The Senate

[TwoMinutesHate]

I've always been curious about how senate sessions were run and wonder if there's anyone here who could offer some insight.

 

How long did sessions in the senate last? Who attended, and how did you you become a member? What power did each senator have? What did they discuss? How often was the senate called? Were you required to attend? Are there "ranks?" etc

 

Thanks

Edited July 12, 2006 by TwoMinutesHate

[M. Porcius Cato]

I've always been curious about how senate sessions were run and wonder if there's anyone here who could offer some insight.

 

Over the course of Roman history, the Senate changed enormously. Do you want to know about the Senate when Rome was ruled (1) by kings (i.e., the regal period), (2) by the senate and people of Rome (i.e., the republic), or (3) by the emperors (i.e., the principate and dominate)?

[TwoMinutesHate]

I've always been curious about how senate sessions were run and wonder if there's anyone here who could offer some insight.

 

Over the course of Roman history, the Senate changed enormously. Do you want to know about the Senate when Rome was ruled (1) by kings (i.e., the regal period), (2) by the senate and people of Rome (i.e., the republic), or (3) by the emperors (i.e., the principate and dominate)?

 

The period I'm interested in is the time of the Roman republic, when Marius/Sulla/Caeser/Pompey etc were around.

[phil25]

Basically, the session was chaired by the Consul holding the fasces for that month.

 

From the time of Augustus onwards a sacrifice was made to the statue of Victoria that stood in the chamber - I assume that there would have been a similar ceremony in the earlier period.

 

Senior ex-magistrates were called on to speak first in order of seniority (backbenchers last and possibly not at all, certainly issues were likely to have been settled/a concensus reached by the time they spoke).

 

Votes were taken literally by division, with those supporting the motion moving to stand to the Consul's right, those opposed to his left.

 

Forget films like Spartacus and even the recent HBO series "Rome". Senators did not sit in a curved auditorium like the US House of Representatives, or the French Assembly. On the basis of the last reconstruction of the Curia Julia, which almost certainly reproduced the arrangements of its predecessors, the presiding magistrates sat on a raised platform at the end opposite the main double-doors. they would have used their folding "curule" chairs, Senators sat on stepped banks to either side, probably on stools.

 

Is that the sort of thing you want?

 

Phil

 

 

I should have added, Senators usually spoke to the motion but could raise any issue they chose. Hence Cato ended every speech before the last Punic War with the words "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed) as this was his prime concern whatever the business before the Senate.

 

Phil

[Northern Neil]

I would be interested in the nature of the Senate after the fall of the west - how long it continued, whether or not it eventually merged with the church, etc. I have read in John Llewellyn's book 'Rome in the Dark Ages' that the Senate effectively governed Odoacer's kingdom, thus giving it more power than it had enjoyed for generations.

[Ludovicus]

I would be interested in the nature of the Senate after the fall of the west - how long it continued, whether or not it eventually merged with the church, etc. I have read in John Llewellyn's book 'Rome in the Dark Ages' that the Senate effectively governed Odoacer's kingdom, thus giving it more power than it had enjoyed for generations.

 

 

 

In "Rome in Late Antiquity" Betrand Lancon states that the last head of the Roman Senate is recorded in the year 584." Wikipedia states that after the fall of the Goths the building was abandoned only to be remade in the Church of St. Hadrian (San Adriano), 7th century.

[M. Porcius Cato]

To add to Phil's reply:

 

Who attended, and how did you you become a member?

The minimum qualification was election to an officer at the level of quaestor. The pedarii (who never rose above the level of quaestor) were mostly new men (i.e., no one from their family had ever served in the senate previously), though a great many "new men" attained higher office (about 25% of the aediles and praetors from 78-49 BC were novi homines). Also, by the late republic, most senators were plebes not patricii. (Contrary to popular belief, politics in the late republic were not drawn along the pleb/patrician faultlines.)

 

It's hard to know exactly who attended on any given day. Given that there was a quorum rule, it's reasonable to suppose that the senate house wasn't always packed. However, we do have the names of a very large proportion of the senators. For the period 78-49 BC, we know the names of all 61 consuls, 178 of the 240 elected praetors, 48 of the 120 elected aediles, 113 of the 300 elected tribunes, and 200 pedarii. On the assumption that the names of the unknown were mostly those of new men, our estimates of the proportion of new men in the senate are probably fairly conservative.

 

Thus, I think it's fair to say that the post-Sullan senate, while biased slightly for families who had served in the past (whether due to the electoral advantages attaining to name recognition or due to outright nepotism), was nevertheless quite open to newcomers and certainly much more democratic than the senate had been in the early days of the republic.

 

What power did each senator have?

Collectively senators had control over the finances of the state (via quaestors) and determined foreign policy (via provincial governors). As the only long-term government body (all "executive branch" magistracies lasted but two years), the senate was in a unique position to deliberate on how Rome might achieve her long-term objectives (like defeating Hannibal). In addition, the senate could pass a special decree for the protection of the republic against domestic threats (e.g., the one passed to empower Cicero to defend the republic against Catiline). This decree came to substitute for the office of dictator, which was largely passe by the late republic.

 

In additiion to the power of the senator to contribute to senatorial decisions, senators (at various points during the republic) also served on special-purpose standing juries that were devoted to the prosecution of (inter alia) illegal electioneering, mishandling finances, abusing provincial powers, etc. This power should not be overlooked. At least since Cato's lex Porcia, juries such as these were often the only recourse citizens had to abuses by magistrates.

 

One important point to keep in mind is a role the senate did not play: it did not pass legislation. Legislation was passed in the lower assemblies.

[M. Porcius Cato]

BTW, shouldn't this thread get moved to the Republic subforum?

 

[edit=PP... yes and done!]

[Julia C]

A few additions to Cato's posts:

 

There were several ways of getting into the Senate. Most of them had a requisite property qualification: one had to own land in Italia worth (or yielding an annual income of) one million sestertii. For censorial purposes, all of a senator's wealth had to come from property related investments or duties performed for the Senate.

 

The first way was getting elected as a quaestor, where one would enter the Senate after a year in office.

 

The second way was applying to the censors when they revised the rolls of citizens of each rank.

 

The third way was, in the post-Sullan period, to win a crown of valor on the field. This presumably waived the property qualifications.

 

The fourth way was holding an augership or flaminate that would allow admission into the Senate, e.g. the flamen Dialis.

 

The speaking order was different during certain phases of the republic. For the majority of the time, anyone not in the third tier (the aforementioned pedarii ) was permitted to speak by asking the presiding consul, though there were rules of order that allowed certain people to speak first. For instance, the consuls could speak first, followed by the princeps senatus, then various curule magistrates and ex-magistrates, then those on the second tier and so on. Sulla altered the rules of order to shuffle ex-magistrates and the princeps senatus behind the magistrates of the year and the magistrates-elect of the next year.

 

Individual senators had many unofficial powers as well. Since the rule of the Senate was guided by tradition and custom, senators were generally seen as unimpeachable (at least they SHOULD be!) pillars of good conduct. They were allowed to draft wills for other citizens as well act on the behalf of their clients as a witness for certain contracts. The affairs of patronage formed a very big part of a senator's life, and it may be the closest thing to literal 'representation' that the Senate did. Senators looked after their clients, after all, but on a more personal basis than a modern representative would since the patron-client relationship was far different from any concept of a voting constituency.

 

Externally, people born to a senatorial family would technically have senatorial rank, but they would be classified as equestrians. Until Gaius Gracchus, there was no difference between any members of the First Class--save that senators were senators. The introduction of the senatorial rank changed things up just a bit, but sons of senators were not entitled to any senatorial privileges until they actually became members of the Senate.

[M. Porcius Cato]

[quote name='Julia C

[P.Clodius]

[quote name='Julia C

Edited July 30, 2006 by P.Clodius

[Julia C]

Well, I've actually seen that commonly repeated in all sorts of books, though they differ on whether it was an annual amount or simply land value.

 

A brief look for primary sources did yield Suetonius's Augustus section XLI, which states that Augustus increased the requirements for senators from eight hundred thousand sestertii to 1.2 million sestertii.

 

This isn't quite the same as what I've seen elsewhere, but it is a source with a qualification. I've never ever seen eight hundred thousand as the figure, though. Odd.

[M. Porcius Cato]

[quote name='Julia C