Magistrates of the Roman Republic

[Gaius Octavius]

What were the qualifications for becoming a Senator? They certainly weren't elected.

Where does your certainty come from GO? Elected magistrates (including tribunes since the lex Atinia, and quaestors since at least Sulla) were eligible to sit in the senate, and these were elected posts (the quaestorship, for example, since at least 443 BCE). Since Sulla, anyone elected to the quaestorship could serve in the senate (e.g., having been elected quaestor for 75, Cicero serves on the senate sub-committee examining the dispute between Oropos and the tax collectors in 73).

 

EDIT: I'm assuming you don't have Andrew Lintott's "Constitution of the Roman Republic", so check out this interview with Lintott: he gives a better answer to your question than I did.

 

Therefor, I may legitimately conclude that all senators were 'elected' and that upon exiting one of the magistracies they left the Senate?

[Pompieus]

Well Marcus Portius...for what it's worth, and unlike our namesakes, it seems we approach agreement - on this topic at least.

 

You are quite right, I believe, that the impression of a sort of two-party system is an illusion caused by the lack of source material and, possibly, our anglo-saxon propensities. The actual rivalries and competition among the Roman nobles was undoubtedly far more complex than that, and positions and alliances shifted and changed - sometimes quickly. I think Gruens' books (Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts and Last Generation of the Roman Republic make a strong case for this. I believe Gruen is right when he says contention was rife among individuals and groups of allies unless the basic system was challenged (as in the cases of the Gracchi, Saturninus, Lepidus or Catalina), at which point the aristocracy would close ranks against the challengers - only to resume their rivalries when the danger had passed.

 

I also agree that there was no de jure oligarchy. However, the Romans were a very conservative people who believed everything and everybody had its proper place in the scheme of things. A Roman voter, be he a Roman nobiles, a member of a princely clan in one of the towns of Italy, a wealthy banker or businessman, a Marsian peasant or a day laborer in Rome, could rarely be pursuaded to vote for a consular candidate who's name had not been famous for a century or more. This is, I suppose, what you mean by "oligarchy of influence" and again I would agree, if you concede that additions to the ruling class were fairly tightly controlled. I have a list I got somewhere that purports to sort the total number of consulships and consular tribunates etc between 509BC and 27BC by gens. It shows that 28% of them came from the five patrician gentes maiores, (Aemilii, Cornelii, Fabii, Valerii, Claudii) and almost 70% from the top 25 families. It is to the credit of these noble families that they sponsored able individuals (like Cato, Marius, Cicero, Manius Curius Dentatus, Titus Didius, Quintus Pompieus, etc), and brought them into the body politic, broadening its' base in the senate. Would this tendency have continued in the first century BC, and expanded to allow Romanized aristocrats from Gaul or Spain (like Balbus) to enter the senate? I presume your position is that it very well could have - you may be right.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

It is useless , and I hope it is the last time .

It is so fun to convince oneself and to say "I have proved" .

The history of ancient Rome is writen (as any history) by professional historians , they and they alone have the last word . One can ask , one can answer , one can have empathy to characters or thories , one can have an opinion and one can even behave like a adult and say "nonsense" "nonsense" "nonsense" 789 times a day with regard to others opinions . But one can not dismiss scholars views and in our case , professional historians . They had the knowledge and we are students .

So , if I may , please hear what professional historians have to say on the subject . Modesty is a virtue .

 

"The issue in cicero's time was not the of freedom or slavery . The Roman republic of the first century B.C. was not a democracy but an oligarchy composed of a small and narrowly Roman group known as the ordo senatorius . The Roman revolution from the Gracchi to Caesar was directed against this oligarchy" .

(Eternal Lawyer: A Legal Biography of Cicero, Review author: W. F. McDonald

The American Historical Review , American Historical Association

 

"In fact the strength of his analogy between the Roman late-republican oligarchy and the English political and cultural elite

[Gaius Octavius]

Would you please give us a more detailed description of the appointment of new Senators and the role the Censors played in this field during different periods? What were the qualifications to be appointed? Had the Censors free hands or were there any restriction for the Censors? What was the status of the "Senatores pedarii" and why were they "Senatores pedarii"?

 

A. We must admit that we know almost nothing of the procedure for appointing new senators before Sulla

Edited January 28, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[M. Porcius Cato]

Therefor[e], I may legitimately conclude that all senators were 'elected' and that upon exiting one of the magistracies they left the Senate?

 

Yes and no. After Sulla, election to a magistracy came with a senate seat, but having once the senate seat was gained, only an action by a censor (according to fairly strict rules) could remove a senator from the senate. The thinking was that the advice of the senate (they couldn't pass laws) should come from many years worth of experienced magistrates and not be subject to the ebbs and tides of one election cycle.

 

Well Marcus Porcius...for what it's worth, and unlike our namesakes, it seems we approach agreement - on this topic at least.

 

I'm very glad to hear it, and I'd love to see the list that you mention.

 

one can not dismiss scholars views and in our case , professional historians .

 

Indeed. And since professional historians do not speak with one voice and frequently disagree with one another (sometimes in terms more vituperative than any used on this forum), one must ultimately summon evidence to make up one's own mind.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

It shows that 28% of them came from the five patrician gentes maiores, (Aemilii, Cornelii, Fabii, Valerii, Claudii) and almost 70% from the top 25 families .

 

Top 25 families =70 %

My list for 200 to 44 gave top 30 families =81%

 

It is the same ratio ! More than that , your list is for 450 years and mine is for only 150 years and to think that those 25-30 top families controled Rome for such a period . There you have an oligarchy . But , those numbers are not new , scholars had them for centuries , so they came to their conclusions as mentioned above . Nothing new .

Edited January 28, 2007 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Gaius Octavius]

Yes and no. After Sulla, election to a magistracy came with a senate seat, but having once the senate seat was gained, only an action by a censor (according to fairly strict rules) could remove a senator from the senate. The thinking was that the advice of the senate (they couldn't pass laws) should come from many years worth of experienced magistrates and not be subject to the ebbs and tides of one election cycle.

 

Doesn't this gainsay your point about elections?

[M. Porcius Cato]

It shows that 28% of them came from the five patrician gentes maiores, (Aemilii, Cornelii, Fabii, Valerii, Claudii) and almost 70% from the top 25 families .

 

Top 25 families =70 %

My list for 200 to 44 gave top 30 families =81%

 

70% of what? Of quaestors? Of tribunes? Of aediles? Of praetors? Of consuls? or of all magistracies? It's not enough to restrict one's analysis to just one office and declare a sweeping generalization about an entire government.

 

Doesn't this gainsay your point about elections?

 

No. Why would it?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

70% of what? Of quaestors? Of tribunes? Of aediles? Of praetors? Of consuls? or of all magistracies? It's not enough to restrict one's analysis to just one office and declare a sweeping generalization about an entire government.

 

You choose 78 to 49 , I choose Consuls . Simple . Consulship was the most important post , we have a full list .

 

What about the Comitia Centuriata , do you have a response ?

What about the scholars , what do you think about their opinion ?

[Gaius Octavius]

MPC, please don't forget Prof. Lintott (above). The underlined may be understood as questions.

[M. Porcius Cato]

MPC, please don't forget Prof. Lintott (above). The underlined may be understood as questions.

 

I don't know what question you're asking from your underlining. After Sulla, elected magistrates--and, as far we know, only elected magistrates--were appointed to the senate; therefore, after Sulla, senators were effectively elected to the senate. Before Sulla, matters are much less clear.... Actually, I'm just repeating what Lintott said, what's your question?

Edited January 28, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[Gaius Octavius]

... what's your question???

 

I am not trying to demean you. I am learning too much to turn this into polemics. As you well know, I admire you. Please turn the underlined parts into questions. I may be misunderstanding, and I have, perhaps, misled others.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I am not trying to demean you. I am learning too much to turn this into polemics. As you well know, I admire you. Please turn the underlined parts into questions. I may be misunderstanding, and I have, perhaps, misled others.

 

Thank you.

 

I still don't know what you're asking. Sometimes you underline single words. For example, "We must admit that we know almost nothing of the procedure for appointing new senators before Sulla

[Gaius Octavius]

Still later, the number of patricians that were allowed into the senate came to be more and more election-based, meaning that the composition of the senate became more and more decided by the votes of the people.

 

The above words are my problem.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Still later, the number of patricians that were allowed into the senate came to be more and more election-based, meaning that the composition of the senate became more and more decided by the votes of the people.

 

Under the kings, unelected patricians made up the whole senate. Later, unelected patrician senators became vanishingly rare, and, under Sulla, apparently extinct. Elected patricians, however, were common. Make sense?