Senate of the Roman Kingdom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Ancient Rome | |||
 This article is part of the series: |
|||
|
|
|||
| Periods | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Roman Kingdom 753 BC – 509 BC Roman Republic |
|||
| Roman Constitution | |||
| Constitution of the Kingdom Constitution of the Republic |
|||
| Ordinary Magistrates | |||
|
|
|||
| Extraordinary Magistrates | |||
|
|
|||
| Titles and Honours | |||
Emperor
|
|||
| Precedent and Law | |||
|
|||
|
Other countries · Atlas Politics Portal |
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 tribal communities often included an aristocratic board of tribal elders, which would be vested with supreme authority over the tribe.[3] The early tribes that had settled along the banks of the Tiber eventually aggregated into a loose confederation. The tribes likely formed an alliance for protection against invaders.
The early Romans, like all Indo-Europeans, were deeply patriarchal. The early Roman family was called a genes 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] He would have the absolute power to resolve any disputes, and to make any decisions for the collective genes. When the early Roman genes 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].
Legend states that the senate grew to a membership of 300 after three blocks of 100 senators were added at fixed points in time. What likely happened, however, was a gradual aggregation of patres over time, as more clans achieved high status.[5] The early senate derived its ultimate sovereignty from the fact that it was composed of the patriarchal heads of the leading families. As the individual patres led their families, the board of patres led the confederation of those families. 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]
Contents |
[edit] Powers of the senate
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 usually met in a templum. However, it could also meet in a location that had been consecrated by an augur.[7]
The senate of the Roman Kingdom 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.
During this time period, each non-patrician family existed as a dependent of one of those patrician families.[9] Eventually, this dependency would be severed, and result in the creation of the plebeian class.[9] However, during the time of the early kingdom, this dependency had not yet been severed. The result was that each patre held authority over his own patrician family, as well as over all of his family's dependent families.[10]
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). Since the king derived his authority from the patres, he (theoretically) could not pass that power on to an heir upon his death. Thus, the authority reverted back to the senate when the king died.
[edit] The 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.[11] If the senate gave its approval, then in practice, the people would be unlikely to reject the nominee.[12] The formal election of the king by the people did serve to confirm to the senate that the people (who would fight in the armies that would be commanded by the king) found their new potential commander-in-chief to be acceptable.[11] The senate would then give its final approval[11], which concluded the substantive part of the election. The other steps (such as the granting to the king of imperium powers by the people) were purely ceremonial.
In effect, the senate chose the king, the people would ratify that choice, and the senate would finalize the decision.
[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. The king had the absolute power to make any law. However, he would often involve both the senate and the Comitia Curiata (the popular assembly) in the process. The primary role of the senate in this process was to either assist the king, or provide additional legitimacy to a decree of the king by declaring its support. Sometimes this would involve debate in the senate over the proposed law. Sometimes this would involve a vote in the senate on the law. However, the king was free to ignore any ruling that the senate ultimately passed.[1]
[edit] Role as council to the king
During the days of the kingdom, Roman territory was confined to the city of Rome itself. Since Rome did not yet have a vast empire to defend, and thus had fewer wars to fight, the need for a senate of experienced former magistrates did not yet exist. Since the senators were typically the patriarchal heads of leading families (rather than experienced former magistrates), the prestige of the senate was not as great as it would later be. Since the senate had limited prestige, it was considered to be acceptable if the king chose to ignore the senate's advice. The senate did, however, become an influential advisory council to the king. This tradition was maintained throughout the life of the Roman Republic, although in practice, the republican magistrates rarely acted against the wishes of the senate.[7]
[edit] The senate during the transition from monarchy to republic
When the last legendary king, Tarquinius Superbus was expelled[13] in 510 BC, the senate decided not to nominate another king[12]. Since the powers of the king had been divested to the senate, the senate decided to retain those powers. The senate elected two leaders, called praetors. These leaders would eventually come to be called consuls. It was at this point that the Roman Republic was born.[1]
[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
[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
.png)
