 – 67; Vervaet 2014,
326 – 329.
59 Oakley 1997, 1.76 – 79. Cf. Hartfield 1982, 30 – 34.
60 See the observation of Kallet-Marx concerning Polybius, (1995, 23): “it is not enough for scholars to
state that he misunderstood. They need to demonstrate where and how he did”.
Despite Livy’s apparently definitive statement that the magister equitum possessed
imperium, albeit no greater than that of a consular tribune, Brennan claims instead
that this passage actually provides further corroboration for his theory that the office
did not hold any imperium. In support, he cites Livy’s narrative for 216 where Mago, a
Carthaginian general, recounts the exploits of Hannibal to the Carthaginian “Senate”:
cum sex imperatoribus eum, quorum quattuor consules, duo dictator ac magister equitum fuerint,
cum sex consularibus exercitibus acie conflixisse; occidisse supra ducenta milia hostium, supra quin-
quaginta milia cepisse. ex quattuor consulibus duos occidisse; ex duobus saucium alterum, alterum
toto amisso exercitu vix cum quinquaginta hominibus effugisse. magistrum equitum, quae consula-
ris potestas sit, fusum fugatum; dictatorem, quia se in aciem numquam commiserit, unicum haberi
imperatorem (“he had fought with six generals, four of which were consuls, two were the dictator
and magister equitum, with six consular armies: he had killed over two hundred thousand of the
enemy, and two of the four consuls: one of the other two was wounded; the other, with his whole
army lost, fled with difficulty with barely fifty men. The magister equitum, who possesses consular
potestas, was routed and put to flight; the dictator, because he never committed himself to battle,
was regarded as an unparalleled general”).⁶¹
Noting that the magister equitum is explained explicitly as quae consularis potestas sit,
Brennan asserts that the historian’s earlier use of the word imperium is either a mis-
take or an imprecise use of terminology.⁶² A significant objection to this position is that
it distorts the available evidence. Livy is equally overt in both instances, and there is no
good reason to assume that Livy is using non-technical terminology or that he is mis-
taken when he has Manlius state that the magister equitum had imperium, not potestas,
no greater than that of a consular tribune. Furthermore, Brennan’s own argument ap-
pears selective: elsewhere he is willing to accept Livy’s testimony as technically accu-
rate, where it supports his claims.⁶³ Mommsen’s remark that “so kann dies nur heis-
sen, dass dasselbe den consularisch-prätorischen Stellungen beigezählt werde”
simply confuses the issue further and has no support from other sources.⁶⁴ If we accept
that for the magistratus cum imperio their potestas included their imperium, no contra-
diction remains. Considering the broad testimony of the ancient sources themselves,
the magister equitum must have held consular imperium, exactly equal to that of the
tribunus militum consulari potestate and, consequently, a consul.
One final episode offers additional confirmation for this conclusion. In 217, as a re-
sult of widespread dissatisfaction at the dictator, Q. Fabius Maximus’ leadership in the
war against Hannibal, the magister equitum M. Minucius Rufus [61] had his powers—
and his right to wield the summum imperium auspiciumque—elevated to exactly equal
61 Livy. 23.11.8 – 10.

62 Brennan 2000, 1.48. Cf. Badian 1990a: 469.
63 E. g., for Brennan, Livy is inaccurate in referring to imperium for tribuni militum consulari potestate
on multiple occasions (including in this passage), but he accepts as accurate the single reference to the
potestas of the magister equitum, with no specific discussion (Liv. 23.11.10). Brennan 2000, 1.48. Cf. Kunkel
& Wittmann 1995, 21 – 28; Rowe 2001.
64 Mommsen 18873, 2.1.176 n. 4. See for example: Vervaet 2007, 227.
with his superior.⁶⁵ Brennan focuses on the uncertainty within the tradition over
which body authorised this extraordinary and unprecedented decision: the Senate,
the whole populus through a vote of the comitia centuriata, or the concilium plebis.
While acknowledging the prominent role afforded to the tribune of the plebs M. Meti-
lius (tr. pl. 217) by Livy and Plutarch, he asserts that the concilium plebis was unable to
grant imperium ex nihilo to a magistrate. He therefore explains the confusion in the
record by suggesting that Metilius passed a plebiscitum ordering a competent magis-
trate to convene the comitia centuriata to grant the magister equitum, Minucius, impe-
rium ex senatus consulto, precisely because the office had no imperium to be en-
hanced.⁶⁶ However, there are issues with both aspects of this thesis. First, as Vervaet
notes, after the lex Hortensia of 287 at the latest a plebiscitum had a force equal to
that of a lex populi, viz. it was binding on the whole populus rather than simply the
plebs. This suggests that from 287, if a lex populi could grant imperium ex nihilo, so
in theory could a plebiscitum. ⁶⁷ Moreover, there are several examples of individuals re-
ceiving grants of imperium by virtue of a plebiscitum: examples include T. Otacilius
Crassus (pr. 217) from 215 in command of the fleet and P. Cornelius Scipio (later Afri-
canus) from 210 in Spain.⁶⁸ Significantly, Brennan himself admits that Livy often
uses populus interchangeably with plebs, casting doubt on the involvement of the com-
itia centuriata at all.⁶⁹ Second, there is no suggestion in any of the sources that the mag-
ister equitum was granted imperium ex nihilo. The sources unanimously suggest the of-
fice held imperium of its own. Instead, it is more plausible that in 217 Minucius already
held imperium consulare and his rights to the summum imperium were elevated, by
virtue of the Metilian plebiscite, to equal with the dictator.⁷⁰
One last piece of evidence for the imperium of the magister equitum is the insignia
of the office, especially since the Romans were highly conscious of the symbolic impact
of the paraphernalia of magistrates. Curule magistrates had the right to wear the toga
praetexta, sit on a sella curulis (curule chair) and take up the fasces, a series of rods,
borne by lictors.⁷¹ Possession of the fasces is considered by many scholars as the mini-
mum qualification for holding imperium, and there is a surfeit of evidence demonstrat-
ing the necessary connection between the physical rods and the right to command. As
Staveley notes, the sources record the use of the fasces as a proxy for the relative au-
thority of a magistrate cum imperio during the Republic. On one view, the fasces were a
quantitative indicator of a magistrate’s imperium. ⁷² Certainly, Appian, writing in the
65 Sources: Pol. 3.103.3 – 4; Nep. Hann. 5.3; Liv. 22.26.5 – 7; Plut. Fab. 9.3; Sil. Pun. 7.540 – 545; App. Hann. 12;
Cass. Dio 14.16; [Auct.] vir ill. 43.3; Zon. 8.26.
66 Brennan 2000, 1.43 – 45.
67 Gagliardi 2017.
68 Liv. 23.22.20; 26.18.4 – 11. Vervaet 2007, 215 – 216; Drogula 2015, 220 – 221. Cf. Brennan 2000, 1.154 – 163.
69 Brennan 2000, 1.44.
70 As argued by Vervaet 2007, 214 – 223; cf. Dyck 2004, 425 – 429, 463.
71 Kunkel & Wittmann 1995, 90 – 91.
72 Staveley 1963, 470 – 471; Vervaet 2014, 11 – 12; Konrad 2022, 37.
second century ce, believed that the fundamental difference in authority between the
consul and praetor was directly related to the difference in the number of their lictors:
οὓς αὐτοὶ καλοῦσιν ἑξαπελέκεας, ὅτι τῶν ὑπάτων δυώδεκα πελέκεσι καὶ δυώδεκα ῥάβ-
δοις, ὥσπερ οἱ πάλαι βασιλεῖς, χρωμένων, τὸ ἥμισυ τῆς ἀξιώσεως ἔστι τοῖσδε τοῖς στρα-
τηγοῖς καὶ τὰ ἡμίσεα παράσημα (“‘six-axe-men’ [sc. praetors], so-called because the con-
suls had twelves fasces, as the kings before, where the praetors had only half the
dignity (ἀξίωσις) of the consuls, and thus half the insignia of office”).⁷³
However, this fits poorly with other, older descriptions of the rights conveyed by
imperium, viz. the ability to command troops, the right to summon citizens for trial,
etc. A model which views the imperium as functionally additive, that is, a praetor’s im-
perium was half the strength of a consul’s, and that of a consul half of a dictator’s,
while intuitive, does not reflect the practical impact. Either a magistrate exercised im-
perium—with these corresponding rights, separate to the potestates of their office—or
they did not. Moreover, prior to 367, the ancient authors believed that (ordinarily) this
was a moot point. Outside of dictatorships (and the unusual circumstance of the de-
cemvirate), the holders of imperium did so at the same level, which we call “consular”.
There is strong evidence for a long-standing practice and means of determining hier-
archy between magistrates of the same potestas and/or imperium, the concept of the
summum imperium auspiciumque. ⁷⁴ As such, dictators—and magistri equitum—could
functionally hold the same level of imperium as consuls and, nevertheless, operate
as a separate—and superior—college. As Ehrenberg put it, “imperium maius [quam]
is, above all, simply and purely imperium, though seen in relation to other imperia”,
that is, the right to exercise the summum imperium auspiciumque. ⁷⁵
In his narrative for 47, Cassius Dio reports that M. Antonius was accompanied by
ῥαβδούχων τοὺς γὰρ ἓξ μόνους (“the usual six lictors”), emphasising the view that the
office possessed imperium. This view is strengthened by Dio’s citation of this detail as
evidence of Antonius’ comparative moderation in office.⁷⁶ In the absence of any contra-
dictory statements, this situation, in which the magister equitum was accompanied by
six lictors, should be regarded as normal. Not unexpectedly, previous scholarship has
tended to accept or reject Dio’s testimony together with Cicero’s suggestion that the
magister equitum hold imperium equal to a praetor. This symbolic coincidence is
used by Mommsen as a platform to dismiss the evidence of Livy, where Brennan, re-
jecting Cicero, postulates that Dio’s statement was true only for the Late Republic.⁷⁷
However, if the principle of the summum imperium auspiciumque was the primary
method for determining relative authority between imperium-holders rather than a
73 Cic. Leg. agr. 1.9; 2.32; Sall. Catil. 36.1; App. Syr. 15; cf. Plaut. Asin. 574 – 575; Plin. HN 16.74 – 75; Cass. Dio
53.13.8; Lyd. Mag. 1.7. Polia 2001, 39 – 41; Staveley 1963, 470 – 471; Vervaet 2014, 11.
74 Vervaet 2014.
75 Ehrenberg 1953, 115; Brennan 2000, 1.38 – 41; Wilson 2021, 165 – 166, 170 – 174.
76 Cass. Dio 42.27.2 contra Brennan 2000, 1.44 – 46. Cf. Lyd. Mag. 1.37. Compare the flippant attitude of C.
Scribonius Curio (tr. pl. 50), when in 49 he was given imperium pro praetore by Caesar (Cic. Att. 10.4.9).
77 Cic. Leg. 3.9.2. Mommsen 18873, 2.1.176; Brennan 2000, 1.45 – 46.
“grade”, the magister equitum’s praetorian insignia need not carry any relation to its
level of imperium.
A rationale for the office’s lower status insignia may be visible in the intended
function of each of the dictatorship, consulship, and magister equitum. Since the dicta-
tor, during his term, was intended to take absolute command and wield the summum
imperium, ahead of the consuls, his possession of 24 fasces, double that of a single con-
sul, symbolically emphasised his superiority.⁷⁸ The magister equitum, however, was in-
tended only to operate as the dictator’s second-in-command. In the event of the dicta-
tor’s death, he could at least take charge temporarily, but the magistracy was not
intended as a medium-term quasi-dictatorship. The situation in 44, after the assassina-
tion of Caesar, is instructive. Appian records unequivocally that Lepidus had the initia-
tive and authorisation to act courtesy of his position.⁷⁹ By according the magister equi-
tum only six lictors, rather than the twelve associated with the consular imperium, the
system provided a strong symbolic imperative to restore consular supremacy in the
event of a dictator’s death or abdication. The magister equitum had the right to contin-
ue in office, but within the wider social context, where insignia of office were so re-
vered, the lack of full consular fasces would render him unsuitable as an ongoing re-
placement for the dictator without recourse to the Senate and consuls. Indeed, noting
that the magister equitum pre-dates the praetorship, it is plausible to assume that
rather than these offices being equal in rank, the provision of six lictors for the praetor
was a response to such a mechanism of symbolic subordination: that is, the magister
equitum received six lictors as a sign of subordination to the dictatorship, and the prae-
tor received six lictors as a similar sign of its subordination to the consuls. This inter-
pretation may well also provide a republican precedent for the otherwise strange de-
cision in January 27 that, henceforth, praetorian proconsuls were to be entitled only to
six lictors irrespective of their consular imperium. ⁸⁰
Pointedly, Dio provides further evidence that the magister equitum was to be
counted as a full magistratus. In a passage concerning the activities of the praefecti
urbi appointed by C. Iulius Caesar in 45, he states that καὶ αἰτιαθέντες γε ὅτι καὶ
ῥαβδούχοις καὶ τῇ ἐσθῆτι τῷ τε δίφρῳ τοῖς ἀρχικοῖς, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ ἵππαρχος (“they
[the praefecti urbi] were censured for employing fasces, curule garb, and the curule
chair exactly like the magister equitum”).⁸¹ Since the magistratus curules, those magis-
trates who held the right to a curule chair, are identified precisely with the magistratus
patricii, those offices originally reserved for the patricians, the historian’s exactness
78 Staveley 1963, 470.

79 App. B Civ. 2.118. Vervaet 2007, 227. The comment of the fasti Privernati, that Lepidus was magister
equitum, quoad dict(ator) Caesar esset (“for as long as Caesar was dictator”) should be taken as a general
temporal marker, rather than an interpretation of the constitutional situation on the ground. See chap-
ter 5.3, cf. Zevi 2016, 292 – 293, 295; 2017, 11 – 16.
80 Cass. Dio 53.13.4. Vervaet 2012, 86.
81 Cass. Dio 43.48.1. Freyburger-Gallard 1997, 175 – 176.
here is revealing.⁸² Although Brennan argues that the praefecti urbi appointed in 45 did
not possess imperium and that Dio’s reference to a law authorising “all who received
office from the dictator” to receive the fasces and insignia magisterii shows that the
magister equitum could have six lictors despite their lack of imperium, his position
is speculative. Welch had already demonstrated both that the praefecti urbi possessed
imperium praetorium and that the objection raised was to the insignia alone.⁸³ The
praefecti urbi of 45 were a radical re-imagination of an Early Republican office, and
there is no reason why their appeal to “a certain law” could not be to custom, in
lieu of any decisive precedent.⁸⁴ This passage corroborates the picture of the magister
equitum presented generally by the ancient sources: as a curule magistratus maior pos-
sessing full imperium consulare.
To take stock: the full scope of the ancient evidence does not support the communis
opinio, first articulated by Mommsen, that the magister equitum possessed imperium
praetorium. Nor does the assembled material lend itself to Brennan’s radical theory
that the office held no imperium at all, only consular potestas. Instead, the combined
explicit and direct testimony of Polybius, Varro, Livy, Plutarch, Appian, and Dio persua-
sively implies that the magister equitum held consular imperium.
2.3 The Appointment and Collegiality of the magister equitum
Auspicium and its relationship to imperium and potestas is also the subject of much
debate: it is often asserted that the concept derived from the practice of augury, the
consultation of the gods, originally by means of observing bird flight patterns, to deter-
mine their attitude towards a proposed action.⁸⁵ At its most simple, the auspicia pub-
lica or ius publici auspicii amounted to the right to take the auspices, and hence the
divine mood, on behalf of the res publica. In the Late Republic, this was a necessary
prerogative to serve as a (pro)magistrate of the Roman people.⁸⁶ Mommsen thus con-
ceived of auspicium as the necessary religious doppelganger of imperium. More recent-
ly, however, scholars including Bleicken and Linderski have emphasised the apparent
role of auspicium as a necessary precondition of exercising imperium. Both note the
necessity of elections being held by a magistrate who was auspicato, and they point
82 Malavolta 1992, 257; Freyburger-Gallard 1993, 120; Bergk 2011, 65.

83 Liv. 1.59.12; Suet. Iul. 76.2; Cass. Dio 43.48.1 – 3. Brennan 2000, 1.46 contra Welch 1990, 59. Cf. Vitucci 1956,
14 – 18.
84 I.e., the praefectus urbi in its original form possessed different insignia to the magister equitum, but
given their praetorian imperium, it is plausible that they possessed more overt recognition of their sta-
tus than tradition allowed. As such, they may have appealed to the precedent that the magister equitum,
the only previous magistracy appointed directly by the dictator, which also held imperium, possessed the
trappings of curule magistrates. The alternative: that a law was simply passed allowing this, is also emi-
nently possible. Cf. Kunkel & Wittmann 1995, 274 – 276.
85 Kunkel & Wittmann 1995, 28 – 33; cf. Humm 2012b: 68 – 71; Santangelo 2013, 27– 28.
86 Linderski 1986, 2217– 2218.
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
Mrs. Wilson warmly approved of the idea, but seriously added to
Ellen’s discomfiture by remarking—
“You had better begin to-morrow, my dear. I wonder we none of us
had the sense to think of it before; and, nurse, if you will begin from
to-morrow to give me my breakfast punctually, we will have prayers
here in my bedroom directly afterwards. Yes, my dear,” she went on,
in reply to an exclamation of dismay which Ella could not altogether
repress, “it is so long since I have attended a service I feel a perfect
heathen, and need to be read to quite as much as Mrs. Moore.”
And having once taken the idea into her head, nothing would induce
Mrs. Wilson to give it up; though, on nurse’s advice, she agreed that
they should meet in the evening instead of the morning, as being a
more convenient time for an invalid.
Mrs. Wilson had one or two books of prayers in the house, but as
they were old and most of them rather too long, she told Ella to look
through the books beforehand, and select a prayer each day,
marking with a pencil which portions to omit. At the same time she
talked over with her the most suitable portions of the Bible to select
for reading.
“You know, Ella, that, as St. Paul tells us, the whole Bible is given us
for our instruction, yet some portions are not easily understood
unless a rather long passage is read at a time, and as that cannot be
managed at daily prayers, it needs care to choose a portion which
gives a complete thought in a small compass, so that those who, like
Mrs. Moore, get no other reading during the day, have something
definite to carry away with them.”
It was with considerable inward trepidation and a trembling of voice
she could not altogether control that Ella made her first attempt at
conducting the family prayers the next evening; but she struggled to
forget herself, and as she went on her voice grew steadier, till, when
they all repeated the Lord’s Prayer together in closing, she was able
to join in the spirit of the prayer as simply as anyone present.
It was with sincere pleasure that, a few days afterwards, Ella helped
her aunt downstairs for the first time; but her delight that her patient
had advanced so far towards recovery was mingled with a certain
amount of nervousness lest she should find anything to disapprove
of in the rooms, which she had not seen since she was first taken ill.
For several days the servants had been expending a good deal of
hard work on polishing the furniture and rearranging all the
ornaments of the sitting-rooms, and Ella had exercised all her skill in
arranging flowers to make the rooms look bright to welcome the
invalid, so that Mrs. Wilson could not but be pleased, and she
expressed her approval with a warmth which greatly gratified Ella,
and which sent Sarah into the kitchen with a beaming face to tell
Mrs. Moore that—
“Missis do seem pleased like, and she says to me, ‘Sarah,’ she says,
‘I never saw that bookcase look so bright before; why, you must have
got a patent polisher.’”
This well-earned praise was very gratifying to all the household, and
spurred them on to fresh exertions.
Ella’s interests just now were chiefly centred in the fowls. She took
the greatest care of the sitting hens, and brought her aunt each day
a minute report of their welfare. When the time drew near for the
chickens to appear, her eagerness became so great that she would
have disturbed them a dozen times in the day to see how they were
getting on but for the exhortations of her aunt.
The hens were allowed to remain on the nests the whole of the day
before the chickens were due, but were well fed, and had a plentiful
supply of water given them. When the day for hatching came, Mrs.
Moore refused to go near the nests till late in the afternoon, but at
last when she and Ella approached them very quietly, so as not to
disturb the hens, a gentle peeping sound announced that some
chickens had already broken their way into the outer world. They
found, indeed, that one hen had hatched all her chickens, but the
other had still two eggs unbroken. Mrs. Moore removed the hen
which had finished her work, and while Ella went into ecstasies over
the fluffy round balls, she made the mother dust herself well with the
ashes sprinkled about, and then escort her lively children to a clean
new nest, while the old one was burnt and the box which had
contained it was put into the open air to sweeten.
The mother hen was given a good meal of barley and plenty of
water, but no food was given to the chickens.
In answer to Ella’s remonstrances, Mrs. Moore explained that
chickens need no food for from twelve to twenty-four hours after they
are hatched, and, indeed, are much better without anything.
Mrs. Moore then brought a basin of warm water (heated to 105
degrees), and placing it near the other nest, deftly removed the two
still unhatched eggs without disturbing the hen, and put them in the
water. In a few minutes one of the eggs began to bob about in a
curious manner, whereupon Mrs. Moore took it out and returned it to
the hen. The other one remaining still, she held it close to Ella’s ear,
and shook it for her to hear the fluid contents shaking about, proving
that the egg was useless.
The shells of the hatched eggs were then removed, and Ella was
much interested in noticing that the two ends of each shell had been
laid one inside the other, so as to take up the least possible space;
but Mrs. Moore could not answer her questions as to whether it is
the chicken or the hen who does this, whether it is done deliberately,
or as the result of the chicken’s struggles to free itself from the shell.
The next morning the last egg was hatched, and the two “hen-wives”
congratulated each other on having fifteen eggs hatched out of
sixteen set.
For the first day or two the chickens were fed on hard-boiled eggs,
chopped up and mixed with breadcrumbs or oatmeal; and for a time
they needed such constant feeding that Ella’s generous mind was
quite satisfied, and the chickens soon knew her so well that when
she appeared they would come running to meet her, and flutter up all
over her dress and into her lap.
The hens were put into coops and brought into the garden, and as
long as they were too young to do mischief, the chickens were left
loose to run about where they liked near the mother’s coop.
It was in the midst of these cares and pleasures that Ella’s two
brothers, Robin and Norman, came for their ten days’ visit. Robin
was nearly sixteen, and Norman fourteen, and, considering their
ages, they were good, considerate boys. For the first night and day
after their arrival they were extremely subdued, and afraid of
disturbing their aunt, but this unnatural quietness soon wore off, and
Ella found her powers of mind and body fully exercised in supplying
them with amusements which would not excite or tire her aunt too
much.
Happily the weather was fine, and the boys delighted in long
excursions into the country after mythical rare ferns, herons’ nests,
or other treasures. Frequently Ella went with them, and she told Mrs.
Mobberly, much to that lady’s amusement, that they made her feel
like a child again.
Mrs. Mobberly, being very anxious to encourage the feeling in Ella,
that although she had reached the mature age of eighteen her youth
was not quite a thing of the past, came in several time to spend a
few hours with Mrs. Wilson, so that Ella was set free for a long day’s
excursion with her brothers.
(To be continued.)
VARIETIES.
Hints for Travellers.

Take one-fourth more money than your estimated expenses, and
have a good supply of small change.
Acquaint yourself with the geography of the route and region of
travel.
Arrange, if possible, to have but a single article of luggage to look
after.
Dress substantially. Better be too hot for two or three hours at noon
than be cold for the remainder of the twenty-four.
Arrange, under all circumstances, to be at the place of starting fifteen
or twenty minutes before the time, thus allowing for unavoidable or
unanticipated detention by the way.
Do not commence a day’s travel before breakfast, even if it has to be
eaten at daybreak. Dinner or supper, or both, can be more healthily
dispensed with than a good warm breakfast.
A sandwich eaten leisurely in the carriage is better than a whole
dinner bolted at a railway station.
Take with you a month’s supply of patience, and always think
thirteen times before you reply once to any supposed rudeness,
insult, or inattention.
Do not suppose yourself specially and designedly neglected if
waiters at hotels do not bring what you call for in double-quick time.
Nothing so distinctly marks the well-bred as waiting on such
occasions.
Comply cheerfully and gracefully with the customs of the
conveyances in which you travel, and of the places where you stop.
Respect yourself by exhibiting the manners of a lady, if you wish to
be treated as such, and then you will receive the respect of others.
Travel is a great leveller; take the position which others assign you
from your conduct rather than your pretensions.
Good Reasons for Learning Singing.

The following eight reasons why everyone should learn to sing are
given by Byrd in his “Psalms, Sonnets, and Songs,” etc., published in
1588:—
1. It is a knowledge easily taught and quickly learned, where there is
a good master and an apt scholar.
2. The exercise of singing is delightful to nature, and good to
preserve the health of man.
3. It doth strengthen all parts of the breast, and doth open the pipes.
4. It is a singularly good remedy for a stuttering and stammering in
the speech.
5. It is the best means to procure a perfect pronunciation and to
make a good orator.
6. It is the only way to know where nature has bestowed a good
voice ... and in many that excellent gift is lost because they want art
to express nature.
7. There is not any music of instruments whatsoever comparable to
that which is made of the voices of men, where the voices are good,
and the same well sorted and ordered.
8. The better the voice is, the meeter it is to honour and serve God
therewith; and the voice of man is chiefly to be employed to that end.
“Since singing is so good a thing,

I wish all men would learn to sing.”
An Antipathy to Cats.—People who have a strong antipathy to
cats detect their presence by the odour, in circumstances which
would be thought impossible. A lady in my study, one day, suddenly
remarked, “There is a cat in the room.” On my assuring her there
was none, she replied, “Then there is one in the passage.” I went
out, to satisfy her. There was no cat in the passage, but on the first
landing, looking through the railings, there, sure enough, was the
cat.—G. H. Lewes.
DR. ZIMMERMAN’S DAUGHTER.
he name of Zimmerman has
been familiar to me almost from
my first being able to read. In
catalogues of libraries, or of
books for sale, the last entry is
usually “Zimmerman on
Solitude.” I do not like solitude,
and I always fancied that a book
about it must be very dull; so I
never knew anything about
Zimmerman and his book
beyond the title.
But I have lately found, in an old
book published at York in 1810,
an account of Zimmerman’s
daughter, which I have read with
much interest. The title of this book is “True Stories and Anecdotes
of Young Persons; Designed, through the Medium of Example, to
Inculcate Principles of Virtue and Piety.” In fact, it is a little book of
Christian biography, and among the examples of virtuous and pious
young persons is the daughter of Dr. Zimmerman. The page is
headed, “A Tribute of Paternal Affection,” and this tribute proves that,
whatever else Dr. Zimmerman may have been, he was a most fond
and devoted father. It seems that he lost this only and beloved
daughter, a very amiable, accomplished girl, in the summer of 1781,
when she was twenty-five years of age. Here is what her father says
of her, a record well worth reproducing for the benefit of others, even
now after more than a century has passed.
“May I be permitted,” says the sorrowing father, “to give a short
account of one whose memory I am anxious to preserve? The world
was unacquainted with her excellence; she was known to those only
whom she has left behind to bewail her loss. Her sole pleasures
were those which a retired and virtuous life affords. She was active,
always gentle, and compassionate to the miseries of others. Diffident
of her own powers, she relied with perfect confidence on the
goodness of God, and listened attentively to the precepts of her fond
parent. Though naturally timid and reserved, she disclosed the
feelings of her soul with all the warmth of filial tenderness. For me
she entertained the most ardent affection, and convinced me, not by
her professions, but by actions, of her sincerity. Willingly would I
have resigned my life to save hers, and I am satisfied she would as
willingly have given up her own to preserve mine. One of my
greatest pleasures was to please her, and my endeavours for that
purpose were most gratefully returned.
“From her early childhood she had been the victim of ill-health; but,
though of weak frame of body, and deeply afflicted, she bore her
sufferings with steady fortitude and pious resignation to her heavenly
Father’s will. Soon after our leaving Switzerland for Hanover she fell
into a deep decline, which too soon deprived me of the comfort of
this beloved child. From the knowledge I had of her constitution, I
apprehended that the disorder would prove mortal. How frequently
did my wounded, bleeding heart bend me on my knees before God
to supplicate for her recovery! But I concealed my anxiety from her
observation.
“Although sensible of her danger, she never discovered the least
apprehension. Smiles played around her pallid cheeks whenever I
entered the room. Even when worn by the fatal disease, and under
most afflicting pains, she made no complaint. Her decay became
evident to the eye, but to the last hours of her life she preserved a
serenity correspondent to the purity and composure of her mind.
Thus I beheld my dear, my only daughter, at the age of twenty-five,
after a tedious suffering of nine long months, expire in my arms.
“During our short residence in Hanover, where she was much
respected and beloved, she composed some religious pieces, which
were afterwards found among her papers. About the same period
she also wrote many letters, which were always affecting, and
frequently sublime in the expressions of her feelings. The last words
that my dear excellent child uttered were these: ‘To-day I shall taste
the joys of heaven!’”
Such is the memorial tribute. The love of a father and daughter is

always beautiful, and in this case is unusually touching. The perusal
of what the good man wrote has made me think of him with softened
feeling. I know nothing about his life or history, save what appears in
this account of his daughter, after reading which I could even look at
his book on solitude with complacency!
ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.
EDUCATIONAL.
B. Ignoramus.—You cannot say, “No one knew I was here but her,”
because you are speaking in the nominative case, which answers
to the question “who”—viz., “Who was there?” “She was;” not “her
was.” In the accusative case the personal pronoun “her” is
employed—viz., “Of whom did you borrow it?” “Of her;” not “of
she;” the accusative answering the word “whom.”
A. R. B.—A visitor requested us some time since to draw attention to
the Training Home for Governesses, 81, Mildmay-grove, N., at
which the fee for board, lodging, and laundry for three months is
only £6. We think this might suit you, especially as the foundress
undertakes to find situations for the students. The Kindergarten
system is included in the course of training. Address the
directress.
Molly M.—Friendless and homeless girls and others needing a
short training in the ordinary work of a general servant are
received at a payment of 5s. a week, at Breydon House, North
Quay, Great Yarmouth. Address the lady superintendent, Mrs. H.
E. Buxton. Every effort is made to place the girls in suitable
situations on leaving the institution. They cannot remain there after
the training is over.
Dorothy.—We fear there is nothing to be done, if you cannot spell,
but to purchase a little dictionary, and always look out every word
of which you have the least doubt. We are glad you find our dress
articles so useful.
Beeahudhu and Innistore.—The action of the rays of the sun does
put out a fire by rarefying the air, and so causing it to flow more
slowly towards the fire. The air which really does reach the fire at
the time also affords no nourishment, because rarefied air
contains less oxygen than the same quantity of condensed air. We
should imagine the steel chain would have no effect unless you
were struck by lightning.
Purple Clematis should write to the secretary of the College of
Preceptors, 42, Queen-square, Bloomsbury, W.C.
A Country Lassie.—The 12th February, 1886, was a Friday. We do
not know the school you mention. It is probably a private one. Why
not write yourself direct?
Anxious.—Perhaps a Kindergarten school would suit you better.
Glan Menai.—1. Kinder is one word in German, and garten is
another, so the word is “Kindergarten.” 2. Tancredi is an Italian
name. The most famous bearer of it was Tancred, son of Marquis
Odo the Good, of Sicily, born 1078. He assumed the cross in the
First Crusade, 1098, was created Prince of Galilee, and died of a
wound at Antioch, 1112. He was “a very perfect, gentle knight,”
and in him was embodied the chivalrous spirit of the Crusades.
F. E. N. (Bishop’s Stortford).—There is a good arithmetic society,
including algebra, for particulars of which write to Miss Frances
Mason, hon. secretary, care of Mr. Horwood, 62, Green Lanes,
London, N. French and English correspondence is likewise
undertaken by this society. We thank F. E. N. for information
respecting her Pledgdon Bible-class Society, to which we gladly
draw the attention of our readers.
HOUSEKEEPING.
Violet and Rose.—Put a little turpentine on the spots of paint; or if
that be not successful, try benzine colas.
Sidney R.—We can only advise you to hang curtains between the
pillars in your drawing-room. With some flowing draperies they will
look less stiff.
Blue-eyed Burkie.—Hominy porridge would be quite as nutritious
as any other, and would provide a change from oatmeal. You
could also try polenta, made from Indian meal or maize in the
same manner as oatmeal porridge.
Irene.—It is still the fashion to hang curtains over looking-glasses,
as you describe. The curtains should match those in the windows
or the trimmings of the dressing-table.
Madge.—To take rust from steel ornaments we should advise you to
cover them with sweet oil, well rubbed in, and after 48 hours to
use finely-powdered unslacked lime. Rub in until the rust
disappears.
F. O. writes to us to say that spots of mildew on the leather covers of
books that have been kept in a damp room may be removed by
rubbing them with dry crusts of bread.
Devonia has only to set the milk in clean pans for the cream to rise.
Once a week is the usual time for churning, and every two or three
days the pans are skimmed. The cream need not be sour to churn
into butter.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Jim’s Darling.—Your mother should see that the two children obey
you, and if they need punishment she should inflict it, not you.
Your spelling and writing are both very defective.
Red Berrie.—“Genius” appears to us to mean originality and
creative power; talent does not imply originality. We generally
apply the word to those who ably interpret the ideas and carry out
the discoveries of others.
Janet Moreton.—Stopped teeth sometimes last for years if well
done. If the stopping should come out, it ought to be at once
replaced.
Daisy Naomi seems to need a tonic. We advise her to read the
articles by “Medicus.” Cod-liver oil would probably be of service to
her. Naomi needs a doctor’s advice as to her digestion.
Alys and Mabelle.—“Nigel” is pronounced as it is spelt; the last
syllable as the first in “gelatine.”
K. M. W. is anxious that others who, like herself, have lost their
voices, should know how much she has benefited from the
treatment by the electric battery, which she obtained at St.
Thomas’s Hospital. She hopes not only to recover her voice
completely for speaking, but also for singing.
Mona.—The lines, “Break, break, break! On thy cold grey stones, O
Sea!” are by Lord Tennyson. They have been several times set to
music, and you can obtain the songs at any music-seller’s.
Fair Rosamond.—When you first observed that the strange man
made a habit of occupying the same seat as yourself, you should
have gone elsewhere. Now you have habitually sanctioned the
liberty he took, seeing you without a chaperon or companion, and
this has made your case difficult. You can only say that you acted
indiscreetly in the first instance in allowing yourself to be drawn
into conversing with a perfect stranger, and that you regret that
you must withdraw from further intercourse, unless properly
introduced and suitable references be given. Even were he
thoroughly respectable, he may be in no position to pay his
addresses to you in point of fortune.
Four Maidens.—Young ladies in England have their names put on
their mothers’ visiting cards, unless under peculiar circumstances.
If they have no mother, their names would appear together—i.e.,
Miss Smith—Miss Belinda Smith.
Sarnia.—Your school children, whom you train to sing in the choir of
your church, would be rendered more efficient were they to sing
through a few ordinary scales for a few minutes previously to
practising the chants and hymns. It would only extend the time
some five or ten minutes beyond the hour hitherto devoted to the
lesson once weekly. There would be no necessity for consulting
them on the subject, nor even drawing attention to the brief
prolongation of the time. Were you to propose an extra day for
practising, they might grumble or find difficulty in attending.
Mignonette.—The 20th of April, 1868, was a Monday. Many thanks
for your nice letter.
D. E. S.—Messrs. Cassell publish a “Guide to Female Employment
in Government Offices.”
Maude must make inquiries, and try to find some writing, copying, or
needlework. She gives us no indications of what she can do, so is
evidently not a practical young person.
Alice Rockhampton.—1. The words, Ricordo di Napoli, mean “a
remembrance, or memento, of Naples.” 2. We should think
lemonade a very good summer drink.
H. S. G. H.—The 28th August, 1852, was a Saturday, and the 5th
January, 1864, was a Tuesday.
Scotch Lassie.—We should advise you to take a situation as cook-
housekeeper. Your writing does not seem good enough for a clerk.
Natalie Metz.—In writing such articles, a doctor makes use of his
acquired knowledge, of course. How do you suppose a doctor
could prescribe with success if he did not know about every
portion of the human organism and its use and functions?
Phyllis H.—You may use the tweezers, but we do not think you
should try anything else.
Thistle sends us a letter of inquiry as to how she can earn her own
living. She says, “I have no special talent for anything; I am no
musician, I have no accomplishments, I am a bad writer, I dislike
teaching, also nursing, and I cannot learn languages.” We see
nothing left but domestic service or matrimony, and Thistle had
better begin to learn cooking and housekeeping, so as to be
prepared for either position.
An Anxious One would do well to try the Dental Hospital and have
advice about her teeth.
Maude C.—Felt hats, if good enough, can be re-dyed and blocked
without much expense. The 4th Feb., 1869, was a Thursday.
Nesta.—The 15th March, 1871, was a Wednesday; and the 28th
February, 1874, was a Saturday.
Audrey Gallop.—The German Auf Wiedersehn means the same as
the French au revoir. We have no similar idiom in English, the
meaning being, “a wish for our next meeting.”
A June Rose.—Most young girls if short-sighted prefer eyeglasses
to spectacles, but it is quite a matter of individual preference.
Busy Bee must go through the usual course of submitting her story
to the various publishers. There is no royal road to literary
success.
Makie.—We could not give space for such a quantity of statistics.
Buy a “Whitaker’s Almanack.” The story you mention about the
Queen has been recently contradicted, we believe.
Emmeline Kennedy.—1. The distance from Rydal to Ambleside is
given differently in guides and gazetteers—viz., as two miles, a
mile and a quarter, and a mile and a half. You say it is a “short
mile,” but you will allow it is not a matter of very vital importance. A
quarter of a mile from the shores of any lake may be very truly
described as being on or near the banks of that lake. You will
understand that we are not called upon to visit each locality and
test the correctness of gazetteers and guides, so we are quite
willing to believe your statement correct. 2. The poet Wordsworth
had, as you say, an only daughter, Dora; married to Mr. Quillinan.
She died in 1847, leaving no family. Mr. Quillinan had, however,
two daughters by his first wife, who was a daughter of Sir Egerton
Bridges. This poor lady was burnt to death. Mr. Quillinan himself
died suddenly in 1857.
Cecil.—The lines you quote are from a short poem by Lord Byron.
Constant Reader.—Colour-blindness is, unfortunately, very
common, and more especially among men. It is rare among
women. Red and green are the colours which, through some
defect in the eyes, are the more generally confounded. Sailors and
soldiers have to be carefully examined to ascertain their ability to
distinguish signals, and engine-drivers likewise.
Nora, the Anxious.—You had better apply to Mrs. Houston Smith
respecting situations as mother’s help; office, 409, Oxford-street,
W.
A. M. B.—We quite understand your difficulty in understanding our
Lord’s statement (St. Mark xiii. 30, and St. Luke xxi. 32). It may be
explained in more than one way. If He referred to His Second
Advent, you must remember that the term “generation” is
sometimes employed to denote the nation as a whole, and in this
sense this is true, as we see in reference to the Jewish people,
who exist to this day, notwithstanding the cruel exterminating
persecutions to which, through all the subsequent centuries, they
have been subjected. If the statement referred to the destruction of
Jerusalem, the term “generation” bore the signification which we
put on that term, for those standing by (very many of them) lived to
see that prophecy fulfilled. Our Lord’s discourse referred to both
events, although the two prophecies are rather unaccountably run
together by the evangelists in their record of them.
Marrow Bones repeats an old query, which we have ceased to
answer. Read “The Art of Letter-writing,” vol. i, page 237.
Sandown.—The few holidays accorded to the banks include
Christmas Day and Good Friday, and though national, they are
properly called bank holidays also. Christmas Day was a great
festival of the ancient Romans, but the day was observed by
Christians to commemorate a very different event.
Sarah.—The man who made use of such an expression as that to
which you refer is certainly very profane, and wanting in the
feelings of a gentleman towards those in whose presence he
spoke. It is a species of swearing of a very low class and horrible
kind. If these girls allowed such language to be used without
denouncing its gross profanity and the personal insult to
themselves, as listeners, they showed want of common self-
respect, not to speak of reverent feeling.
Ellennette.—Perhaps it would be of some service to have the old
boards planed, then well saturated with turpentine, and, when dry,
painted thickly with two or three coats of paint. The vermin will
scarcely be able to penetrate this, if any survive the turpentine
bath. We have not tried this plan, but should do so under the same
distressing circumstances. Some have found the use of a kettle of
boiling water very effectual. We should use this first, then the
turpentine, and then the paint.
Incognito.—The Ides in the Ancient Roman Calendar were eight
days in each month. The first, denominated the Idus, fell on the
15th of March, May, July, and October, and on the 13th of the
other months. The Ides came between the Calends and the
Nones, and were reckoned backwards. Thus, the 14th of March,
May, July, and October, and the 12th of the other months, was
called “the day before the Ides.” In the calendar of the “Breviary,”
and in the Chancery of Rome, this needlessly complicated mode
of reckoning is still retained.
A Cheshire Cat.—When the reflecting surface is concave the
contiguous reflected rays themselves intersect, and as we pass
along any line on the surface—say the line of intersection, by a
given plane—the reflected rays by their ultimate intersections form
a plane curve. By varying the plane of section an indefinite number
of such curves result, and these all lie upon the surface known as
the caustic, to which every reflected ray is a tangent. A concave
lens must of necessity render originally parallel rays divergent.
The principal focus of the convex lens is the point at which the
rays which pass through it, near and parallel to its axis, converge.
The science of optics is one that needs to be taught.
Bunch of Grapes.—1. We do not hold ourselves bound to inform
our readers of the why and wherefore respecting our plan of
conducting our paper. 2. If the terra-cotta be very dirty, sponge
with turpentine, and then with soap and water.
M. S. O.—No further continuation of the article on “Paper Boxes”
was given in the G. O. P. “My Work Basket” is continued at
intervals as space will permit.
Particular.—From Angus’s “Handbook of the English Tongue,” we
quote the following with reference to your query:—“In old writers,
and occasionally in modern print, ‘an’ is sometimes erroneously
placed before semi-vowels or vocal ‘h,’ as ‘an usurpation,’ ‘an
historical account.’” Thus, you see that “a historical account” was
right. You should get the book in question; it is published at 56,
Paternoster-row, E.C.
FOOTNOTES:
[1]
12-11-1.
Caledonian Railway.—Traffic for week ending 31st ultimo, £2,250
decrease.
[2] There passes through the Clearing House annually the
incomprehensible sum of £6,000,000,000 a year in the shape of
cheques.
[Transcriber’s note—the following changes have been made to this

text.
Page 394: duplicate word “sight” removed—“sight, and we”.
Page 395: he to the—“of the storm.”
Page 396: Dandalo to Dandolo—“Dandolo, who went”.
Page 400: Weidersehn to Wiedersehn—“Auf Wiedersehn”.]
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!
ebookgate.com

[Ebooks PDF] download The magister equitum in the Roman Republic The Evolution of an Extraordinary Magistracy 1st Edition Bradley Jordan full chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Ebooks PDF] download The magister equitum in the Roman Republic The Evolution of an Extraordinary Magistracy 1st Edition Bradley Jordan full chapters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Ebooks PDF] download The magister equitum in the Roman Republic The Evolution of an Extraordinary Magistracy 1st Edition Bradley Jordan full chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Visit https://ebookgate.

com to download the full version and

The magister equitum in the Roman Republic The

_____ Click the link below to download _____

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookgate.com

Empire of Images Visualizing the Conquered in the Roman

Philippi 42 BC The Death of the Roman Republic First

Slave theater in the Roman republic Plautus and popular

The Architecture of Roman Temples The Republic to the

Extraordinary Jobs in the Food Industry Extraordinary Jobs

The Merkel Republic An Appraisal 1st Edition Eric

Spirit Communication An investigation into the

Friendship and Empire Roman Diplomacy and Imperialism in

Beihefte. Neue Folge

unter Mitarbeit von

The Evolution of an Extraordinary Magistracy

Library of Congress Control Number: 2023950760

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

1 The Origins of the magister equitum 7

2 The Second in Rank and Successor to the Dictator? A Reassessment of the

4 The Senatorial Rank of the magister equitum 77

Appendix: List of Attested magistri equitum, 501 – 44 bce 149

5 E. g., Dyck 2004, 425 – 429; Paulson 2014.

11 Woodman 1988, 76 – 95.

Roman history is deficient in supplying an accurate narrative of the development of

1.1 Finding the Early magister equitum

where Dionysius, a Hellenised intellectual, sought to emphasise the similarities be-

4 E. g., Forsythe 2005, 66 – 67.

18 Suda s.v. δικτάτωρ; s.v. ἵππαρχος.

1.2 The tribunus celerum: The magister equitum Refracted?

32 ILS 4911. Rudolph 1935, 11 – 14; Sherwin-White 19732, 12 – 13.

38 [Arcad.] Dig. 1.11.1.pr.

45 Plin. HN 33.35. Brunt 1988, 145 – 146.

59 Plin. HN 33.35. Momigliano 1966, 16 – 18; 1969a, 385 – 387.

1.3 Reflections on the Origins and Antecedents of the magister

68 Rosenberg 1913, 92 – 94; Varcl 1949, 14.

72 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.13.3 – 4; Liv. 1.15.8.

2.1 Definitions: potestas, imperium and auspicium in Current

2.2 The potestas of the magister equitum

5 On this last point, see now, Webb 2023.

9 Mommsen 18873, 1.23.

37 Plut. Ant. 8.3, with my emphasis.

42 Varro Ling. 5.82.

61 Livy. 23.11.8 – 10.

78 Staveley 1963, 470.

2.3 The Appointment and Collegiality of the magister equitum

82 Malavolta 1992, 257; Freyburger-Gallard 1993, 120; Bergk 2011, 65.

Hints for Travellers.

Good Reasons for Learning Singing.

“Since singing is so good a thing,

Such is the memorial tribute. The love of a father and daughter is

[Transcriber’s note—the following changes have been made to this

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

You might also like

_ Click the link below to download _