Talk:List of Roman consuls

Renaming Early Republican consuls

I'm not adverse to providing the latest correct information about these personages, but I need to point out that as this list stands, the dates & forms of names are based on Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic. As the one who normalized the list against Broughton's work, I felt that his research was authoritative & difficult for any amateur who writes Wikipedia articles (like me) to supplement or dissent. But of course, research moves on. Nevertheless, if a given date or name differs from what Broughton has, I believe it is best practice to note that difference & provide a source for that variant reading. (And of course the sticky details should be presented not in the footnotes, but in the relevant article.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Taylor's 'Augustan Editing in the Capitoline Fasti'

This article has a great many footnotes claiming that entries that diverge from Livy in the order of consuls are the result of Augustus falsifying the records. The source for this (Taylor 1951) was published 70 years ago, and modern scholarship doesn't seem to agree with this anymore. For example: "It should be clear that there is no basis ... for the supposed manipulation"; "No clear pattern of promotion and demotion ... can be detected in the FC"; "Insofar as the FC are responsible for these alterations of order, they show the type of haphazard pattern that results from carelessness or negligence"; "... there is no justification for seeing large scale manipulation in the FC nor for excessive deprecation of their evidence in favour of that of Livy". The FC also may be more reliable that Livy overall.

This all raises the question of whether there should even be footnotes drawing attention to the fact that some sources disagree with each other. If so, the current ones will have to be reworded.

@Llywrch: I understand you authored much of what's currently in place. any thoughts? Avilich (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Those edits were the work of @T8612. A little background before I go off & pontificate.

The order of consuls is significant: the consul prior was the senior member of the pair, & thus the more prestigious position. According to one secondary source (I forget the name -- it's been a while since I read the article & my materials are at home) in Republican times the consul prior would be elected first, & he would then preside over the election of the consul posterior. So there is some importance about the order. However, the primary sources sometimes conflict over who was the senior member; I tried to figure out the proper order for the Republican period, because I'd like this this to be to some degree different from Broughton's work, to provide something he didn't, but it proved to be too much work for too little added value. Thus I simply repeated his work. As I wrote elsewhere, he is an expert & his work is the standard source on this topic, & the goal of any article is to present the material with the least amount of original research. (I'll admit there is some in this list, but that is a matter for another thread.) Further, the actual order is, to most readers, of minor importance.

Now it is a fact that the Capitoline Fasti disagree with other sources about the order; why they differ is a matter of opinion. (I don't agree with Taylor's article: not because she published so long ago -- there is no reason to dismiss an opinion expressed by an earlier authority unless new evidence or further research warrants it -- but because she claims to be able to read the mind of someone dead over 2000 years ago.) I did object to these edits with T8612 when they made the changes. And there are other matters that need attention, such as whether to split this article into smaller ones, which is still unresolved. Lastly I had, regretfully, driven away one constructive editor prior to this & wasn't in the mood to drive away another. So I decided to let the matter slide until it came time to seriously consider nominating this as a Featured List. (Which I think is achievable, although I'm not quite sure what changes & how much work would be needed to get this article there.)

So IMHO, the order of consuls involves a difference of opinion. As I said, I'd be happier copying Broughton's order, because his work is the most authoritative, while noting somehow that Taylor disagrees at points with the order of the consuls. But perhaps @P Aculeius would like to comment here. -- llywrch (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich: Taylor & Broughton wrote a second and more recent article on this in 1968. I added these info because as llywrch said, the article relies primarily on Broughton's MRR; so, the articles he wrote with Taylor complete his work on the subject and I thought it to be a valuable addition to the list. [Broughton himself follows the Fasti Capitolini in the MRR.] Moreover, there is already a list of consuls in Fasti Capitolini, so if we follow the FC's order, the List of Roman consuls is of lesser interest. I still think it is relevant to mention the differences between Livy (and his derivatives) and the FC.

Do you have the full article for Drummond btw? T8612 (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Broughton's MRR is balanced and uses both. Other examples include Cooley, Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy, which relies mostly on the Fasti, while the list in the Cambridge Ancient History uses the Livian order exclusively. I couldn't find any other suitable modern list, so I think Broughton is still the best one to base this article on. Avilich (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Can I send you the article via email? Avilich (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Llywrch and T8612: It's not certain that priority worked like that throughout the republic generally, and there are even doubts about the authenticity of the earlier consuls. Ultimately I'm just raising the question of whether there should be explanatory footnotes in every year for which Livy and the FC disagree (there are quite a few of them). If so, they shouldn't simply say that the order was falsified with no further comment. There are 3 possibilities I considered:

(A) Use Broughton as the default source for the period 509–81 BC and add footnotes to the noteworthy examples of confusion in the order of precedence. Basically the current arrangement already, but the footnotes would have to be more elaborate than simply saying "Augustus faked this".

(B) Copy Broughton's entire list for the period 509–81 BC, with little/no footnotes attached, and have the problem explained in a paragraph in the introduction. The problem would then receive a general treatment only and the specifics wouldn't be mentioned.

(C) Abandon Broughton completely for the period 509–220 BC and instead copy the list found in the Cambridge Ancient History. The author uses Livy's order indiscriminately throughout, though he admits it's purely by convention and that preference for Livy has no authority.

Option C is my least favorite, but anything is valid. Avilich (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that the most sensible thing to do is to follow Broughton by default, with adjustments if and when it can be shown that he was mistaken. A mere difference of opinion among reliable authorities as to which ancient source is most likely to be correct seems insufficient to conclude that one is wrong and the other right; that is grounds for a footnote. I don't think the footnotes should take sides when all we know is that the ancient (or modern) authorities disagree. Do we really even know whether the Fasti Capitolini were written with the intention of presenting all of the consuls in the order of their election? I don't believe that any commentary survives with them. Livy may have mentioned whichever consul seemed more important to him first, or which one was elected first when he thought it was important enough to mention, but I don't recall Livy saying anything to the effect that he was systematically recording them in a particular order for each year.

The Capitoline Fasti were presumably edited at the time of their creation in Augustan times, but we don't really know who edited them, or to what extent, and at best we're only assuming the most probable motives. Moreover, we can't know the extent to which the order they give depends not on such editing, but on older sources that no longer exist—I'm thinking of the Annales Maximi and Fabius Pictor, for example. We have a good idea what sources Livy relied on, because he mentions them, but since none of them have survived except in fragments or quotations in later works, we can't compare them to see whether they agreed on the order of the consuls—I suspect they already contained various discrepancies, and on the whole I think it's a remarkable testament to Roman historians that the discrepancies we're aware of are relatively minor—the order in which the consuls were elected in individual years being, I think, one of these minor issues.

As far as footnotes go, I would simply indicate something along the lines of, "Livy gives Sulpicius first, Servilius second," or "Taylor gives Fabius second" or "X source corrects the name to Y, because..." That way, we're not really taking sides as to who was right or wrong (unless an error is obvious), merely presenting the alternatives, where plausible alternatives exist. P Aculeius (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see that second ping to me. But here are my thoughts in response.

Differences in order aren't just between Livy & the Fasti Capitolini, but between all of the primary sources. (One reason I gave up in trying to indicate this was that when I compiled the differences with the list in Cassiodorus -- who used either the FC or a related source for his consular list -- they differed from the order of the FC. The matter gets messy very quickly.) The primary sources for the Republican consular list include not only Livy & FC but Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Diodorus Siculus, Polybius, Cicero, later manuscripts (besides Cassidorus), as well as various inscriptions. It was a mistake of judgment by Renaissance scholars that gave the FC the undue importance we're debating here.

Further, one principle I've tried to follow in my rewrite of this list article is keeping the footnotes to a minimum. Too many footnotes make this article unreadable. That we have multiple footnotes on every divergence between Livy & FC gives undue weight (although unintentionally) to one article -- a point I agree with Avilich on. Footnotes should be used only to provide a citation, or to point out there are serious questions about the reliability of the information. (For example, see the entries for the years 458 BC, 328 BC, & the solitudo magistratuum.)

We've been indicating various values by coloring the squares; why not indicate a difference in order in the primary sources by italicizing the pairs, & explaining this practice at the top? Anyone wanting to know which source puts which consul first can then go to the relevant articles. (This assumes we can write articles on all of the Republican Consuls, but pushing this information off this page helps justify the creation of those articles.)

I had some other thoughts to share, but since they were based on a misunderstanding of Avilich's posts, I'll stop here. -- llywrch (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the most pressing matter is to split the list between the Republic and the Empire. The current list is way too long and very difficult to use and edit. T8612 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with the article itself, but the lag while editing this is intolerable. I won't be opposed to splitting. Avilich (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Drummond's article says the sources are unanimous in only around 50% of cases regarding the order of consuls and tribunes in the early to mid republic. Thus (he says), the coincidence is enough to indicate that there was probably indeed a 'correct' order to follow; but indicating every single of these variations with footnotes or even simple italics is plainly undesirable. I think your idea would work if we only do it for the most uncertain of cases (this would be when the only sources available are Livy and the FC). The problem as a whole should be explained in a paragraph on top. We could also remove the explicit labels consul prior and consul posterior from the republican tables: there may be too much uncertainty for there not to be confusion, and also we don't actually know that there's a permanent relationship between priority in the lists, order of election, and order in holding fasces. Avilich (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know whether there's a point in footnoting the "most uncertain" cases when as many as half are in doubt—why don't we simply remove the labels of "prior" and "posterior" from the tables, and rely on the subsection that addresses that distinction to explain what we've been talking about? All it really needs to say about the sources is that while most ancient sources agree as to the names of the consuls for each year, they vary widely as to the order in which they name the consuls and other officials, and that it is not clear whether any of our surviving lists intended systematically to name the consul prior first in each instance. Then we can indicate what ancient or modern sources were used in the table, noting exceptions if any are needed. Those could either appear in body text or be footnotes if desired, but if footnotes, there wouldn't need to be as many of them if we're following one or two main sources for long periods of time.

As for the proposal to split the list, I'm not absolutely opposed to it if it truly is unwieldy, but I also see a great deal of value in seeing the continuity of the table from beginning to end, and surely that is how the Romans viewed the subject as well—an added incentive to keep them together. Isn't it possible to edit just one section at a time with greater ease? I know that sometimes it's desirable to edit multiple sections at once, such as when adding a source to the bibliography, but it's also possible to edit different sections in multiple tabs. P Aculeius (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'll remove the prior and posterior labels from the tables, then. Probably fewer half of the cases are in doubt, since many are due to a single source deviating from the rest. Still, I see little need to have terms indicating order when the order is already self-evident from the list. The issue of splitting may require a separate discussion; for now I'll say that while I find the argument of continuity convincing, this article is well above the recommended length. Avilich (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The Flavius issue

This has been already discussed here and in many other articles. If you actually look at the fastis in Roger S. Bagnall's Consuls of the later Roman Empire you'll notice that all consuls after the 3rd century have the name "Flavius". However, these names are only found in consular papyri and nowhere else. The book itself is inconsistent on the issue, just as the PLRE. It was no longer a name, so we shouldn't treat it as one. Adding the "Flavius" would be like adding the "Dominus Noster" to all emperors. I also noticed that the "Imperator Caesar" is omitted starting from Constantius I. However, that denomination was still used even by the times of Tiberius II and Maurice (see their regnal names). I assume it's for simplicity... but then, shouldn't we also delete the "Flavius" for simplicity? Tintero21 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. I hadn't noticed that Bagnall was inconsistent about this title, although IIRC, some individuals did have "Flavius" as a first name in the 4th & 5th centuries; that's a detail which needs investigating, & those individuals identified. But you bring up another matter that hasn't been addressed: Roman imperial titulature changed over the years. For the first few centuries, it was "Imperator"; then it became Dominus Noster for the 4th & 5th centuries; I'm not sure at which point Dominus Noster was dropped -- if it was before or after the consulate was abolished -- but definitely by the 7th century the Greek autokrator was adopted. This needs to be researched & modifications made. -- llywrch (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK Quintus Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus (the consul of 355) was the last "true" Flavius, or at least the last one to be actually verifiable (note that he actually posesses a praenomen and a full name). His colleague Arbitio is never directly called "Flavius", but is instead given the name on the basis of a "Fll." abbreviation, which is, as always, is only found in a couple of sources. The next "Flavii" were the consuls of 359 (Eusebius & Hypatius), but they are only called such in the papyri. And that is the case for almost all future consuls. It's practically impossible to know if any of these consuls were actually Flavii (I really doubt it; up to that point the name was not that common). I think it would be better to erase the names from the 5th century onward. And about the imperial formula... I have no idea. I only mentioned it because I noticed that if we exclude "Dominus Noster" for being a title then the same should be applied to the Flavii. Tintero21 (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

AD 4th century issues

I've recently read an article by Benet Salway, "Roman consuls, imperial politics, and Egyptian papyri: the consulates of 325 and 344 CE", where he points out that the primary sources conflict over the identity of the consuls for those 2 years: for 325, the colleague of one Julianus could be either Proculus or Paulinus (what we currently have here is one expert's opinion); then for 344, the primary sources provide 2 different colleagues for Leontius, Sallustius (in the manuscript traditions) & Bonosus (in contemporary inscriptions).

Salway discusses the problem then offers one solution, which is at odds with Bagnall, et al., Consuls of the Later Roman Empire, which is the basis for this section of the list. (IIRC, that work does not discuss the problem, but I don't have my copy at hand at the moment.) David Woods, "Flavius Bonosus and the Consuls of AD344" largely concurs with Salway -- but all three are offering their POV, & Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. So what we need to do, IMHO, is point out the problem, then in a couple of footnotes provide possible solutions. -- llywrch (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Inauthentic abbreviation for "Agrippa"

In the table of praenomina, an editor keeps adding the abbreviation "Agr." for "Agrippa" based on an entry in the index (but not the text [ex. 2]) of an 1833 edition of the Fasti Capitolini. The table is supposed to contain only standard abbreviations used by Roman sources and modern scholars; this is not one. Roman writers do not abbreviate this praenomen; it is not abbreviated in Livy, nor in Dionysius, nor in Zonaras, nor in Diodorus; the Capitoline Fasti themselves only use "Agrip." or "Agripp." (AE 1900, 83), but the Triumphal Fasti do not abbreviate it at all (AE 1940, 61), nor is it abbreviated in other inscriptions (CIL V, 3161, CIL VI, 31089, CIL VI, 37161). Modern reference sources do not abbreviate it: DGRBM under "Lanatus"; "Fusus"; "Medullinus"; Chronology; Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, at "nomen"; Pauly-Wissowa, 13th Half-volume, cols. 315, 353 (Agrippa Furius; Agrippa Furius Fusus); 29th Half-volume, cols. 839, 840, 843 (Agrippa Menenius; Agrippa Menenius Lanatus); Lewis & Short don't give an abbreviation, nor do Cassell's or the Bantam Latin dictionary, as they all do for common praenomina.

"Agr." would be a logical, reasonable, natural abbreviation; one that modern scholars could adopt if they wished; but following typical Roman practice they have not. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, at 258, 302, and index; Cambridge Ancient History, vol. VII, part 2, pp. 279, 290 (in a table with all other praenomina abbreviated), 628, 631, 632, 633, 636 (the last five in a table with all but archaic praenomina abbreviated); Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, throughout. If there is an ancient or modern source that regularly abbreviates "Agrippa" this way—or does so consistently in any way—I do not know what it is.

The table of praenomina in this article is supposed to represent authentic Roman practice, or at least modern conventions regarding it. But here the inclusion of "Agr." implies a convention that did not exist in Roman times and is not used in modern scholarship. In articles about praenomina, all of this would be a fair topic for discussion. Here it would be an unwarranted digression to explain why the table consists of authentic Roman conventions except in one case where someone has arbitrarily decided to insert a non-standard abbreviation based entirely on an index entry in a very old edition of the Fasti. I note that I do not normally quibble about the age or outdatedness of sources, even though in this case the Fasti are much better understood today than they were in 1833. But epigraphy, unlike history, is subject to frequent and substantial revision; the source does not even claim that this abbreviation was used by the Romans, and the use of it in the index has not been followed by other scholars. P Aculeius (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If the table is supposed to be based on the standard abbreviations. There should be other omissions than Agrippa. Neither Livy nor Valerius Maximus abbreviate Postumus. Livy doesn't abbreviate Proculus.

The unfortunate truth is that praenomen abbreviations are not 'standardized'. The Latin language was never standardized itself. Praenomen abbreviations were and are a way to save space and are the best way to write Roman names. The article does not claim that the praenomen abbreviations in the table are authentic. USA1855 (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No authorities will ever give a list including invented abbreviations; none of these is regularly abbreviated in either Roman or modern sources; neither in Roman historians nor in the Fasti, nor modern reference sources. Including abbreviations in the table gives the false impression that they are authentic Roman forms, since all of the other examples are, and most reference works make a point of reciting (or at least listing) them. There is no issue with space in this table; all of the Latin and all of the abbreviations are and should be based on Roman examples, with or without modern scholarship. Examples that don't regularly occur in either Roman practice or modern reference works do not belong here. P Aculeius (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Then the abbreviations for the praenomina Postumus and Proculus should not be used either. USA1855 (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I've removed them, along with Vopiscus. I think Opiter can probably stay, as it's abbreviated as shown in the Fasti. As I originally wrote it, the table only included abbreviated praenomina, and did not include Agrippa or some of the other rarities, and it still does not include those rarities toward the end of the Republic and in the early Empire. I may need to add some text explaining those. P Aculeius (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)