Talk:Senate of the Roman Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.

Contents

[edit] Organization

The history of the senate needs to be laid out into sections:

==Early Republic==
==Late Republic==
==Early Empire==
==Middle Empire==
==Late Empire==
==Byzantine== (?)

I can't do it justice -- my knowledge is rusty and I'm away from my Roman Senate primary material. But the point is the Senate went from an iron grip on the Republic, to an old boy's club, to a rubber stamp, to an irrelevant body of old men in Rome, to an even less relevant body of old men in Constantinople.

Reid 07:09, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

When was the Roman Senate revived in the Middle Ages? Wetman 01:37, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Revived"? Never heard of that. In the Middle Ages the Pope ruled Rome, he wouldn't have wanted any help. :-) Stan 04:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Colas de Rienzi. I know there was some kind of symbolic Roman Senate in the 1300s. I better check... Wetman 04:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by "old boy's club?" My Latin teacher refered to it as that.

Here's this, from http://www.factmonster.com/:

"Papal authority was challenged in the 12th cent. by the communal movement. A commune was set up (1144–55), led by Arnold of Brescia, but it was subdued by the intervention of Emperor Frederick I. Finally, a republic under papal patronage was established, headed by an elected senator. However, civil strife continued between popular and aristocratic factions and between Guelphs and Ghibellines. The commune made war to subdue neighboring cities, for it pretended to rule over the Papal States, particularly the duchy of Rome, which included Latium and parts of Tuscany. Innocent III controlled the government of the city, but it regained its autonomy after the accession of Emperor Frederick II. Later in the 13th cent. foreign senators began to be chosen; among them were Brancaleone degli Andalò (1252–58) and Charles I of Naples."

This needs looking into... Wetman 04:26, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article needs breaking up into subsections, at the moment it's one long chunk of prose and it's badly presented.

[edit] Style of dress

Are modern scholars sure that the purple stripe was on the right shoulder and not down the front of the tunic? I thought there was debate over that. Certainly the popular conception is down the front of the tunic.Binabik80 05:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pedarii

In what way were the pedarii "like parliamentary backbenchers"? It's true that neither pedarii nor backbenchers are currently out of magisterial/ministerial office, but the key fact about pedarii is that they had never held office. And in context, the article seems to be implying that pedarii are similar to backbenchers because they had no speaking rights, which is a bizarre claim to make about backbenchers. Furthermore, the primary purpose of a backbencher is to vote the way his party wants him to vote, while of course the pedarius, like everyone else in the political party-less Roman Senate, voted his conscience.

If no one responds in two days I'll remove the reference.Binabik80 05:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having seen no objections, I've deleted the clause.Binabik80 02:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I would have to disagree that they were non-office holding Senators. From my understanding, the Senate consisted of ONLY former and current office holding magistrates, at elast until the times of Sulla and his heirs (when appointments became common). Anyway, I have transcribed this entry from the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law:

Senatores Pedarii. The term is not quite clear; its origin was obscure to ancient writers, as related by Gellius (Noct. Att. 3.18). Senatores Pedarii were either senators who had held a lower, non-curule magistracy or ex-magistrates who had not yet been enrolled into the list of senators by the censors. The term pedarii was perhaps connected somehow with the senate's way of voting by a division of the voters (pedibus in sententiam ire, see DISCESSIO). The senatores pedarii could participate only in this form of voting and were excluded from taking part in discussion. - O'Brien-Moore, RE Suppl. 6, 680; M. A. De Dominicis, Il ius sententiae senato rom., 1932.

So, as we can see, one way or another, they were former magistrates. But, as today, there were lesser civil service types in Rome. These were the vigintisexviri and such. Managers of sewage, street-sweeping, etc etc. But nevertheless magistrates. Of course, I think these were not what brought men into the Senate, but were considered stepping-stones. But surely there were enough quaestors and quaestores-elect to create a good deal of pedarii. After all, due to the nature of the republican beast, only so many would ever reach higher office. There were simply not enough offices to go around.

Of course, what this article does not mention is the possibility that these pedarii were in fact these lesser magistrates who were not even quaestorial. And thus were relegated to standing on the sides, so to speak.Cjcaesar

[edit] Last Mention

Can anyone tell me the source for the last known act(s) of the Roman Senate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjcaesar (talk • contribs) 19:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

  • Senators (of Rome) are referenced quite late, even after 476 (I can't give you a reference sorry). There should be something about this in the article. Also there were synkletai of Constantinople much later; I'm not sure how much this title could be considered comparable though. m.e. (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Membership

How did one become a senator? By appointment? (By whom?) By election? (By which assembly?) What were the requirements for membership? Age? Wealth? Class? Presumably one had at least to be a Roman citizen (at least until the appointments made in the time of Julius Caesar). None of this seems to be mentioned under "Membership".


Under the Republic it was the first and most important duty of the censors to choose the senators. This was called the lectio senatus, when the whole membership was listed in a strict order of seniority according to office-holding seniority and social status (patricians outranking plebeians of the same ex officio seniority). This was the order in which the presiding magistrates who summoned a meeting of the Senate were required to ask for opinions on every matter. The first man on the list was called princeps senatus (= First Lord of the Senate). Sulla appears to have done away with the lectio and ordained the quaestorship as the qualification for automatic entry into the Senate. But the evidence is controversial. He certainly increased the number of annual quaestors to 20, and it is also certain that the censorship itself lapsed for a decade after Sulla's dictatorship (most of its functions being taken over by the consuls of 80 and 75 BC), and that when it resumed (70-69 BC) the lectio no longer determined the speaking order; a new custom had arisen (probably first established by Sulla in 81 or 80) according to which the senior consul chose the order of the consulars for the year.
--Appietas 06:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Member for life ?

According to the section Membership, "A Senator's membership was for his lifetime" But since the most Republican offices have only one-year term, how can an office-holder remains senator after he left the office ?

--Siyac 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Magistrate and senator were different offices. As I understand it, the Senate was originally made up of the heads of the families whose wealth put them into the senatorial class of the the census. It wasn't exactly for life - a senator could be struck off the roll by the censors for falling below the property qualification, or for some kind of moral disgrace. Cato the Elder is supposed to have removed a senator on the grounds that he kissed his wife in public. As time went on new rules were introduced linking a seat in the senate with the holding of magistracies - I think under Sulla anyone who had reached the rank of praetor became a senator for life - but originally the two offices were separate. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable practices

The quorum required for formal enactment of senatorial resolutions (senatus consulta) is very well known to have been 100 or more, when the Senate numbered 300 members. I don't have all the evidence with me but the key and earliest text is the Letter of the consuls (of 186 BC) to the Teurani On Bacchanales (CIL i² 581), where the formula not less than 100 (C[entum]) senators appears three times. I'm not sure that the evidence is so clear after Sulla doubled the size of the Senate to 600, but logically the quorum should have remained the same or else been doubled to 200. --Appietas 06:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When was the current building built?

I'm certain the building now standing in the Roman Forum dates from the reign of Diocletian, but the article claims that its from the first century. Can anyone clarify this? I know this information is in Amanda Claridge's Archaeological Guide to Rome, but I won't have access to a research library in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.44.11 (talk) 14:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have moved and reorganized this page

This page appears to have fallen into neglect. I moved this page from Roman Senate to Senate of the Roman Republic. Since the article was mostly about the Senate of the Roman Republic (with almost nothing about the imperial senate), I moved this so that I could integrate it into my series on the Constitution of the Roman Republic. RomanHistorian (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I for one object to this and think it should be moved back. Either that, or the person who did the move needs to do a page on the senate of the Empire. If he is unable or unwilling to do so then I'm going to move it back. Kuralyov (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Other than the paragraph under "Decline of the Senate (1st century BC – 6th century AD)" (which I have moved to my entry on the History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic here), there was almost no information on this entry regarding the senate of the Roman Empire before I made my changes. The information that it did include was historical, and said nothing about the powers or structure of the senate after the fall of the republic. This entry has been neglected for some time. The only substantive differences between the entry before my changes and the entry after, is that now it has more information and more citations.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it's no good just objecting to moving a page. You need to think up ideas why it shouldn't; and there is no good reason if everything on the Roman Senate page is subsumed by better material on the Senate of the Roman Republic page.
On the other hand, RomanHistorian, Kuralyov is correct that you need a page which would cover the Senate in Imperial times. The RS page should have a subsection which describes in summary what the SotRR page says. The page as a whole ought to describe in brief how it changed, and what it did post Augustus. I think that the RS page can be substantially shortened. You can have 4 parts: one for an overview of what it did, one for what its historical origins and time in the Kingdom, one during the republic, and one for its history was after the Republics fall. It's hard work, but that's what you've got to do, and you're good at it (unlike people who just object to stuff!). Wikidea 17:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update on the Roman constitution series

I just wanted to mention my plans for my series on the Roman constitution. There was simply too much information to put on my original page, Constitution of the Roman Republic. There is also a significant amount of information available on the constitutions of the Roman kingdom and empire. Therefore, I am going to give this series somewhat of a matrix structure. Roman Constitution will be the main page of the series. Underneath this page will be Constitution of the Roman Kingdom, Constitution of the Roman Republic and Constitution of the Roman Empire. It surprised me, but apparently there actually was a constitution during the time of the kingdom and then again during the time of the empire.

Underneath the constitution pages, I will have pages on the Senate of the Roman Kingdom, Senate of the Roman Republic, Senate of the Roman Empire, Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Kingdom, Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Republic, Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Empire, Executive Magistrates of the Roman Kingdom, Executive Magistrates of the Roman Republic, and Executive Magistrates of the Roman Empire.

When this is done, I will create a new page called Roman Executive Magistrates, and then populate this page, along with Roman senate and Roman assemblies. All three pages will be condensed versions of their respective sub-pages. Right now, Roman senate and Roman assemblies consist almost exclusively of facts about the republic. Neither page has many citations. They also use a discussion format, and my revisions to these pages will use more of a discussion and analysis format. I am going to be more cautious with my revisions of these pages, because I assume that people will want to restore the original versions for whatever reason.

My hope is to use a discussion and analysis format for the entire series. My overall goal will be to produce a series that doesn't just discuss the facts associated with these offices and institutions. I want the series to tie everything together, and illustrate how everything operated under the overall constitutional system. Right now, the entries on these individual topics (such as roman consul and praetor) simply list facts without providing any deeper analysis or context. It is difficult to truly understand these topics unless you know how they all worked together under the constitutional system.

Also, I am not surprised that there hasn't been more work done on Wikipedia on this topic. It seems as though there are very few books on this subject, and many of those books are quite old. This is unfortunate because this subject is actually quite relevant to modern politics. Many modern governments are designed around a similar constitutional superstructure as was the Roman government. The government strengthened the entire Roman Empire.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the page

I have redone this entry, and integrated it into my series on the Roman Constitution. Before my change, 95% of this entry was about the senate of the Roman Republic. There was nothing on the senate of the Roman Kingdom, and hardly anything on the senate of the Roman Empire.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)