Abdication

This paper aims to examine Richard Bauman’s interpretation of the suspension of the Roman consul L. Cornelius Cinna from magisterial duties in 87 BC. According to Bauman, Cinna was deprived of his authority by the senate that declared him a public enemy (hostis publicus). There are a number of general objections against this view. The sources do not report explicitly that Cinna was declared a hostis. In Appian, Cinna complained to the soldiers (whom he tried to win over to his side) about the senate’s attempt to suspend him from the consulate but did not mention his being deprived of citizen rights, which was a key element of the hostis-Erklärung. Finally, the formal grounds were lacking for declaring Cinna an enemy since he had not yet marched on Rome when the senatorial decree was being discussed. Yet, there remains some scope for understanding the episode as a case of the hostis-Erklärung. In his 1966 and 1968 articles, Bauman points out that Cinna’s virtual disfranchisement by this act practically resulted in his loss of the magisterial status as well. However, in the 1973 paper, Bauman argues that the senate, in effect, interpreted “its own hostis declaration” whereby Cinna was deposed directly (this same assumption is thought to explain the absence in this case of the terminology usually applied in other instances of the hostis-Erklärung). At the same time, the senatorial decree is not considered by Bauman as self-sufficient because the scholar holds that it was meant to be “put to probouleutic use for the purposes of a rogatio to the people” concerning the abrogation of Cinna’s consular imperium (abrogatio imperii), even though in reality the vote in the comitia never happened. According to Bauman, “Cinna may have decided to forestall this”: he voluntarily abdicated in a meeting at the military camp where he arrived after having left Rome. He then secured a reelection at an “assembly militiae”. Bauman’s idea is that Cinna thus avoided his deposition by the decision of the comitia in Rome because the people’s “purported abrogation of the original imperium” could not apply to its “reconferred version”. In this paper, I aim to demonstrate the internal contradictions of this interpretation and to argue that there is no support for Bauman’s propositions. At the same time, I conclude that an analysis of this scholar’s views may help to come closer to a new understanding of the controversial episode of 87 BC because Bauman rightly draws attention to a rather important detail that needs to be understood and explained: whatever the assessments of the legality and legitimacy of Cinna’s suspension, his position as a consul was indeed undermined. Cinna could not ignore the senatorial decree and must take initiative if he hoped to proceed with exercising his consular powers.

According to Ugo Coli, the so-called magistracies ad tempus incertum were not limited by the fixed term which expiration would have meant their termination ipso iure. Instead, the holders of these magistracies were expected to lay down their office as soon as their task was completed. Only by this act – the voluntary abdicatio – did their magistracy lapse, while in case of their refusal to abdicate, they were forced to do so. I question these assumptions. First, I discuss Coli’s general observations. Secondly, I briefly consider the specific cases (concerning the decemvirs, the dictators, and the censors), which Coli mentions in support of his argument.

While Shakespeare’s King Lear is known for abdication in English literature, the Bodhisattva King Makhadeva is known for the same in the Canonical Buddhist literature. In terms of abdication, Lear gives up his responsibilities as King of Britain, while the Bodhisattva King Makhadeva renounces not only his responsibilities but also his throne and kingdom as a whole. Out of senile insouciance, Lear looks forward to an elegant retirement, never short of the royal regale he has been used to, while Makhadeva, still a man of physical vigour who has just seen the very first grey hair on his head, warned by the forebodings of senile decay, takes heed to achieve spiritual advancement before death. After abdication Lear proves the most unfortunate and pathetic tragic hero in all of Shakespeare’s plays while Makhadeva remains a role model for the Buddhists all over the world to follow in the face of old age. Thus, as much as the prospects they hold in the event of abdication, do contrast the returns they experience. Focused on the post-abdication escapades of the two kings, this paper attempts to make a comparison of their characters in light of the moral, social, and didactic implications of their decisions in the context of the values and ethics they are both exposed to in their respective cultures that influence their response to the vicissitudes of life.

The book review study analyses an original monograph on a bit forgotten chapter of the Czech history of the Roman Catholic Church, the life and fates of the Cardinal Lev Skrbenský z Hříště (1863-1938), the Prince-Archbishop of Prague (1899-1916) and later of Olomouc (1916-1920). Skrbenský was the last Czech archbishop of aristocratic origin. He resigned the office after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the rest of his live lived in a private residence in Moravia. The publication follows a particular aspect of the cardinal's live: “from the view of the Holy See". The book contains an extensive bibliography and widely used many of the non-published archives documents from the archives of the Archbishopric of Olomouc and especially the Vatican Secret Archives.

According to Suetonius, in 62 B.C. the praetor Caesar was ‘banished from the administration of the state’ and left the forum. A spontaneous gathering (coetus) offered him help in recovering his position. Unexpectedly he restrained the crowd, and the grateful senate itself restored him to his rank. Even though only Suetonius explicitly mentions Caesar’s suspension, in fact, all our sources allow this. I will argue that Caesar did not lose his magistracy, just like the plebeian tribune Metellus Nepos affected by the same measures. Nor did the suspension include the restriction of any magisterial prerogatives. Instead, it meant the loss of political initiative. However, Caesar was still able to respond to the initiative of others. Suetonius’ account raises a number of questions about the political role of those who found themselves at the moment of transition from a position of a magistratus to that of a privatus, and vice versa.