R. Bauman's views on the suspension of L. Cornelius Cinna from magisterial duties in 87 b.c

This paper aims to examine R. Bauman's interpretation of the suspension of the Roman consul L. Cornelius Cinna from magisterial duties in 87 BC. To this end, the following tasks need to be accomplished. First, the general objections against the view within which Bauman considers the episode must be described (according to this view, Cinna was deprived of his authority by the senate that declared him a public enemy - hostispublicus). Secondly, Bauman's conclusions and the course of the development of his ideas concerning Cin-na's suspension are to be clarified. Finally, his arguments must be critically assessed. The methodology of the present historiographical study consists first of all of a comparison of the assertions which Bauman makes in his different articles (published in 1966, 1968, and 1973). It also suggests an assessment of each of these assertions on its own merits. The source base for this analysis is the ancient narrative tradition. As a result, the following conclusions can be drawn. In his 1966 and 1968 articles, Bauman points out that Cinna's virtual disfranchisement by the hostis-Erklarung 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 contradicts Bauman's idea (articulated in the same article) that the senatorial decree was meant merely 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's entirely unsupported view, "Cinna may have decided to forestall this": he voluntarily abdicated in a meeting at the military camp (where he arrived after being forced to leave Rome). He then secured a reelection at an "assembly militiae". Bauman's logic 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". The present paper considers in detail the internal contradictions of this interpretation and demonstrates that there is no convincing evidence that may support Bauman's propositions. At the same time, it is concluded 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 an 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 action if he hoped to proceed with exercising his consular powers.

Keywords

Authors

References