Could a consul have the right to do what he did ?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

We are told that for the elections to the consulate of 189 there were 3 Patrician candidates - Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (young, famous and energetic, the leading candidate), Gnaeus Manlius Vulso (his third attempt...) and Marcus Valerius Maximus Mesala (incopetent by all accounts) . Lepidus had problems with the senate so he failed to achive a majority, as Manlius . No Patrician consul was elected, just a Plebeian one - Marcus Fulvius Nobilior . The comitia assembled the next day and Manlius was the victor .

Now, there are two versions about how Manlius "won" -

1. Fulvius coducted the elections, disqualified Lepidus (we don't know the excuse) and Manlius achived the majority .

2. Fulvius nominated Manlius directly, with out elections !!!

 

I have found (Develin and others) that there was the possibility to nominate a consul by another consul (elect) , but how ? what was the judicial procedure ?

Edited January 27, 2009 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Ingsoc]

What exactly do you mean by "possibility to nominate a consul by another consul"? the people who sought public would have to nominate themselves and as Manlius competed in the original election in which Fulvius was elected clearly he was nominated in this manner.

 

The election were conducted by the outgoing magistratus (in this case the outgoing Consuls) if not all the magistares were elected in one day the Comitia would continue in another day with the same nominees that weren't elected. I suppose it's possible that the newly elected Consul would conduct the election if the outgoing Consuls wasn't available for some reason.

 

Could you give references to ancient sources that deal with this affair?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

What exactly do you mean by "possibility to nominate a consul by another consul"? the people who sought public would have to nominate themselves and as Manlius competed in the original election in which Fulvius was elected clearly he was nominated in this manner.

 

The election were conducted by the outgoing magistratus (in this case the outgoing Consuls) if not all the magistares were elected in one day the Comitia would continue in another day with the same nominees that weren't elected. I suppose it's possible that the newly elected Consul would conduct the election if the outgoing Consuls wasn't available for some reason.

 

Could you give references to ancient sources that deal with this affair?

 

 

Livy 37.47 - " M. Aemilius Lepidus was a candidate...The other competitors were M. Fulvius Nobilior, Cn. Manlius Volso and M. Valerius Messala. Fulvius was the only one elected, none of the others secured the requisite majority of votes. Fulvius, on the following day, co-opted Cn. Manlius; he had succeeded in getting Lepidus defeated, and Messala was at the bottom of the poll" .

 

As you see, Livy had two versions for the case -

1. Fulvius co-opted Manlius

2. Manlius succeeded in getting Lepidus defeated

 

There is no problem with ver. 2 although some scholars (can't remember) said that Fulvius disqualify Lepidus - how ?

The problem is the co-optetion, it means that Fulvius nominated Manlius without a vote ! How could he have done it ?

Edited January 28, 2009 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Kosmo]

Maybe co opted to his party, his political group. That group that helped Fulvius win the elections now helped Manlius get elected. It's clear that it was a poll and Messala was the last one in that poll and Lepidus was defeated as well in that poll.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Maybe co opted to his party, his political group. That group that helped Fulvius win the elections now helped Manlius get elected. It's clear that it was a poll and Messala was the last one in that poll and Lepidus was defeated as well in that poll.

 

 

It is a possibility and Most scholars thinks that there were elections, Fulvius skipped Aemilius and Manlius won . but at least two (there are more) thinks that Fulvius co-opted Manlius to the consulship (Scullard, Roman politics, 135 and U. Hall, Appian Plutarch and the Tribunician elections of 123 B.C.) . The question is how ? I can't ask Scullard....

[Pompieus]

This is quite a thorny problem, and is one of those unpleasant, dirty little secrets that Livy tends to sweep under the rug (like the extended dictatorship of Servilius Caepio and several examples of a brother presiding over the election of his sibling). Of course the book in Livy is only available in fragments or an epitome, isn't it?, so there isn't much to go on.

 

I believe that a sitting magistrate who was conducting elections could legally refuse to accept the nomination of a particular man. Perhaps Fulvius rejected Aemilius on this basis (saying, in theory, his "defeat" disqualified him) and thus claimed that the only remaining candidate was his partisan Manlius. That's quite a stretch, and pretty outrageous goings on if true.

 

Whatever actually happened, Aemilius became Fulvius' sworn inimicus afterwards (or already was).

Edited January 28, 2009 by Pompieus