Senate of the Roman Republic
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 senate was the chief foreign policy-making branch of the government of the Roman Republic. All magistrates, other than tribunes (and their aediles) answered to the senate. According to the Greek historian Polybius, the senate was the predominate branch of government.[1] Polybius noted that it was the consuls who lead the armies and the civil government in Rome, and it was the legislative assemblies which had the ultimate authority over elections, legislation and criminal trials. However, since the senate controlled money, administration, and the details of foreign policy, it had the most control over day-to-day life.[1]
The senator and one-time consul Cicero also believed the senate to be superior to the other branches of government.[2] Cicero noted that the senate was a self-sustaining and continuous body consisting of patres conscripti. The senate's auctoritas ("authority") derived from this self-sustaining trait. All of the senate's powers derived from its auctoritas. In contrast, all magistrates (other than censors) left office together at the end of each year. Cicero believed that this self-sustaining nature was illustrated by the ability of the senate to set in motion events to replace a consul. The consuls, on the other hand, typically did not have the power to alter the composition of the senate. Another example that Cicero cited to illustrate his point was the interrex (interregnum). The interrex was a senator who would fill vacancies if all curule magistrates (consuls and praetors) simultaneously vacated their office.[2]
The senate's place in Roman society could be seen by its place in the symbol of Roman state authority, Senatus Populusque Romanus ("The Senate and the People of Rome", or "SPQR"). This was the stamp of power, authority and approval (political as well as religious) that the Roman legions and their golden eagles marched under as they conquered the Mediterranean world.[3]
Contents |
[edit] Senatorial powers
The source of the republican senate's power was its auctoritas.[4] In contrast, the source of consular and praetorian power was the constitutional imperium (commander-in-chief) designation. The source of tribunician power was the tribune's sacrosanctity. And the source of legislative power was the sovereignty of the People of Rome. Whereas imperium bestowed upon an individual the power to issue commands, and sacrosanctity derived from the nature of the tribunate as an embodiment of the People of Rome, in practice auctoritas derived from the esteem and prestige of the senate.[4] 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. 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.[4] As Cicero notes, only the senate was considered to have had an unbroken lineage, going back to the very founding of the republic.[2] All powers of the senate derived from its auctoritas.
The focus of the Roman senate was directed towards foreign policy. 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 passed decrees called senatus consultum. This was officially "advice" from the senate to a magistrate. In practice, however, these were usually obeyed by the magistrates.[5]
At the end of each consular term, the lame duck consuls would have to give an accounting of their administration to both the senate and people.[6]
While the senate could influence the enactment of laws, it did not formally make those laws. The assemblies, which were considered the embodiment of the People of Rome, made domestic laws which governed the people.
Up until 202 BC, a dictator would be appointed during extreme military emergencies. The senate would authorize the consul to nominate the dictator. After 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 was suspended, and (something analogous to) martial law was declared.[7] 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. The senate wasn't simply a political institution. It was regarded as a religious institution as well. 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[8]. As long as one was within one mile (1.6 km) of the pomerium, they were inside the political boundary of the city. Senate meetings could take place outside the pomerium for several reasons. The senate might wish to meet with a magistrate (such as a consul) with imperium. By meeting outside of the pomerium, that magistrate would not have to surrender his imperium by entering the city. In addition, the senate might wish to meet with an individual (such as a foreign ambassador) whom they did not wish to allow inside the city.[9]
At the beginning of the consular year, the first meeting would always take place at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. Other venues could include the temple of Fides (which was the site of the meeting before the murder of Tiberius Gracchus) or the temple of Concord.[10] Meetings outside of the pomerium could take place in venues such as the temples of Bellona or Apollo.
[edit] The presiding officer and senate debates
Meetings usually began at dawn. Occasionally, events (such as festivals) could delay the beginning of a meeting. A magistrate who wished to summon the senate would have to issue an order called a cogere. A cogere was compulsorily, and senators could be punished if they failed to appear without reasonable cause. Mark Antony, for example, once threatened to demolish the house of Cicero for this very reason.[11]
The senate was directed by a presiding magistrate. Usually the presiding magistrate would be either a consul or a praetor. If a dictator was serving at the time, he would usually preside over the senate. If both the consulship and the praetorship were vacant, an interrex would preside. An interrex had full consular imperium, and was attended by twelve lictors (as were the consuls). However, he had to be both a senator and a patrician, and the term in office always expired after five days.[12] By the later republic, tribunes could also preside over the senate.[8]
While in session, the senate had the power to act on its own (even against the will of that magistrate) if it wished. The presiding magistrate would begin each meeting with a speech called a verba fecit.[13] Often this opening speech was brief, but it could be a lengthy oration if the magistrate wished it to be. 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[8]. The first to speak was usually the princeps senatus (the most senior senator)[8]. Then, other consulares (ex-consuls) would speak, one after the other. After all consulares spoke, the praetors and ex-praetors would speak. This would continue, until the most junior senators had spoken[8]. A senator could make a brief statement, discuss the matter in detail, or talk about an unrelated topic. All senators had to speak before a vote could be held. Since all meetings had to end by nightfall[5], a senator could talk a proposal to death (a filibuster or diem consumere), if they could keep the debate going until nightfall.[13]
Acts such as applause, booing or heckling would often play a major role in a debate. Any senator could respond at any point if they were attacked personally. The senate meetings were technically public[8]. This was because the doors were left open, which allowed people to look in. Once debates were underway, they were usually difficult for the presiding magistrate to control. The presiding magistrate typically only regained some control once the debating had ended, and a vote was about to be taken.[14]
[edit] Procedure, minority rights, and final votes
Quorums were required for the senate to operate. It is known that in 67 BC, the size of a quorum was set at 200 senators by the lex Cornelia de privilegiis. If a quorum existed, then a vote could be held. 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[8], with senators voting by taking a place on either side of the chamber.
Throughout the history of the republic, until the reign of Augustus, there was an absolute right to free speech in the senate.[8]
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"). As with modern quorum calls, this was usually a delaying tactic. Senators could also demand that a motion be divided into smaller motions. When it was time to call a vote, the presiding magistrate could bring up whatever proposals (in whatever order) he wished. The vote was always between a proposal and its negative.[15]
Once a vote was held, any motion that passed could be vetoed. Usually, vetoes were handed down by plebeian tribunes. 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' (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. In a couple of instances between the end of the Second Punic War and the beginning of the Social War, a consul vetoed an act of the senate.
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. This document would include the name of the presiding magistrate, the place of the assembly, the dates involved, the number of senators who were present at time the motion was passed, the names of witnesses to the drafting of the motion, and the substance of the act. In addition, a capital letter "C" was stamped on the document. This was done to verify that the senatus consultum had been approved by the senate. The document was then deposited in the aerarium (treasury).[5]
While a vetoed senatus consultum had no legal value, it did serve to show the opinion of the senate. If a senatus consultum conflicted with a lex ("law") that was passed by a popular assembly, the lex' would override the senatus consultum. A senatus consultum, however, could serve to interpret a lex.[16]
In the later years of the republic, attempts were made by the aristocracy to limit the democratic impulses of some of the senators. Laws were enacted to prevent the inclusion of extraneous material in bills before the senate. In addition, omnibus bills were outlawed.[17] Omnibus bills are bills with a large volume of often unrelated material, which is enacted by a single vote. Today, the United States Senate has similar rules, which are called the "Byrd Rules". Laws were also enacted to strengthen the requirement that three days pass between the proposal of a bill, and the vote on that bill.[17] The United States Senate, in contrast, requires two days between the proposal of a bill, and the vote on that bill.[17]
During his dictatorship, Julius Caesar enacted laws that required the publication of senate resolutions. This publication, called the acta diurna, or "daily doings", was meant to increase transparency and minimize the potential for abuse.[18] This was similar to the Congressional Record of the United States Congress. This publication would be posted in the Roman Forum. From these postings, copies would be transcribed, and sent by messengers throughout Italy and the outer provinces.[18]
[edit] Ethical standards of senators
There were several limitations on personal activities by senators. Since they were not paid,[19] individuals would usually seek to become a senator only if they were independently wealthy. Senators could not engage in banking or any form of public contract. They could not own a ship that was large enough to participate in foreign commerce.[8] They also could not leave Italy without permission from the senate. This is similar to rule VI of the standing rules of the U.S. Senate, which states that any U.S. Senator who wishes to take a leave of absence must get permission from the senate first.[8]
Censors were the magistrates who enforced the ethical standards of the senate. Whenever a censor punished a senator, they had to allege some specific failing. Possible reasons for punishing a member included corruption, abuse of capital punishment, or the disregard of a colleague's veto, constitutional precedent, or the auspices. Senators who failed to obey various laws could also be punished. While punishment could include impeachment (expulsion) from the senate, often a punishment would be less severe than outright expulsion.[20] While the standard was high for expelling a member from the senate, it was easier to deny a citizen the right to join the senate. Various moral failings could result in one not being allowed to join the senate. Examples would include bankruptcy, prostitution, or a prior history of having been a gladiator. The lex repetundarum of 123 BC made it illegal for a citizen to become a senator if they had been convicted of a criminal offense. [20]
[edit] Religious significance
The senate 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.[10] The senate was only allowed to meet in a building of religious significance, such as the Curia Hostilia. Any meetings on New Year's Day would be held in the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Any war meetings would be held in the temple of Bellona.
[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 Lintott, 65
- ^ a b c Lintott, 67
- ^ Byrd, 161
- ^ a b c Byrd, 96
- ^ a b c Byrd, 44
- ^ Byrd, 181
- ^ Abbott, 240
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Byrd, 34
- ^ Lintott, 73
- ^ a b Lintott, 72
- ^ Lintott, 75
- ^ Byrd, 42
- ^ a b Lintott, 78
- ^ Lintott, 82
- ^ Lintott, 83
- ^ Abbott, 233
- ^ a b c Byrd, 112
- ^ a b Byrd, 133
- ^ Byrd, 36
- ^ a b Lintott, 70
[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)
