The reasons for which someone might be appointed dictator were varied. The purpose of the dictatorship was to return Rome to the status quo before some threat emerged. The dictatorship existed "to eliminate whatever had arisen that was out of bounds and then eliminate themselves so that normal operation of the ordinary government" could resume.
Origin The abolition of the Roman monarchy , according to tradition, devolved the royal powers onto two annually elected
consuls. The creation of the dictatorship is part of this tradition, which is somewhat confused. Its original title was
magister populi, "master of the infantry". His lieutenant was the
magister equitum, "master of the horse". The dictator may have also been called the
praetor maximus, as mentioned by Livy, referring to an old law requiring the
praetor maximus to put a nail into the wall of a temple on the
ides of September. It is not certain who the first dictator was or in what year he was appointed. Livy gives two versions: in one, the first dictator was
Titus Larcius in 501 BC. His other version states that the first dictator was
Manius Valerius Maximus, although Livy thought this improbable, as he had not previously been consul and, had a Valerius been desired, Manius' father, Marcus, who was consul in 505 BC, could have been chosen instead. However, few modern scholars put much faith in these traditional accounts: by the time Roman history started being written down, the dictatorship as a military command had already lapsed out of living memory. The dictatorship seems to have been conceived as a way to bypass normal Roman politics and create a short-term magistrate with special powers, serving to defend the Republic in war, or otherwise to cow internal civil unrest, especially if such unrest imperilled the conduct of war. There are broadly two views on the dictatorship's origin: that it descends from the
Latins, or that it was a uniquely Roman institution. The Roman view stresses that the dictatorship is said to have existed from the earliest years of the Republic, created as "an integral part of the republican constitution". And while other Latin cities had dictatorships, they emerged from their abolished monarchies as ordinary magistrates rather than as an extraordinary magistrate only appointed in time of crisis. Others have argued that the dictatorship existed as a means to slip through the inefficiency of a new collegiate magistracy, arguing that the Romans would not have made it—with regal powers—an
integral part of their constitution in the immediate aftermath of the monarchy's abolition, confining it therefore to a peripheral and extraordinary role. Other scholars have advanced theories that the consuls came
after the dictatorship rather than before. The Latin view argues that the dictatorship emerged from the need to rotate command between Latin states in the role of commanding the
Latin League's united armies. While Rome was not a formal member of the League, it did require the Latins to serve in Rome's wars under a Roman commander, which could have been a dictator appointed for the occasion. One argument of this is the siege of Veii: for nine years of siege, Rome did not resort to a dictator, until the last year when Etruscan intervention compelled Rome to call in its Latin allies. Moreover, it is plausible that the dictatorship was borrowed from other Latin municipalities that had a
dictator serving as a military commander. This view also stresses continuity between the Roman kingdom and the succeeding republic, with the dictatorship as a bridge between the two periods. . Fabius was dictator in 217 BC.
Nomination The dictator was the only important official in the Roman state that was appointed. The power to appoint a dictator normally vested in the consuls, one of whom could nominate a man to serve in the office; he did not need to consult his colleague, and no other magistrates had such authority. A dictator could also be created by comitial legislation at the proposal of other magistrates, as was the case with Sulla and Caesar. Consular nomination occurred in a nocturnal ritual, usually preceded by advice from the Senate asking for a specific person to be appointed, but this was not strictly necessary. A vote of the people could be held, but this was unusual, perhaps except in cases with a non-consular nominator. In the case of
Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, the people may have created him dictator directly by legislation. After most attested dictators were ex-consuls; but it does not appear that this emerged from any kind of legislation, as implied in Livy. Dictatorial powers likely extended beyond the term of the nominating magistrate, but most dictators are recorded to have given up their powers as quickly as possible. Customary law required dictators to give up their powers immediately after completion of their assigned task. A dictator could be nominated for different reasons, or
causae. These
causae were akin to
provinciae, spheres of command assigned to a magistrate which bound their freedom of action. The various
causae were: •
rei gerundae causa, "for the conduct of the matter", used for military emergencies, •
comitiorum habendorum causa, for holding the
comitia, or elections, when the consuls were unable to do so; •
clavi figendi causa, to create a dictator for an important religious rite involving the driving of a nail into the wall of the
Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, as a protection against pestilence; • for quelling of sedition; • for establishing a religious holiday; • for holding the
Roman games, an ancient religious festival; • for investigating certain actions; and, • in one extraordinary case, for appointment of senators, after the
Battle of Cannae. These reasons could be combined (e.g.,
seditionis sedandae et rei gerundae causa, for quelling sedition and for war). However, by the middle Republic the historical record clearly shows that dictators were appointed more as temporary extraordinary magistrates to do some very specifically defined action before resigning, acting as proxies or substitutes for the ordinary magistrates of that year; the historicity of the dictators appointed in the early period to quell sedition—who usually took the side of the protestors—is also debated. The Romans were not consistent in classifying specific threats and then appointing a dictator if they met some criteria. Rather, they judged the matter subjectively such that a dictator in military matters would only be appointed if there were converging threats from multiple enemies, all-consuming ongoing wars, or extinction-level threats to the city which could be handled by a man "whose empowerment with the dictatorship offered more assurance of success than the incumbent magistrates". Alternatively, dictators might be appointed if another consul-like magistrate was needed. Normally there was only one dictator at a time, although a new dictator could be appointed following the resignation of another. A dictator could be compelled to resign his office without accomplishing his task or serving out his term if there were found to be a fault in the
auspices under which he had been nominated. After nomination, a dictator would have his
imperium ratified by
comitia curiata—bringing that matter before the Assembly himself—in a manner akin to that of the consuls.
Insignia Like other curule magistrates, the dictator was entitled to the
toga praetexta and the
sella curulis. The dictator was accompanied by twenty-four lictors rather than the normal twelve lictors of the consul; but within the
pomerium, he may have used only twelve. In a notable exception to the Roman reluctance to reconstitute the symbols of the kings, the lictors of the dictator never removed the axes from their fasces, even within the
pomerium, symbolising their power over life and death and setting the dictator apart from the ordinary magistrates. the lictors of other magistrates could not bear fasces at all when appearing before the dictator. The Latin theory of the dictatorship's origin has also suggested that the twenty-four lictors emerged from the uniting of "two governments". It may have also simply signalled that a dictator's
imperium was superior to that of the consuls or that he was endowed with the power of both consuls. As the kings had been accustomed to appear on horseback, this right was forbidden to the dictator unless he first received permission from the
comitia.
Powers and limitations The full extent of the dictatorial power was considerable, but not unlimited. It was circumscribed by the conditions of a dictator's appointment, as well as by the evolving traditions of
Roman law, and to a considerable degree depended on the dictator's ability to work together with other magistrates. The precise limitations of this power were not sharply defined, but subject to debate, contention, and speculation throughout Roman history. In the pursuit of his
causa, the dictator's authority was nearly absolute; however, as a rule he could not exceed the mandate for which he was appointed; a dictator nominated to hold the
comitia could not then take up a military command against the wishes of the Senate. Dictators could carry out functions which fell outside the scope of their initial appointments, but only at the direction of the Senate; this included the drawing of funds from the public treasury, which a dictator could only do with the Senate's authorisation. The
imperium of the other magistrates was not vacated by the nomination of a dictator. They continued to perform the duties of their office, although subject to the dictator's authority, and continued in office until the expiration of their year, by which time the dictator had typically resigned. Dictatorial power also did not override that of the tribunes. While some sources assert there was no appeal to the tribunes from a dictator's actions, other sources document the extent of a dictator's powers within the , appeals against dictatorial action, and threats by tribunes to veto elections held by dictators. Most authorities hold that a dictator could not be held to account for his actions after resigning his office; however, there are cases where the contrary is asserted in the literary sources, and the surviving text of the
lex repetundarium implies the dictator and his magister equitum could be prosecuted after their terms ended. Rather, some modern scholars hold the position that unaccountability is a "legalistic illusion". Some sources, both ancient and modern in summaries of the office, assert that the dictator was limited to a term for six months, but this is contradicted by recorded practice and Livy has a dictator object to a six-month limitation explicitly as objectionably unorthodox.
Decline and disappearance Before the
First Punic War starting in 264 BC, when Rome established hegemony over Italy, dictators were overwhelmingly appointed to conduct military campaigns and also appointed regularly. However, these dictators were not given the best commands—they rarely won triumphs: only five of some seventy-five triumphs between 363 and 264 BC—suggesting that they functioned as substitutes for the ordinary magistrates. The middle Republic also shows significant use of the dictatorship to hold elections in place of consuls: this occurred twelve times during the First Punic War and eight times during the following Second.
Magistri equitum had a knack of winning elections when held by dictators, which may explain why this limited dictatorship also fell into abeyance. In domestic affairs, the dictators were at times—according to tradition—appointed to resolve issue between the
patricians and the
plebeians during the so-called
Conflict of the Orders. In this role, the dictators always took the side of the plebs, implying that the later tradition of the dictatorship as a tool of patrician tyranny is a post-Sullan anachronism. Their efforts may have been decisive in that legislation passed in the Assemblies called by dictators did not need the approval of the Senate, serving to break impasses between an obstinate patrician-heavy Senate and popular demands. After the Second Punic War and the
Third Macedonian War, all major wars were then conducted by
promagistrates and usually lasted several years, making the short term of the dictatorship unsuitable. Moreover, the fact that these conflicts occurred far from Rome radically limited the possibility of panicked tumult that could result in a dictatorial appointment. The rise of
prorogation also meant that the Romans had, by jettisoning the annual term, more generals in the field than they had in the past. These promagistrates resembled archaic dictators as well, being exempt from normal consular responsibilities while being assigned a limited task—
provincia—to complete. At the same time, the new promagistrates also meant the consuls could spend more time at Rome, meaning it became less necessary to appoint dictators to conduct elections. During the various wars of the 140s BC, the ability to have more commanders under praetorian or proconsular leadership meant it was possible to keep at least one consul in Rome while the other fought abroad. Even when the Senate wanted to act against men such as
Tiberius Gracchus or
Gaius Gracchus, dictators were not appointed: in the former, the consul refused to act, precluding a dictatorial nomination, and in the latter, the Senate authorised the consul to use force via the so-called
senatus consultum ultimum. The religious purpose of the dictatorship in undertaking rituals to appease the gods in cases of pestilence or other disasters also was replaced. Dictators appointed to appease the gods was highly reactive but, over time, the accumulation of precedent formalised a spiritual process. Instead of an ad hoc approach, the Senate would advise—in moments of need—consultation of the
Sibylline Books and direct implementation of the Books' recommendations. ==Late republican dictatorship==