| Özet: | This thesis explores collective action and shared authority in the political and religious spheres of the Roman Republic, both as ideas and practice. Specifically, it addresses the prevalence and nature of collegiality – officials sharing duties and exercising the same, common, or even theoretically equal powers – as an organisational principle within Roman political and religious institutions. It aims to develop a new approach to practices of cooperation, consensus, and power-sharing in Roman public life, in general. Collegiality is often used to define and demarcate the beginning and end of the Roman Republic (509–43), through the supposed primacy of the dual consuls, and is central to modern explanations and models of republican political history. Despite its pervasiveness, few scholars have attempted to define what collegiality is, in any or all of its forms, in its own right. Instead, they tend to foreground function, and focus on its purpose and usefulness for Roman governance and administration. This thesis will demonstrate that collegiality is more complex than this lack of direct attention in current scholarship suggests. A comprehensive analysis of how the Romans viewed and engaged with this concept would clarify how Roman republican society functioned at an intrinsic level and, consequently, is highly desirable. Collegiality and collective authority were essential to the operation of the entire Roman state, witnessed in the Senate, magistracies, and priesthoods. Furthermore, collegiality was at the forefront of many Late Republican and early imperial authors’ minds as they sought to describe and explain their mythological and constitutional past. Beyond simple functionality, collegiality, with its assumptions about cooperation and responsibility, turns out to be critical to understanding Roman society overall. This study addresses the questions of how and why collegiality was so significant to the Romans. In doing so, it contributes to our understanding of Roman political and religious institutions, breaks down the artificial boundaries between political, religious, and cultural history, and presents fresh perspectives on other comparable behaviours across the Roman world.
|
|---|