The Suppression of the Bacchanals: Five Questions

Author(s): R. A. Bauman
Source: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Bd. 39, H. 3 (1990), pp. 334-348
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436155
Accessed: 25-04-2015 16:24 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte
Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SUPPRESSIONOF THE BACCHANALS:FIVEQUESTIONS

Despite its considerableliterature'the suppressionof the cult of Bacchusin
186 B. C. still exhibitsa numberof gray areas.It is generallyinterpretedas a
strong reaction by Rome in which many people were put to death and
vigorous steps were taken to dismantle the cult for the future. But much
remainsuncertain,not only because some currentsolutions fail to persuade
but also becausesome importantaspectshave not been addressedat all. Five
questions seem to be in special need of clarification.What exactly was the
chronologyof the episode? Was the cult supportedby any personsof note?
Did its operationsamountto a conspiracyagainstthe state,or does coniuratio
bear some other meaninghere? Was militaryforce used to suppressthe cult,
as Ciceroimpliesbut Livyapparentlydoes not? And who werethe instigators
of the suppressionand what were theirmotives?
We begin with a resumeof Livy'saccount(XXXIX 8-19),2with our comments. In 186the consul Sp. PostumiusAlbinusreceiveddisturbinginformation aboutthe cult fromAebutiusand his mistress,HispalaFaecenia.The cult,
originallyestablishedin Etruria,had spreadto Rome. It had been toleratedat
first,but a Campanianpriestess,PacullaAnnia,had introducedsome mischievous innovations. She had admitted male initiates startingwith her sons,
Miniusand HerenniusCerrinius;she had held meetingsat night;and she had
held five initiationsa month instead of threeper annum.Thoughfor the last
two yearsinitiateshad only been admittedup to the age of twenty,therewere
so many thatthey almostconstituteda second state(8-14).
I The most comprehensivestudy is that of R. J. Rousselle, 7he Roman Persecutionof the
BacchicCult;Diss. State Universityof New York, 1982.His bibliographylists most important
worksup to 1982.In additionto Rousselle,the followingare henceforthcited by author'sname
only: A. E. Astin, The Atinii', in Hommagesa MarcelRenard,Brussels1969,34-9; R. A. Bau-

man, Lawyers in Roman Republican Politics; Munich 1983; A. Bruhl, Liber Pater,Paris 1953; Ed.
Fraenkel,'SenatusConsultumDe Bacchanalibus',Hernes 67 (1932),369-96; M. Gelzer, 'Die
Unterdruckungder Bacchanalienbei Livius',Hermes71 (1936),275-87; W. Kunkel, Unters. z.
Entwicklung d. rom. Kriminalverf in vorsullanischer Zeit; Munich 1962;H. H. Scullard,Roman
Politics 220-150 B. C., 2 ed., Oxford 1973; A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal's Legacy, vol. 2, Oxford 1965;
J. J. Tierney, 7he 'Senatus Consultum De Bacchanalibus', Royal Irish Academy: Proceedings;vol.
51 sec. C (1947),89-117. Mommsen'sreferencesare scatteredover History of Rome,London
1901,Staatsrecht and StrafrechtNot much has been addedsince 1982.The cursory(and not
always accurate)referencesin A. Keaveney, Rome and the Unification of Italy,Totowa 1987

enhance neitherhis theme nor ours.

(text in
2 The other importantsourcesare the epigraphicversionof the s. c. de Bacchanalibus
FIRA 1.240-1,translationand commentaryin A. C. Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes;
Austin 1961,26-8); and Cicero De Legibus 2.37. Other sources in Broughton,MRR 1.371;
Rousselle,161nn. 12, 13.Exceptwhere it mightcauseconfusion,passagesin Livy BookXXXIX
are cited by chapterand sectionnumberonly.
Historia, Band XXXIX/3 (1990)

?) Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Suppressionof the Bacchanals

335

Postumiuslaid his informationbeforethe senate.The patrescommissioned

Postumiusand his consularcolleague, Q. MarciusPhilippus,to undertakea
special investigationof the Bacchanalsand theirnocturnalrites:quaestionem
de Bacchanalibussacrisque nocturnis extra ordinem consulibus mandant
(14.3-6). Extraordinemhere does not mean outside the regularcourt system;
there was not yet such a thing as an ordo iudiciorumpublicorumfrom which
this quaestiocould be said to have digressed.3It simplymeansa top priorty to
be dischargedbeforethe regulardutiesof the consuls. Livymakesthis clearat
the beginningof his account: insequensannus. . . consulesab exercitubellorumqueet provinciarumcuraad intestinaeconiurationisvindictamavertit(8.1).
He again makes it clearwhen he has the consuls delegatethe conduct of the
levy to the urbanpraetor,T. Maenius,while they are busy with the investigations (20.4).
The senate commissionedthe consuls to seek out celebrantsboth in Rome
and in outlying communities,and to proclaimby edict, both in Rome and
Italy,that no initiateswere to presumeto come togetherfor the performance
of Bacchicrites: ne quis qui Bacchisinitiatusesset coisseaut convenissesacrorum causa velit(14.8).The curious phrase, 'Let no one wish to have come
together',is used repeatedlyin the epigraphicversion of the senate'sdecree
(FIRA1.240-1)- e. g. neiquiseorumBacanalhabuissevelet.Livy'spreservation
of the archaicconstructionstrengthensthe reasonsfor acceptingthe essential
veracityof his account.4He ends his accountof the senate'sinstructionswith
the observationthat beforeanythingelsean investigationwas to be conducted
into those who had come togetheror sworntogetherfor immoralor criminal
purposes: ante omnia ut quaestiode iis habeatur,qui coierintconiuraverintve
quo stuprumflagitiumveinferretur(14.8).
The consuls orderedthe curule aediles to imprisonthe priestsof the cult
pending trial, the plebeian aediles to curb secret celebrations, and the triumviri

capitalesto station guards throughoutthe city to ensure that no nocturnal

meetingswereheld and to guardagainstfireand to protectbuildings(14.9-10).
The consuls then convened a contioat which Postumiusspoke.5He said that
therewerethousandsof initiates,manyof them women who werethe sources
of the mischief.We had been led to believe that the initiationof men was the
start of the trouble, but the lapse is venial: in what is obviously a speech
3 As is well known, the organisationof quaestionesinto a regularsystem of criminaljurycourtsonly began in 149.See for example Kunkel,KleineSchriffen, Weimar1974,46-52.
4 The case for the essentialveracityof Livy'saccountwas arguedby Fraenkeland opposedby
Gelzer. Rousselle,4-19 concludesaftera full discussionthat Livygoes back to an earlysource,
probablyA. PostumiusAlbinus, and is basically reliable. For other comments see Tierney,
98-104; Bruhl,87, 94, 98.
S Livy does not name the speaker but Postumius'dominant role throughout makes the
identificationalmostcertain.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

336

R. A.

BAUMAN

cobbled togetherfrom scattereditems6Livymay be reflectingsomethingsaid

by that well-knownanti-feminist,Cato the Censor;Cato'sspeech de coniurationewas almostcertainlydeliveredin connectionwith the suppressionof the
Bacchanals.7The consul goes on to say that the coniuraliohas not yet got
much strength,but the numbersare increasingeveryday. Postumiusadds that
'Your ancestorsdid not wish you to come togetheraimlessly,but only when
the armymet for an election,or the tribunesconvenedthe plebs,or a magistrate summonedyou to a contio;in those cases the crowdalwayshad a legitimate
leader - legitimus rector'(15.10-11).The cult is thus condemned for not having
a legitimus rector.

The consul declaresthat young initiatesare not fit to be soldiers,but an

even greaterevil is their exposure to crime. As they do not yet have the
strength to crush the Republic their coniuratioimpia still only generates
private crimes - stuprum,murder, perjury, forged seals, substituted wills -, but

it is alreadymorethana privatematter,for it envisagescontrolof the state- ad

summamrempublicamspectat(16.3,18.4).'Whileyou are assembledherethey
fear you, but when you dispersethey will gatherfor your destruction'(16.4).
Postumiusseemsto be calling-onthemto remainassembledtogether.He adds
that when crime ostensiblyexpressesthe will of the gods people hesitateto
punish it for fear of offendingthe gods. But they should take heartfrom the
fact that numerous decreta pontificum, senatus consulta and haruspicum re-

sponsa have, in the past, authorisedmagistratesto ban foreign cults and to

eliminateevery ritualexcept those performedmore Romano.The most eminent lawyers deemed nothing so destructiveof religion as foreign rites.8
Thereforepeople should not be troubledwhen they see action being taken
against the Bacchanals(16.7-10).In other words pax deorum,the rightrelationship with the gods, will not be at risk.Postumiusconcludesby callingon
his audienceto obey promptlyin whateverdutiesand stationsare assignedto
them (16.3).We againhavethe impressionthatthe populacehas a roleto play.
The consuls publishedan edict regulatingthe quaestio.A rewardwould be
paid to informers.If anyonenamedescapedthey would fix a day for him,and
if he failed to appearhe would be condemned in absentia.If he was outside
Italythey would fix a flexibledate if he wishedto come to plead his case.This
careful preservationof the right of fair trial was not inventedby Livy. It is
fundamental.A second edictlaid down thatno one was to sell or buy anything
for the purposeof flight,or to assistfugitives(17.1-3).
The senate's decree caused great consternationamongst the more than
seven thousandmen and women who weresaid to have takenthe oath; many
6 Cf. Munzer, RE 22,921-2.
7 Cf. Bauman,200 n.340.
8 For some examplesof previousreactionsagainstforeignritesand detailsof the lawyerwho
pronouncedon them see belowat nn. 4748.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Suppressionof the Bacchanals

337

tried to escape or committedsuicide (17.4-6).The leaders of the movement

were Marcusand Gaius Atiniusof the Romanplebs,the
(capitaconiurationis)
Faliscan Lucius Opicerniusand the Campanian Minius Cerrinius,son of
Paculla Annia. When brought before the consuls they confessed, thus not
delaying their trials (17.6-7). Again there are no arbitraryverdicts. Some
formalitiesof proof are dispensed with, but only because of the confessions.
So manypeople fled the city thatthe praetorshad to proclaima thirtydays'
iustitiumon all (mainly civil) trials, pending the consuls' completion of the
The same flightfrom Rome obligedthe consulsto makethe
quaestiones(18.1).
roundsof outlyingcommunitiesin orderto conductinvestigationsand trialsquaerereet iudiciaexercere(18.2).Two distinctoperationsare contemplated
here:all initiateswill be investigated(quaerere)and those found to be indictable will be tried(iudiciaexercere).Initiatesweredealt with in two ways.Those
who had merely recited the initiation oath as dictated by a priest, without
committingany of the acts to which the oath bound them,were left in prison;
but those who had debauched,murdered,perjured,forgedor substitutedwills
were punishedcapitally.More were put to death than imprisoned.Condemned women were handed over to relativesfor privateexecution;if therewere
no relativesthe public executionerobliged (18.3-6).The passage,often noticed, has neverbeen properlyunderstood.Imprisonmentwas not imposedas a
definitivecriminalsentence.Only the death sentence filled that role against
the Bacchanals,as the epigraphicsenatus consultummakes clear: eeis rem
caputalemfaciendamcensuere(FIRA 1.241v.6) Imprisonmentwas, at least in
this case, reservedfor those who had not committedany crimescognisableby
the public criminallaw; they were imprisonedas an administrative,or coercive, measure,not as a punishment.That is why Livy says of them, in vinculis
relinquebant(18.3);they were simply left in the condition in which they had
languished since their arrest.The consuls only exercised quaerereagainst
them, not iudiciaexercere.9
The senatecommissionedthe consulsto destroythe Bacchiccult, at firstin
Rome and then throughoutItaly,except wherean ancientaltaror image had
been consecrated(18.7).If anyone wished to continue a rite because it had
originatedin the 'good' phase of the cult, prior to Paculla Annia's innovations,'"he could seek permissionfrom the senate throughthe praetor.But in
no case could the ritebe attendedby morethanfive people, nor could therebe
a common purse, a magistersacrorum(the non-legitimaterector)or a priest
(18.8-9).
9 There is no need here to expressan opinion on the case for imprisonmentas a definitive
penaltyin generalarguedby W. Eisenhut,ANRWI 2.268-82.
10Fora discussionof the two phasesof the cult see Rousselle,20-50. And for briefcomments,
Tierney,95. Bruhl,94 doubtsthe key role in the introductionof the second phase with which
Livy creditsPacullaAnnia, but the doubtsare not convincing.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

338

R.A.BAUMAN

The consul Philippus,havingcompletedhis partof the quaestio,movedthat

rewardsfor informersbe taken under advisementwhen Postumiusreturned
(19.1).The senate also decreedthat MiniusCerriniusbe imprisonedat Ardea
in Latium; the local officials were to ensure that he neither escaped nor
committedsuicide (19.2).This is good confirmationof our contentionthat
imprisonmentwas not a definitivepenalty:Minius'incarcerationwas ordered
by the senate,not by the consuls,and was simplyan interimmeasurepending
trial;you did not make a special orderabout the accused'ssuicide when you
sentenceddefinitively.We do not know the ultimatefate of Minius,or of the
other capita coniurationis.In view of their confessions the failure to bring
them before the consuls for sentencingis a mystery,unless the confessions
were only extractedafterthe senate imprisonedthem.
Livyends his accountwiththe news thatwhen Postumiusreturnedto Rome
some time later(aliquantopost) he proposed a rewardof 100000 asses each
for Aebutiusand Hispala;and the tribuneswere commissionedto proposeto
the plebs thatAebutiusbe exemptedfrommilitaryserviceand that Hispalabe
given full control of her property,an unrestrictedrightof marriage,and the
protection of the consuls and praetors(19.3-7). The plebs approvedthese
measures(19.7),thus retrospectivelyendorsingthe quaestiodespiteits having
been launched on the sole authority of the senate and consuls. There is
accordinglyno problemwith provocatioadpopulum"
We now addressthe firstof our five specificquestions,namelythe chronology. Two mattersarise. How long had PacullaAnnia's innovationsbeen in
existence?And what was the sequenceof the varioussteps in the suppression
process? The answerto the first question is that the innovationsmust have
been very recent in 186 if the age limit of twenty for initiationswhich was
introduced'withinthe last two years'(13.4)was one of Paculla'smeasures,as
seems likely.It follows that Rome'sreactionagainstthe cult in its restructured
form was swift and immediate.A problemoriginatingin 188could have been
canvassed by Postumius and Philippus in their election campaign for the
consulship,and the top prioritygiven to it when they enteredon their office
could simply be the fulfilment of a campaign promise. But this is only a
conjecture,and it is probablynot secureenough to overturnLivy'sportrayal
of the Aebutius-Hispalarevelationsas a completesurpriseto Postumius.
The otherchronologicalquestionis morecomplex.The starting-pointis the
11Provocatiois the main reason for the interest of both Mommsen and Kunkel in the
suppression.On the view in the text detailedconsiderationof the applicabilityof provocatiois
unnecessary.Mommsen, Staatsr.3.1067does, however,make the useful point that provocatio
had no applicationhere because the crime was not political. Despite Kunkel, 25 n. 67, the
discussionof J. L. Strachan-Davidson,Problemsof theRomanCriminalLaw,Oxford1912,repr.
Amsterdam1969,1.232-5is not particularlycogent.A usefulpoint madeby Kunkelis thatthere
is no problemwith provocatiobecauseonly common law crimeswere involved.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Suppressionof the Bacchanals

339

epigraphicsenatusconsultumwhich was movedby both consulson 7 October,

which correspondsto 11June on the Julian calendar.'2At this time consuls
enteredon office on 15March,13and thus some three months elapsed before
Postumiusand Philippusmoved the epigraphicdecree. But Livy insists that
the suppressionwas given top priority.The only way to reconcilethis is to
supposethatthe quaestiowas in fact launchedat leastthreemonthsbeforethe
epigraphic decree, in Julian March.'4This divides the operation into two
distinct phases - a first phase in which individualswere tried (the quaestio
proper'5)and a second phase in which the cult itself was suppressedfor the
future.This means that there must have been more than one senatus consultuM.'6The firstwas that of which Livy says, ante omnia ut quaestiohabeatur
(14.8);it was passed in Marchand coveredthe firstphase of the quaestio.Livy
then gives details of the quaestio'soperations(17.1-18.6),and after that he
notes a new authorisationto the consuls to destroythe cult, firstin Rome and
then throughoutItaly,datumdeindeconsulibusnegotiumest ut omniaBacchanalia Romaeprimum,deindeper totamItaliamdiruerent(l8.7).
That Postumiusdevoted more time than Philippus to the suppressionis
self-evident.Philippuswas back in Rome long before Postumius(19.3);after
completinghis quaestioPhilippuswent to Liguria(20.1);when the elections
for 185 were due to be held Philippuswas absent and Postumius,having by
then completedhis quaestio,held the elections(23.1).This gives us a closing
date for the entire suppression.At this time elections were usually held in
January,'7but later dates were quite common; the election for 186was exitu
propeannibecause it was held on 18February(XXXVI1I42.1-2),and we can
safely concludethat the (undated)election for 185was at least as late as that,
for it was cum iam in exitu annus esset (XXXIX 23.1). Postumiuswill thus
have been occupied with the suppressionfrom March 186to February185 though not continuously,for he was in Rome in June when he moved the
epigraphicdecree.
How much of the initialthree monthsdid Postumiusspend on the judicial
(quaestio)partof the operation?Did he devote the full three monthsto it, or
did he also have time for part of the destructionphase, insofar as that was
carriedout in Romanterritory?If we could rely absolutelyon the thirtydays'
iustitiumdecreedby the praetorsdonecquaestionesa consulibusperficerentur
(18.1)the answer would be simple: the quaestioproper in Roman territory
12 Cf. Rousselle,7.
13 Mommsen,Staatsr.1.599.
14 Cf. Rousselle,7.
15 Althoughthe division into two phasesis plainlyvisible in

Livy,the terminologicaldifferentiation is my own. Quaestiois used in the sourcesas a genericterm for the entireoperation.
16 This is generallyrecognised.See e. g. Tierney,98.
17 Mommsen,
Staatsr.1.583.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

340

R. A. BAUMAN

took about a month, leaving some two months for destructionin Roman
territory,fromabout mid-Aprilto mid-June.Butother quaestionesat this time
took much more than thirtydays. In 184the praetorQ. Naevius was delayed
by an investigationof poisoningsfor four monthsbeforehe could take up his
province of Sardinia; the enquiry took him to outlying communities(cf.
Postumius)and he is said to have condemned some two thousand persons
(XXXIX 41.5-6). Livydoes note the case as exceptional- quattuornon minus
menses-, but in 180the praetorC. Maenius,chargedwith a quaestioveneficii
before leaving for Sardinia, notified the senate that after three thousand
condemnationsthe investigationwas still not complete;he said he musteither
discontinue it or give up his province (XL 37.4, 43.2-3). It can safely be
assumedthat only Philippuscompletedhis mission in thirtydays. Postumius
devoted threemonthsto the judicial investigationand then returned,in June,
to Rome, where he joined Philippusin movingthe destructionof the cult in
both Romanand allied territory.
The greaterpartof Postumius'soperationslay in South Italy.For example,
on his final returnto Rome in February185he reportedthat while travelling
aroundfor the purposesof the suppressionhe had found abandonedcolonies
at Sipontum in Apulia and Buxentum in Lucania (XXXIX 23.3). This is
consistentwith the fact thatthe South was wherePacullaAnnia'sinnovations
had originated.It is worth noting that the smoulderingremainsof the cult
which called for action after 186 were all in the South. In 184 L. Postumius
Tempsanus,propraetorof Tarentum,continuedthe work of his kinsmanby
breakingup large coniurationesof shepherdsand activatingthe remnantsof
the Bacchanalianquaestio(XXXIX 41.6-7).And in 181the praetorL. Duronius was assigned to Apulia in order to complete anotherreactivationof the
quaestiothat had been startedby L. Pupius in 182 (XL 19.9-10).Aebutius'
mother, whose promptingsto her son to join the cult had sparkedoff the
Aebutius-Hispalarevelations,was a Duronia (9.2-4). The praetorof 181appearsto have desertedhis familyfor the winningside.
Postumius'heavy commitmentsin the Southexplainwhy he had to devote
virtuallythe entire year to the suppression.Philippuswas not active in the
the originalcult-centre.It must have been infectedby
South, but in Etruria,'8
the PacullaAnnia innovations,since the FaliscanLuciusOpicerniuswas one
of the capita coniurationis(17.6),but the mischiefwas not as widespreadin
Etruriaas in the South, perhapsbecause the original,conservativeversionof
the cultwas morestronglyentrenched.Philippuswas thusable to completehis
mission withinthe anticipatedthirtydays quiteeasily.
Our second question,as to whetherany personsof note were involved in
18 Rousselle,61 creditsthe Marciiwith a special interestin Etruria.Philippusmay however
have had anotherreasonfor choosing Etruria.See below.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Suppressionof the Bacchanals

341

the cult, now claims our attention.Livy says that the initiatesincluded some
men and women of rank- nobilesquosdamvirosfeminasque- but he does not
give any details (13.14).He does say, however,that when Postumiuslaid his
informationbefore the patres they were panic-strickenat the thought that
adfines of theirs might be involved (14.4). Elsewhere Livy reveals that the
initiates included Aebutius's mother, Duronia, and her second husband,
T. SemproniusRutilus,who triedto inductAebutiusinto the cult in orderto
cover up his misappropriationsof the young man'spropterty(9.2-4). We note
that.a certainC. SemproniusRutilus was tribunein 189but did not go any
further.The main pointerto noble initiatesis suppliedby Marcusand Gaius
Atinius of the Roman plebs who head Livy's list of capita coniurationis (17.6).

They were a subordinatebranchof the Atiniifamily which was prominentat

this time, and which happens to have had the same two praenominaas the
capitaconiurationis.19
The Atinii have an impressiverecord.In 212 M. Atinius
was praefectusat Thurii;anotherM. Atiniuswas praefectussociumin 194and
was killed in Gaul in company with his colleague P. Sempronius,another
memberof the Semproniangens.20The other Atinianpraenomen,Gaius, was
borne by several major careerists.C. Atinius Labeo was tribunein 197 and
peregrinepraetorin 195.21As tribunehe carrieda law establishingfive colonies - four in Campaniaand the fifth, Buxentum,in Lucania,where it was
destinedto be found desertedby Postumiusin 186(XXXII 29.3-4). Another
C. AtiniusLabeowas praetorin Sicilyin 190.The most distinguishedmember
was C. Atinius(Labeo),praetorin FartherSpain in 188and propraetorthere
until 186, when he died of wounds after gaining a signal victory over the
Lusitanians.22
The patronsof the AtiniiincludedTi. SemproniusLongus(cos.
194),23whichsuppliesa furtherlink with Duronia'shusband.The Atiniifailed,
significantly,to win any office for nearlyfortyyears after 186,and when they
did surfaceagainthey got no furtherthan the tribunate.24
The Atiniihave an interestinglegislativerecord.In additionto the colonial
law they arecreditedwitha lexAtiniade usucapionewhose complexitiescould
only have emanatedfroma trainedlawyer,and a lex Atiniaadmittingtribunes
19Astin,35-8 doubtswhetherthey were membersof the senatorialAtinii familyand thinks it
more likely that they were freedmanclients.That servesour purposejust as well, though Livy
13.14and 14.4 (above) requiressome persons of rank and the Atinii are both visible and
eminentlyqualified.
20
Broughton,MRR 1.270,345; Astin, 35.
21 Broughton,MRR 1.336,340; Astin, 35-7.
Broughton,1.339n.3 rejectsthe traditionwhich
has a C. Atinius Labeoin the tribunatein both 197and 196;he opts for 196only. Astin suspends
judgment.If, as I assume,the praetorof 195had recentlybeen tribunean intervalof two years
ratherthan one betweenhis offices is probable.
22
Broughton,MRR 1.356, 365, 369, 371;Astin, 35.
23 Astin, 36-7.
24 See the Indexof Careersin

Broughton,MRR2.535.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

342

R. A. BAUMAN

to the senate.25The latter sits well in a family on the fringe of the nobility
which fostered the interests of the underprivileged ;26 an alliance with the
Sempronii Rutili, who in turn were allied to the Sempronii Gracchi,27may
have emphasised the populist orientation of the Atinii. It is also significant
that as tribune in 197 C. Atinius Labeo acted jointly with Q. Marcius Ralla in
moving a plebiscite for peace with Philip (XXXIII 25.6-7). If Q. Marcius
Philippus (cos. 186) shared his kinsman's pro-hellenism he may have been
reluctant to conduct his part of the Bacchanalian quaestio in the South; hence
perhaps his choice of Etruria in which the Atinii had no special interest.
Our third question concerns coniuratio and the crimes associated therewith.
That coniuratio's basic meaning is a swearing together, hence a group of
persons bound by oath to a common undertaking, will not be denied.28 But
what has caused more trouble than it should have is the nature of the charges
against the Bacchanals. Some would have it that the only charge was membership of the cult, the argument being that the case is on all fours with the
charge of nomen ipsum brought against Christians in Pliny's day.29 But this
cannot be right. To start with, Livy makes it quite clear that not every initiate
was formally charged; those who had done no more than take the oath simply
remained in prison. More important, Livy supplies a full list of the charges
against those who had done more than take the oath. The list was defined by
the senate in general terms as qui. . . coniuraverint quo stuprum flagitiumve
inferretur(I4.8), and the detailed flagitia, as uncovered by the quaestio, turned
out to be a group of common law crimes - stuprunm murder, perjury, forged
seals and substituted wills (16.3, 18.4). Far from being a mere random falsification by Livy,30 these acts encapsulate a single criminal enterprise: the orgies
associated with stuprum lead to murders, and false wills of the victims
purporting to have been made by the testamentum per aes et libram procedure
are produced; validation of the wills is achieved by the perjury and false seals
of the five witnesses whose presence was required for the mancipatory will.3"
25 On these laws see Rotondi, LPPR.On the great controversythat the lex de usucapione
inspiredamongstjuristsin the Gracchanperiodsee A. Watson,Lawmakingin theLaterRoman
Republic,Oxford1974,138.
26 On the social groupsattractedto the cult see Rousselle,34-50, though he is somewhattoo
sceptical,especiallyin regardto servile initiates.When L. PostumiusTempsanusbrokeup large
coniurationesof shepherdsand activatedthe Bacchanalianquaestioin 184it can reasonablybe
supposedthat the quaestiowas directed at the shepherds,hence at slaves. See Livy XXXIX
41.6-7, also discussedabove.See also Scullard,154-5.
27 In 189M'.Acilius Glabriowas prosecutedby P. SemproniusGracchusand C. Sempronius
Rutilusfor failingto accountfor the bootytaken from Antiochus.Bauman,179.
28 SeeOxfordLatinDictionary,s. v. coniuratio.
29 So Gelzer, pass.;Tierney, 101,106. A similar view appearsto be taken by A. N. SherwinWhite, TheLettersof Pliny,Oxford1966,ad Ep.96.2.
30 So Tierney,113,displayinglamentableignoranceof legal practicalities.
31On the lestamentumperaes et libramsee B. Nicholas,An Introductionto RomanLaw,3 ed.,
9 ed., Munich 1976,265, 274-5.
1988,253-4. See also M. Kaser,RomischesPrivatrecht,

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Suppressionof the Bacchanals

343

The purpose was to generatefunds for the cult, and that is why the limited
rightsgrantedto approvedgroups afterthe destructionof the cult stipulated
that there be no common fund - pecunia communis(18.9). It is also why
exemptions were subject to the rite not being attended by more than five
people (ib.):this meantthat the full complementof testator,libripensand five
witnessesrequiredfor the mancipatorywill could not have been presentwhen
the alleged will was made. There is a furtherpoint againstthe nomenipsum
theory.Althoughthe nomenipsumwas indictablein Pliny'sday (Tertul.ApoL
2), Plinyhintedto Trajanthat punishmentshould only be inflictedfor crimes
associated with the nomen: nec mediocriterhaesitavi... an nomen ipsum,
etiamsiflagitiis careat, an flagitia cohaerentianominipuniantur(Plin. Ep.
96.2). Pliny had read Livy and was unhappyabout the contemporarydeparture from Republicanmoderation.
Our fourth question, as to whetherthe consuls raised a militaryforce to
suppress the cult, reveals an apparent conflict between Cicero and Livy.
Cicero is discussing nocturnal rites and cites as an example of ancestral
severity the Bacchanaliandecree and the investigationconducted by the
consuls after raising an army: senatus vetus auctoritasde Bacchanalibuset
consulumexercituadhibitoquaestioanimadversioque
(Cic. Leg. 2.37). But on
the face of it Livy says nothing about the use of force. Scholarsare divided
betweenthose who accept Cicero withoutnoticingthe difficulties32
and those
who rejecthim on the groundsthat he was undulyinfluencedby the eventsof
63BC.33Thatargumentis completelyuntenable.Cicerodoes not even use the
word coniuratiothat might have evoked Catiline.Nor did the senate purport
to adjudicate on the Bacchanals;the whole point about the emphasis on
common law crimesis that cultists'acts were not elevatedto treason.34
There is a question that no one seems to have asked: Does Livy in fact
conflictwith Cicero?Ourstarting-pointis Livy'saccountof the levy for 186to
which he turns immediatelyafter the suppressionof the cult. The levy was
carried out by the urban praetor, T. Maenius, to whom the consuls had
delegatedthe task while they were busy with the quaestio(20.4).When Philippus was preparingto set out againstthe Ligurianshe received3000 Roman
32 E. g. Miunzer,RE 22.921-2;
Tierney, 101.At one time I took the view that Cicero was
mistaken,but Mr A. M. Stone, to whom I am indebtedfor readingand commentingon a first
draftof this paper,persuadedme that my view should be modified.The interpretationoffered
herestill differsboth in principleand in detailfromthat proposedby Mr Stone,but I mustleave
it to him to place his interpretationbeforethe learnedworldin due course.
33 E. g. Rousselle,6: 'His evidenceis virtuallyworthless.'Cf. ib. 96. This is the leastimpressive
argumentin the whole of Rousselle'sdissertation.
34On the languageand ambiencewhen the senatedid so purportsee J. Bleicken,Senatsgericht
und Kaisergericht,
Gottingen 1962,passim; Bauman,Athenaeum51 (1973),270-93. That common law crimescould be elevatedto treasonis of coursecertain.E. g. D. 48.4.1.1:cuiusveopera

consilio malo consilium initum erit, quo quis magistratus populi Romani quive imperium potesta-

temvehabetoccidatur.Butthere was no such elevationhere.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

344

R. A. BAUMAN

infantryand 150 cavalry,plus Latin contingentsof 5000 infantryand 200

cavalry.A similarforce was allocatedto Postumiuswhose official provincia,
like that of Philippus, was the Liguriancampaign (20.1-2). These forces
consistedof the troops that had been used againstthe Liguriansthe previous
year by the consuls Lepidusand Flaminius(ib.).The senate also directedthe
consuls to raise two new legions, which they did (20.3).So far we appearto
have neat agreementwith Cicero:the Ligurianarmiesof 187would remainin
situ and the two new legions would be used againstthe Bacchanals.But Livy,
never satisfiedto leave well alone, goes on to say that the whole of this army,
withthe exceptionof the two new legions,was to be sent to reinforcethe army
in Spain (20.4);no doubt the main beneficiarywas C. Atiniusin Lusitania.
The two new legions were all that remainedin Italy for use against the
Bacchanals- if Cicero' exercituadhibitois correct.One of the legions mustbe
ruled out for most of the operation,becauseit will have gone to Liguriawith
Philippusto replacethe veteranLigurianforcewhich had been redeployedto
Spain.The withdrawalof seasonedtroopsproveddisastrousfor Philippus,for
he sustainedcripplinglosses againstthe LigurianApuaniand had to disband
his army(20.5-10).That leaves the legion destinedfor Postumius.Given that
he never got aroundto taking up his provinciain Liguria(cf. C. Maeniusin
180), can we identify his legion as the force behind the suppression?The
troubleis thatthe two new legions werenot yet in existencewhen the consuls
embarkedon the quaestio.But we are assistedby somethinghithertounnoticed which limitsthe scope of Cicero'sexercituadhibito.It is simplythat there
can be no question of an army having been raised for the first stage of the
quaestio,namely that which was conductedin Rome itself. To have used an
army in Rome would have violated a rule which was relaxed as a special
concession for triumphsbut would not otherwisebe disregardeduntil the
Gracchanperiod. And that Postumiusdid not attemptto use an armyin the
city is made perfectly clear in his speech at the contio,when he not only
assignssecurityduties to the minormagistrates(14.9-10)but also calls on the
populace at large to lend a hand: aequumest quo quisqueloco positus erit,
quod imperabiturimpigrepraestare(16.13).Postumiushas prefacedthis by
assuring his audience that the proposed measures will not jeopardise pax
deorum.That assurancewas given to them as intended participants,not as
interestedspectators.Therecan be no doubtthat Postumiuswas proclaiming
an evocatio,an unofficial and impromptulevy of (unsworn)troops, milites
tumultuariiby eithera magistrateor a privatusin a time of emergency.35
The evocatiodeputisedfor the levy in the city, but it was not needed (nor
would it have been practicable)when the operationmoved into the countryside. By then T. Maenius had had time to carryout the levy and Postumius'
35 On evocatio see Mommsen, Sraatsrl.695, 3.241 n.3, 1072, 1248; A. Neumann, K! P. 2.471-2.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Suppressionof the Bacchanals

345

legion - or both legions until Philippusleft for Liguria- was in place for the
operationwhich Cicerodecribesas exercituadhibito.
Finally, what were the identities and motives of the instigatorsof the
suppression?Accordingto some it was a manifestationof Roman antipathy
towardsthe Greeks,giventhat the cult was the Romanversionof the worship
of Dionysus; this is linked to the anti-hellenismof Cato the Censor, who is
also said to have had a personalmotive in the shape of his vendettaagainst
Scipio Africanus.36
But this theryis not convincing.It simplydoes not fit into
the tangledskein of the factions.This is shown by the namesof the threemen
listed in the senatus consultum from Tiriolo as scribendo arfuerunt- those who

assisted in drawingup the decree. They were L. ValeriusFlaccus (cos. 195),

mentorand running-mateof Cato; M. ClaudiusMarcellus(cos. 196),an ally
of Flamininus;and Q. Minucius Rufus (cos. 197),an ally of Scipio Africanus.37Two of these men, Valerius Flaccus and Claudius Marcellus,were
pontifices.They were thus membersof the college headed, as pontifexmaximus, by P. Licinius Crassus Dives who was consul in 205 in tandem with
Scipio. He was one of the leadinglawyersof the day and had been an ordinary
pontifex in 213 when some of the decretapontificumon which Postumius
relied to reassurethe populace had been handed down. He exactly fits the
appellation of prudentissimus viromnis divini humanique iuris(16.9). Lessthan
any other man would he have approvedof a measureaimed at Scipio.38
T'he(qui) scribendoarfueruntattest a broad spectrumof support for the
suppression.Buttherewas also an innercircle,headedby the consul Postumius Albinus.In the electionsfor 185he securedpraetorshipsfor two members
of his family,39but this note of personal profit does not detract from the
all-partycharacterof the suppressionas a whole. The link betweenPostumius
and the informerAebutiusis of special interest.In 499 the consul T. Aebutius
Helva was magisterequitumto the dictatorA. PostumiusAlbus and triumphed with him after the battle of Lake Regillus.YPostumius Albus also
celebratedthe victory by vowing a temple to Ceres, Liberand Libera,thus
placing a Postumianimprinton the acceptable,moreRomanoversion of the
36 For a discussion of
this theory (with which he rightly disagrees) see Rousselle, 71-95 and 200
n.5. Other, more esoteric, theories are noted by Bruhl, 86-7. The one point on which one might
differ from Rousselle is his downplaying of Cato's anti-hellenism. It was a strong strand in his
thinking (Bauman, 166-7, 184-5, 186 n. 255, 189-90, 219), though admittedly not central to our
problem.
37 On Cato and Flaccus see Bauman, passim; on Claudius Marcellus and
Minucius Rufus see
Rousselle, 52-61.
38 On Crassus' career see Bauman, 92-7. On the events of 213 see below after n. 48. On
Crassus' links with Scipio see Bauman, 93-7.
39 A. Postumius Albinus (Luscus) and L. Postumius Tempsanus. Broughton, MRR 1.372.
4" lb. 1.10-1 .

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

346

R.A.BAUMAN

cult of Dionysus.4'In effect the operationsof 186protectedthat version.The

Aebutii,who had gone into a decline in the late fifth century,42
emergedfrom
it with dramaticsuddennessin the wake of the suppression.43
Theirfamilyalso
has an impressive,and relevant,recordas legislators.A lex Aebutiade magistratibusextraordinariis
of the mid-secondcentury4prohibitedthe proposer
of an extraordinaryoffice frombeing electedto it; the Aebutiithus continued
the special interestin extraordinarycommissionsthat had associatedthem
with what was almostthe earliestexampleof such a commission,namelythe
quaestiode Bacchanalibus.4s
The mid-secondcenturyalso saw the lex Aebutia
deformuliswhich regularisedthe formularyprocedurethat had for some time
been supplantingthe legis actiones.' Again innovationsin legal procedure
were uppermostin the family'sthinking.
The specialinterestsof Postumiusand his friendsare,however,only partof
it. There has to have been a sufficientlybroad issue to attractthe all-party
consensus. Some believe that there was an insurrection,eitherthreatenedor
but the
alreadyunderway, amongstHannibal'sformerallies in South Italy,47
theorydoes not standup too well. In the firstplace,the South,far frombeing
deferreduntilafterthe Romansuppression,would havebeen the top priority.
Secondly,thereis no traceof such an issue in the sources.Cicerosaysthatthe
senate reactedwith severitybecause nocturnalrites endangeredthe reputations of women(Leg.2.37).Moreover,if coniuratiohad had an insurrectionary
meaning here there would have been no doubt about the charges;it would
have been a straightforward
case of treasonand Livywould not have portrayed Postumiusas circlingaround that concept without ever coming to grips
with it.

41Sourcesfor the dedication,ib. 1.11.On the equationof the Roman cult with Dionysussee
Bruhl,passim.
42 See Broughton,Indexof Careers,MRR2.525.
43 An Aebutiuswas praetor(in the almostinevitableSardinia)in 178.LivyXLI6.5-7. Another
Aebutiuswas tribuneof the second legion in Istria.lb. 1.6.
44 Rotondi,LPPR290.
45The Bacchanalianquaestionarrowlymissedbeingthe very firstof the specialcommissions
createdunderthe influenceof Cato in the first half of the secondcenturyBC. It was preceded
only by the quaestiopresidedover by the urban praetor,Q. TerentiusCulleo, in 187 in the
opening phaseof Cato'sattackon the Scipios.Bauman,199-212.
46 Rotondi,LPPR304.
47 See for exampleTenneyFrank,CQ21(1927),128-32.Butsee the commentsof Toynbee,390
b. 1. Plausiblereasons for thinking of Hannibalcan no doubt be advanced.The war against
Antiochus and the Aetolianswas still very recent,and the Aetoliansin particularwould have
welcomed any opportunityto embarrassRome. But there is no evidence except the use of
military force to support the theory of an insurrection,and the use of force is sufficiently
explained by the ruthlessnessof an operation which threatenedthousandswith death and
destruction.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Suppressionof the Bacchanals

347

The issue was exactlywhatthe sourcessay it was - the revisedversionof the

Bacchiccult as devisedby PacullaAnnia.Therewas no objectionto the cult of
Dionysus in principle;what was objectedto was that the rite was no longer
performedmoreRomano,which means underthe supervisionof the Roman
government- hence the accusationthat the cult had no legitimusrector.The
mischief was aggravatedby the nocturnalmeetings,the initiation(and emasculation) of men of militaryage, and the initiationof masses of slaves who
A particularlyworryingfeaturewas one that
werealreadyin a stateof unrest.48
had firstappearedon the occasion of a previousreligioussuppression,in 213.
In that year the prolonged agony of the war generated a rash of foreign
supersititions;Roman rites were abandoned,crowds of women flouted custom in the Forum and on the Capitol, and petty priests and prophetstook
hold of people'sminds.Worstof all, the numbersof the initiateswere swollen
by the mass of the ruralplebs that had takenrefugein the city. As the aediles
and triumviricapitaleswere powerlessto stop the mischiefthe senate charged
the urbanpraetorto use his imperiumto drivethe crowdout of the Forumand
to dismantle their installations.The praetor decreed that no one was to
practisenew or foreignritesin a public or consecratedplace; he also ordered
anyone in possessionof propheticbooks to hand them in (XXV 1.6-12).This
anticipatedthe destructionphase of the Bacchanalianoperation,except that
in 186the cult was banned irrespectiveof where it was practised,and it was
banned throughoutItaly as well as in Rome. But the judicial aspect of the
Bacchanalianoperationwas a complete innovation;no trialsare recordedin
213. Understandablyso, for the quaestioextraordinaria
was not evolved until
the earlysecond century.49
The involvementof the ruralplebs in 213 was repeatedon an even more
extensive scale in 188-186, and this threat to the traditionalbackbone of
Romansocietybringsus backto Cato the Censor.He was a lifelongchampion
of the ruralplebs; he made a speech on the Bacchanalianaffair;he was the
promoterof the great special commissionsof the second century;his friend
ValeriusFlaccuswas one of the (qui) scribendoarfuerunt;and anotherclose
associate, Q. Petillius,burnt the Books of Numa in 181at a time when the
Bacchanalianquaestiowas being reactivated,thus taking a leaf out of the
book of the praetorof 213.50Cato's motiveswere not entirelyaltruistic,for in
48 In 185 PostumiusTempsanus
conducteda quaestio de pastorum coniuratione(in the South)
and condemned about seven thousand men. XXXIX 29.8-9. The doublet of this appearsin
XXXIX41.6-7,wherePostumiusspecificallyemploysthe Bacchanalianquaestioto breakup the

pastonum coniuratione&

49Cf. n. 45.
50Bauman,157-60,200 n. 340, 193-6, 198,212,354.See also Broughton,MRR 1.384.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

348

R. A. BAUMAN

184 his renewedpopularitywith the ruralplebs broughthim the censorship

whichhad eluded him in 189,1,but the largerissue of preservingthe traditional
Roman way of life was uppermostin his mind.
Universityof Sydney
MacquarieUniversity

R. A. Bauman

5 Bauman, 212-19.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:24:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions