Roman Senate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Ancient Rome | |||
 This article is part of the series: |
|||
|
|
|||
| Periods | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Roman Kingdom 753 BC – 510 BC Roman Republic |
|||
| Ordinary Magistrates | |||
|
|
|||
| Extraordinary Magistrates | |||
|
|
|||
| Titles and Honours | |||
Emperor
|
|||
| Institutions and Law | |||
|
|||
|
Other countries · Atlas Politics Portal |
The Roman Senate was the most permanent of all of Rome's political institutions. It was founded before the first king of Rome ascended the throne. It survived the fall of the Roman Kingdom in 510 BC, the fall of the Roman Republic in 27 BC, and the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD. Modern legislative bodies, such as the United States Senate and the United Kingdom's House of Lords, are modeled after the Roman senate.
The power of the senate waxed and waned throughout its history. During the days of the kingdom, it was little more than an advisory council to the king. The last king of Rome, the tyrant Tarquin Superbus, was overthrown following a coup’ d’état that was planned in the senate.
During the early republic, the senate was politically weak. During these early years, the executive magistrates were quite powerful. The transition from monarchy to constitutional rule was probably more gradual than the legends suggest. Thus, it took a prolonged weakening of these executive magistrates before the senate was able to assert its authority over those magistrates. By the middle republic, the senate reached the apex of its republican power. The late republic saw a decline in the senate's power. This decline began following the reforms of the tribunes Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus.
After the transition from republic to empire was complete, the senate arguably held more power than it had held at any previous point. All constitutional powers (legislative, executive and judicial) had been transferred to the senate. However, unlike the senate of the republic, the senate of the empire was dominated by the emperor. It was through the senate that the emperor exercised his autocratic powers. By the late principate, the senate's power had declined into near-irrelevance. It never again regained the power that it had held before that point.
Contents |
[edit] Senate of the Roman Kingdom
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. |
The word senate derives from the Latin word senex, which means "old man". Therefore, senate literally means "board of old men." The prehistoric Indo-Europeans who settled Rome in the centuries before the legendary founding of Rome in 753 BC[1] were structured into tribal communities.[2] These communities would often include an aristocratic board of tribal elders.[3]
The early Roman family was called a gens or "clan"[2]. Each clan was an aggregation of families under a common living male patriarch, called a patre (the Latin word for "father"). The patre was the undisputed master of his clan.[4] When the early Roman gens were aggregating to form a common community, the patres from the leading clans were selected[5] for the confederated board of elders (what would become the Roman senate)[4].
In time, the patres came to recognize the need for a single leader. Therefore, they elected a king (rex),[4] and vested in him their sovereign power.[6] When the king died, that sovereign power would naturally revert back to the patres.[4]
The senate of the Roman Kingdom could only be convened by the king.[7] Thus, the king functioned as its sole presiding officer. The senate held three principle responsibilities. It held the sovereign power[8], functioned as a legislative body in concert with the People of Rome (who could assemble into curiae), and served as the council to the king.[7]
[edit] Role as sovereign power
The patres that filled the ranks of the early senate held a position of absolute dominance over their respective families.[4] Since the senate was filled with the patres of the leading families, their individual dominance over their individual families was consolidated into collective dominance over the collective families of the early Roman community. These were the original patrician families.
The king was technically elected by the people. In practice, however, the senate chose each new king. Since the consolidated authority of the patres of the senate chose the king, the king became the embodiment of that authority. Since the authority of each patre over his family (and its dependents) was absolute[4], the king was vested with that absolute authority over those families (thus over the entire state).
[edit] Senate's role in the election of a new king
The period between the death of one king, and the election of a new king, was called the interregnum.[8] The interregnum was the only period during which the senate exercised its sovereign power. When a king died, it was a member of the senate (the interrex) who would nominate a candidate to replace the king.[9] After the senate gave its approval to the nominee, he would then be formally elected by the people.[10] The senate would then give its final approval[9].
[edit] Role in the legislative process
It would be incorrect to view the laws passed during the time of the kingdom as "legislation". In effect, these "laws" were actually the decrees of the king. However, the king would often involve both the senate and the Comitia Curiata (the popular assembly) in the process. However, the king was free to ignore any ruling that the senate or the Comitia Curiata ultimately passed.[1]
[edit] Role as council to the king
During the days of the Roman Kingdom, it was considered to be acceptable if the king chose to ignore any advice of the senate. The senate was, however, an influential advisory council to the king.
[edit] Senate of the Roman Republic
The senator and one-time consul Cicero also believed the senate to be superior to the other branches of government.[11] Cicero noted that the senate was a self-sustaining and continuous body. The senate's auctoritas ("authority") derived from this self-sustaining trait. All of the senate's powers derived from its auctoritas.[12]
The senate's auctoritas derived from the esteem and prestige of the senate.[12] This esteem and prestige was based on both precedent and custom (mos maiorum, or "customs of the ancestors"), as well as the high caliber and prestige of the senators.[13] As the senate was the only political institution that was eternal and continuous (compared to, for example, the consulship, which expired at the end of every yearly term), to only it belonged the dignity of the antique traditions.[12]
[edit] Senatorial powers
The focus of the Roman senate was directed towards foreign policy.[14] While its role in military conflict was officially advisory, the senate was ultimately the force that oversaw those conflicts. The relationship was effectively one of agency, rather than independence. The consuls would have formal command over the armies. However, the consular command of those armies was directed by the senate.
The senate managed the civil administration in the city. For example, only the senate could authorize the appropriation of public monies from the treasury.[14] In addition, the senate would try individuals accused of political crimes (such as treason).[14]
The senate passed decrees, which were called senatus consultum. This was officially "advice" from the senate to a magistrate. In practice, however, these were usually obeyed by the magistrates.[15]
Up until 202 BC, a dictator would be appointed during extreme military emergencies. The senate would authorize the consul to nominate a dictator. After the 202 BC, the senate would respond to extreme emergencies by passing the senatus consultum ultimum ("ultimate decree of the senate"). Upon the passage of this decree, civil government would be suspended, and (something analogous to) martial law would be declared.[16] When this occurred, the consuls would, in effect, have the powers of a dictator.
[edit] Senate procedure
The rules and procedures of the Roman senate were both complex and ancient. Many of these rules and procedures originated in the early years of the republic, and were upheld over the centuries under the principle of mos maiorum ("customs of the ancestors").
[edit] Venue of senate meetings
Meetings could take place either inside or outside of the formal boundary of the city (the pomerium). However, all meetings took place no further than approximately one mile outside of the pomerium[17]. As long as one was within one mile (1.6 km) of the pomerium, they were inside the political boundary of the city.
The senate was as much a religious institution, as it was a political institution. As such, it operated while under various religious restrictions. Every senate meeting would occur in an inaugurated space (a templum). Before any meeting could begin, a sacrifice to the Gods would be made, and the auspices would be taken. The auspices were taken in order to determine whether that particular senate meeting held favor with the Gods.[18]
[edit] Presiding officer and senate debates
Meetings usually began at dawn. A magistrate who wished to summon the senate would have to issue an order called a cogere. Usually the presiding magistrate would be either a consul[19] or a praetor. While in session, the senate had the power to act on its own. The presiding magistrate would often begin each meeting with a speech called a verba fecit.[20] The presiding magistrate would then begin a discussion on an issue. He would refer the issue to the senators, and they would discuss the matter one at a time by order of seniority[17]. Since all meetings had to end by nightfall[15], a senator could talk a proposal to death (a filibuster or diem consumere), if they could keep the debate going until nightfall.[20]
[edit] Procedure, minority rights, and final votes
Unimportant matters could be voted on by a voice vote or a show of hands. However, important votes resulted in a physical division of the house[17], with senators voting by taking a place on either side of the chamber.
There was an absolute right to free speech in the senate.[17] During senate sessions, senators had several ways in which they could influence (or frustrate) a presiding magistrate. When a presiding magistrate was proposing a motion, the senators could call consule (consult). This would require that magistrate to ask for the opinions of the senators. The cry of numera would require a count of the senators present (similar to a modern "quorum call"). Any vote would always be between a proposal and its negative.[21]
Once a vote was held, any motion that passed could be vetoed. Usually, vetoes were handed down by plebeian tribunes.[22] If the senate proposed a bill that the tribune did not agree with, he would make his displeasure known. If the senate refused to comply with his wishes, the tribune would literally 'interpose the sacrosanctity of his person'[23] (intercessio) to physically prevent the senate from acting. Any resistance against the tribune would be tantamount to a violation of his sacrosanctity, and thus would be considered a capital offense.
Any act that was vetoed was recorded in the annals as a senatus auctoritas. Any motion that was passed and not vetoed would be turned into a final senatus consultum. Each senatus consultum was transcribed into a document by the presiding magistrate. The document was then deposited in the aerarium (treasury).[15]
If a senatus consultum conflicted with a lex ("law") that was passed by a popular assembly, the lex would override the senatus consultum.[23] A senatus consultum, however, could serve to interpret a lex.[24]
[edit] Senate of the Roman Empire
While the senate of the early empire held a greater range of powers than did the senate of the late republic, its actual authority was ceded to the emperor. In practice, the actual authority of the imperial senate was negligible.
During the reigns of the first emperors, legislative, judicial, and electoral powers were all transferred from the legislative assemblies to the senate. Thus, all constitutional powers were now held by the senate. However, the control that the emperor had over the senate was absolute. Therefore, the senate acted as a vehicle through which the emperor would exercise his autocratic powers.
[edit] Composition of the senate
The composition of the senate was not drastically altered during the transition from republic to empire. There was, however, a decrease in its size. As it was under the republic, election to a magisterial office usually resulted in senate membership. In addition, greater measures were taken to account for membership in the imperial senate.
[edit] Size of the senate
The emperor Augustus inherited a senate whose membership had been increased to 900 senators by his predecessor, Julius Caesar. Augustus sought to reduce the size of the senate. Augustus revised the list of senators three times.[25] By the time that these revisions had been completed, the senate had been reduced to 600 members.
[edit] Appointment to the senate
Augustus then reformed the rules which specified how an individual could become a senator. These reforms were intended to make the senate more aristocratic. Under the empire, as was the case during the late republic, one would become a senator upon their election to the quaestorship. Under the empire, however, one could only stand for election to the quaestorship (or to any other magisterial office) if one was of senatorial rank. To be of senatorial rank, one had to be the son of a senator.[25]
If an individual was not of senatorial rank, there were two ways for that individual to become a senator. Under the first method, the emperor would grant that individual the authority to stand for election to the quaestorship.[25] Under the second method, the emperor would simply appoint the individual to the senate.[26]
[edit] Listing of senators
Beginning in 9 BC, an official list of senators was maintained. This list, the album senatorium, was revised each year. In drafting the album senatorium for a given year, the list would have to be updated to reflect the senate's current membership.[26]
[edit] Procedure of the senate
After the fall of the republic, the most significant change in the nature of the senate derived from the role of the emperor as its presiding officer. The power of the emperor over the senate was absolute.[27]
[edit] Senate meetings
Senators of the early empire had the same rights as did senators of the late republic. Senators could ask extraneous questions, or request that a certain action be taken by the senate. Higher ranking senators would speak before lower ranking senators. The emperor, however, could speak at any time.[28]
Most senate meetings were presided over by the emperor. In addition, the emperor held a level of authority and prestige that robbed all magistrates of their independence. During senate meetings, the emperor would sit between the two consuls.[28]
The senate would ordinarily meet in the curia Julia. Scheduled meetings would be held on the kalends (the first day of the month), and then again on the ides (around the fifteenth day of the month).
Under Augustus, a quorum was set at 400 senators. As the senate increasingly became subordinated to the emperor, absenteeism increasingly became a problem. Eventually, the quorum rules were relaxed.[28]
[edit] Enactment of bills
Most of the bills that were presented before the senate were presented by the emperor.[28] The emperor would usually appoint a committee to draft each bill. Since no senator could stand for election to a magisterial office without the emperor's approval, senators usually did not vote against a bill that was presented by the emperor.[29]
Each emperor would select a quaestor for the role of ab actis senatus.[29] This quaestor would compile the proceedings of the senate into a document called the acta senatus. Selected extracts from the acta senatus would be published in the acta diurna ("daily doings"), and distributed to the public.[29]
[edit] Powers of the senate
During the transition from republic to empire, the senate's influence was reduced to that of an advisory council.[29] After the transition from republic to empire had been completed, however, the senate's influence grew substantially. During the transition from republic to empire, the senate was granted legislative, judicial, and electoral powers.[29] While its power theoretically increased, its actual authority decreased.[27]
[edit] Legislative powers of the senate
While the legislative assemblies still existed after the founding of the empire, they were quickly neutered. Realizing that the assemblies were too dysfunctional and corrupt to salvage, the first emperors transferred all legislative powers to the senate. After this transfer, the senatus consulta had the full force of law.[27]
Legislatively, the senate of the early empire was most concerned with the financial and civil administration of Rome. It also had a significant amount of authority over the senatorial provinces.[27] If it received authorization from the emperor, the senate could enact new tax laws. The senate could also regulate festivals, and could grant special honors.
[edit] Judicial powers of the senate
During the early empire, all judicial powers that had been held by the legislative assemblies were transferred to the senate. Each senatorial province had a court, and the decisions of those provincial courts could be appealed to the senate. Such cases could only be appealed to the senate, however, upon the recommendation of a consul.[30]
[edit] Electoral powers of the senate
The senate often elected new emperors. The senate would confer upon the new emperor his imperium (his constitutional authority to be emperor).[30]
The emperor Tiberius transferred all electoral powers from the assemblies to the senate.[30] While only the senate could elect new magistrates, the approval of the emperor was needed before any individual could seek election to a magisterial office.[30]
[edit] Senate of the Late Roman Empire
The removal of the seat of government from Rome reduced the senate to a municipal body. This image was reinforced when the emperor Constantine would later create a similar body in Constantinople. Diocletian also discontinued the practice of having the senate ratify the imperial powers of a new emperor. Going back to the founding of the city, control of the state was considered to return to the senate whenever the chief magistracy became vacant. This particular reform robbed the senate of its status as the depository of supreme power. Diocletian's reforms also ended whatever illusion had remained that the senate had substantive legislative powers. And since the magistracies had become meaningless, the electoral powers of the senate had no real meaning.
The senate retained the power to elect praetors, quaestors, and some consuls (only the consules suffecti). It retained its legislative powers over public games and the senatorial order. It could also try cases, especially treason, if the emperor gave permission.
[edit] See also
|
|
[edit] References
- Abbott, Frank Frost (1901). A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions. Elibron Classics (ISBN 0-543-92749-0).
- Byrd, Robert (1995). The Senate of the Roman Republic. U.S. Government Printing Office, Senate Document 103-23.
- Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1841). The Political Works of Marcus Tullius Cicero: Comprising his Treatise on the Commonwealth; and his Treatise on the Laws. Translated from the original, with Dissertations and Notes in Two Volumes. By Francis Barham, Esq. London: Edmund Spettigue. Vol. 1.
- Lintott, Andrew (1999). The Constitution of the Roman Republic. Oxford University Press (ISBN 0-19-926108-3).
- Polybius (1823). The General History of Polybius: Translated from the Greek. By Mr. Hampton. Oxford: Printed by W. Baxter. Fifth Edition, Vol 2.
- Taylor, Lily Ross (1966). Roman Voting Assemblies: From the Hannibalic War to the Dictatorship of Caesar. The University of Michigan Press (ISBN 0-472-08125-X).
[edit] Notes
- ^ a b Abbott, 3
- ^ a b Abbott, 1
- ^ Abbott, 12
- ^ a b c d e f Abbott, 6
- ^ Abbott, 16
- ^ Byrd, 42
- ^ a b Abbott, 17
- ^ a b Abbott, 10
- ^ a b Abbott, 14
- ^ Byrd, 20
- ^ Lintott, 67
- ^ a b c Byrd, 96
- ^ Cicero, 239
- ^ a b c Polybius, 133
- ^ a b c Byrd, 44
- ^ Abbott, 240
- ^ a b c d Byrd, 34
- ^ Lintott, 72
- ^ Polybius, 132
- ^ a b Lintott, 78
- ^ Lintott, 83
- ^ Byrd, 23
- ^ a b Polybius, 136
- ^ Abbott, 233
- ^ a b c Abbott, 381
- ^ a b Abbott, 382
- ^ a b c d Abbott, 385
- ^ a b c d Abbott, 383
- ^ a b c d e Abbott, 384
- ^ a b c d Abbott, 386
[edit] Further reading
- Ihne, Wilhelm. Researches Into the History of the Roman Constitution. William Pickering. 1853.
- Johnston, Harold Whetstone. Orations and Letters of Cicero: With Historical Introduction, An Outline of the Roman Constitution, Notes, Vocabulary and Index. Scott, Foresman and Company. 1891.
- Mommsen, Theodor. Roman Constitutional Law. 1871-1888
- Tighe, Ambrose. The Development of the Roman Constitution. D. Apple & Co. 1886.
- Von Fritz, Kurt. The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity. Columbia University Press, New York. 1975.
- The Histories by Polybius
- Cambridge Ancient History, Volumes 9–13.
- A. Cameron, The Later Roman Empire, (Fontana Press, 1993).
- M. Crawford, The Roman Republic, (Fontana Press, 1978).
- E. S. Gruen, "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic" (U California Press, 1974)
- F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World, (Duckworth, 1977, 1992).
- A. Lintott, "The Constitution of the Roman Republic" (Oxford University Press, 1999)
[edit] Primary sources
- Cicero's De Re Publica, Book Two
- Rome at the End of the Punic Wars: An Analysis of the Roman Government; by Polybius
[edit] Secondary source material
- Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline, by Montesquieu
- The Roman Constitution to the Time of Cicero
- What a Terrorist Incident in Ancient Rome Can Teach Us
