How long was a senators term of office in the late republic.

[stevesarak]

In a Lex Ovinia, rules were laid down for Senate membership, and it was made clear that former magistrates automatically became members. Was this still in effect during the end of the republic?

In the republic era I’m assuming there was fixed number of senators because I read that Julius Caesar increased their numbers shortly before his assassination. How long was their term of office? Was the term for life, if so, how could new magistrates become senators once the limit was reached?

I know that the people voted for senators, but can you confirm that the senators did not represent areas like they do to day (U.S.)

[john m roberts]

Unlike the US Senate, nobody in Rome voted for senators. Under the Sullan constitution which prevailed at the end of the Republic, one who had served in the lowest elective office, quaestor, was eligible to be a senator unless barred by the censors. He became a provisional senator until the next censors were elected and conducted their purge of the senatorial roll. If confirmed, it was for life unless he got expelled by the censors. Reasons for expulsion were debt, immorality (hah!) conduct unbecoming or, often as not, personal malice on the part of the censors. Once expelled, new censors could repeal the xpulsion, but he would have to hold another quaestorship. Sallust was expelled for multiple offenses, but was reinstated by Caesar who, as dictator, could do anything he wanted to. He made many new senators because so many had been killed in the civil war or were in exile.

[Felix]

My understanding is that there were property requirements also; of course running for office took money, and fund-raising in the Roman Republic was not as sophisticated (?!) as in modern US politics. So one had to be elected to a quaestor to become a Senator, but the title of Senator wasn't itself elected.

[tlclark]

A senator is not an elected office either, a person could follow the cursus honorum, and after appropriately filling a number of positions, pro formata enter into the senate as a matter of birthright, as long as you came from a patrician senatorial family and you had fulfilled the obligations of your station. Sons followed fathers almost automatically. Unless someone like a censor had something against you, you practically couldn't be kept out of the senate if you had all the right family connections. Cicero was very proud of the fact that he was elevated to the senate su anno, in his own year, that is the first year he was eligible to be elevated. Cicero's career is a perfect model for how a person should progress up the cursus honorum. Octavian on the other hand demonstrates that many of these rules were fudged over if you had connections with people in power. He became consul at age 19.

A non patrician born person could get himself a post or a seat on the senate with as little as 100,000 sesterciis. This was not considered corrupt or a bribe, but a natural way of gaining funds and desirable recruits. Lots of positions were for sale.

Even then, many patricians who had the name and title never bothered. Being on the Senate was as much a problem as a benefit. Senators were more likely to be assessed, have their property seized, be censured, exiled or worse. Being in the senate was a risk, particularly during the republic. Senatorw were expected to pay out of pocket in times of need and many resented it. Many entitled to be senators never bothered. Still others changed their name and tribal affiliation to get out of the duty, and some became plebs because there was more political advantage to be had becoming a tribune of the plebs. That effectively ended with the civil wars and the assumption of the tribunician power by Augustus in 23 BCE.

[stevesarak]

A senator is not an elected office either, a person could follow the cursus honorum, and after appropriately filling a number of positions, pro formata enter into the senate as a matter of birthright, as long as you came from a patrician senatorial family and you had fulfilled the obligations of your station. Sons followed fathers almost automatically. Unless someone like a censor had something against you, you practically couldn't be kept out of the senate if you had all the right family connections. Cicero was very proud of the fact that he was elevated to the senate su anno, in his own year, that is the first year he was eligible to be elevated. Cicero's career is a perfect model for how a person should progress up the cursus honorum. Octavian on the other hand demonstrates that many of these rules were fudged over if you had connections with people in power. He became consul at age 19.

A non patrician born person could get himself a post or a seat on the senate with as little as 100,000 sesterciis. This was not considered corrupt or a bribe, but a natural way of gaining funds and desirable recruits. Lots of positions were for sale.

Even then, many patricians who had the name and title never bothered. Being on the Senate was as much a problem as a benefit. Senators were more likely to be assessed, have their property seized, be censured, exiled or worse. Being in the senate was a risk, particularly during the republic. Senatorw were expected to pay out of pocket in times of need and many resented it. Many entitled to be senators never bothered. Still others changed their name and tribal affiliation to get out of the duty, and some became plebs because there was more political advantage to be had becoming a tribune of the plebs. That effectively ended with the civil wars and the assumption of the tribunician power by Augustus in 23 BCE.

That brings up the other question, how could so many be guaranteed a spot on the senate if there were only so many seats available? Unless that’s when the exiled or worse came into play, to make room for someone of more clout.

[drsrob]

A senator is not an elected office either, a person could follow the cursus honorum, and after appropriately filling a number of positions, pro formata enter into the senate as a matter of birthright, as long as you came from a patrician senatorial family and you had fulfilled the obligations of your station.

The senate was never a patrician institution, unless perhaps in the very beginning. You're confusing patrician status with nobility. Anyone who entered the senate became a member of the nobility (nobilis meaning "well known").

Sons followed fathers almost automatically. Unless someone like a censor had something against you, you practically couldn't be kept out of the senate if you had all the right family connections. Cicero was very proud of the fact that he was elevated to the senate su anno, in his own year, that is the first year he was eligible to be elevated. Cicero's career is a perfect model for how a person should progress up the cursus honorum. Octavian on the other hand demonstrates that many of these rules were fudged over if you had connections with people in power. He became consul at age 19.

A non patrician born person could get himself a post or a seat on the senate with as little as 100,000 sesterciis. This was not considered corrupt or a bribe, but a natural way of gaining funds and desirable recruits. Lots of positions were for sale.

The senatorship was generally not bought, though candidates for office had to use their own money to campaign for office AND to pay for the projects they organized.
One million serterces was during the empire the census minimum for a senator; in the late republic they had no census of their own.

Even then, many patricians who had the name and title never bothered. Being on the Senate was as much a problem as a benefit. Senators were more likely to be assessed, have their property seized, be censured, exiled or worse. Being in the senate was a risk, particularly during the republic. Senators were expected to pay out of pocket in times of need and many resented it. Many entitled to be senators never bothered.

Against all this disadvantages there were major advantages: the nobleman acquired respect and status and the money spent in some offices goold be replaced by money earned (or robbed) in others. In the late republic a senator had to spend a small fortune to become and be a consul, but he could earn a large fortune as a proconsul afterwards.

Still others changed their name and tribal affiliation to get out of the duty, and some became plebs because there was more political advantage to be had becoming a tribune of the plebs.

In the late republic one survival of the old struggle of the orders was that certain (religious) offices were reserved for patricians and certain political ones were barred for them. We know of one patrician who got himself adopted by a plebeian (and thereby becoming plebeian) to be able bo be elected plebeian tribune

That effectively ended with the civil wars and the assumption of the tribunician power by Augustus in 23 BCE.

What ended at this time was the possibility of acquiring the highest honours by following the traditional political career. And gradually the dangers of being a senator were no longer outweighted by the possible rewards.

[Nathan Ross]

Rob wrote:

The senate was never a patrician institution, unless perhaps in the very beginning. You're confusing patrician status with nobility. Anyone who entered the senate became a member of the nobility (nobilis meaning "well known").

In fact, I think a senator needed to become consul before achieving noble status - the nobility were those families who had produced a consul, and whose members had continued to occupy curule magistracies. Within the senate there were various grades, depending on the highest office occupied - since a man needed to be elected quaestor to enter the senate in the first place, the lowest grade was quaestorian - after that were the praetorian and consular ranks, which classed as curule.

Quite right about the patricians though - it's a term that causes great confusion, but generally speaking the patrician/plebian divide had no political ramifications after the mid republic, except that patricians could not serve as tribune of the plebs (which was why Clodius, Cicero's arch enemy, had himself adopted by a plebian family to stand for the office, which gave him the power to banish Cicero from Rome for executing the supporters of Catalina while he was consul... Tribunes of the plebs were still senators though - the office was usually held between quaestor or aedile and praetor)

As Rob says, the minimum property qualification to enter the senate was ONE MILLION sesterces - to be an equestrian a man needed 400,000. The senators, then, were the real property-owning cream of society. A moderately wealthy senator like Pliny owned property worth 17 million sesterces, giving him an annual income of 1 million per year, and there many with much more - I believe it was Crassus who said that a man could not call himself rich unless he could afford to raise his own legion - and a legion cost around 6.6 million sesterces per annum.

Places for the senate were limited, though - each year, only 25 new quaestors were elected (this is in the late republic - the number, I believe, increased in the empire), meaning that only a small proportion of senatorial sons could be elected. To be elected quaestor in the first year you were eligible (initially 30, but dropping to 25 later) was a great honour indeed. Obviously, then, a large number of sons of senators would not have served as senators themselves, and would probably have joined the equestrian order instead, although each senatorial family would try to ensure at least one member managed to get a seat, to keep up the prestige of their name.

While Roman senators did not represent particular areas or constituencies in the modern sense, their power was based on a network of patronage and alliance - they would be expected to represent the interests of those who had supported them, being all the lesser families, mercantile interests, towns and cities and sometimes entire provinces in their clientele.

- Nathan

[drsrob]

Rob wrote:

The senate was never a patrician institution, unless perhaps in the very beginning. You're confusing patrician status with nobility. Anyone who entered the senate became a member of the nobility (nobilis meaning "well known").

In fact, I think a senator needed to become consul before achieving noble status - the nobility were those families who had produced a consul, and whose members had continued to occupy curule magistracies. Within the senate there were various grades, depending on the highest office occupied - since a man needed to be elected quaestor to enter the senate in the first place, the lowest grade was quaestorian - after that were the praetorian and consular ranks, which classed as curule.

[...]
- Nathan

I stand corrected on that point :oops:

[Nathan Ross]

I stand corrected on that point

No problem - it's usually me making the errors!

Actually, it occurs to me that the situation of the senate towards the end of the empire in the west might well have been more like Travis describes it above - from what I remember of AHM Jones' 'Later Roman Empire' anyway. By the mid 4th century, the cursus honorum had become pretty much a birthright for the sons of senatorial families - some were 'elected' quaestor in their early teens, for instance. Election was more a matter of the imperial scrinia rubberstamping their appointment, and the magistracies themselves, with all the political power taken by the imperial household and the equestrians, just a way of rich old clans decorating their family trees - the offices had become so very expensive, with regular 'donations' to the imperial fisc required, as well as games and the upkeep of the city to be financed, that many senators tried to avoid their duties and hide out in the provinces - laws were passed to force clarissimi (sons of senators) into the senate and guarantee the cash flow...

All a long long way from Cicero's novus homo pride...

- Nathan

[Felix]

"That brings up the other question, how could so many be guaranteed a spot on the senate if there were only so many seats available?"

Steve,

My understanding is that the Senate of Rome was not defined by a certain number of members. Anyone who met the various qualifications could be a senator. As you can see, the qualifications were a little complicated.

[tlclark]

I stand corrected on that point

No problem - it's usually me making the errors!

Actually the original error was mine, so thanks for the understanding. I was being overly general and you caught my omission of a zero on the 100,00 sesterciis. Thanks.

Actually, it occurs to me that the situation of the senate towards the end of the empire in the west might well have been more like Travis describes it above - from what I remember of AHM Jones' 'Later Roman Empire' anyway. By the mid 4th century, the cursus honorum had become pretty much a birthright for the sons of senatorial families - some were 'elected' quaestor in their early teens, for instance.

That's correct. There was some of this in the earlier period but the senate is much more pro formata in the later period, you're right. Again, that's my confusion. Sorry. Thanks for the correction.

Travis

[stevesarak]

"That brings up the other question, how could so many be guaranteed a spot on the senate if there were only so many seats available?"

Steve,

My understanding is that the Senate of Rome was not defined by a certain number of members. Anyone who met the various qualifications could be a senator. As you can see, the qualifications were a little complicated.

I may be mistaken, but didn't Caesar increase the number of senators right before his assassination, which would leads me to believe there was only a certain number available. It’s possible that they went over that.

[Praefectusclassis]

Yes, the maximum number of senate members varied in the 1st century BC. Sulla, Caesar and Octavian/Augustus all set varying numbers. Felix is right that anyone who met the qualifications could be a senator, but if there were more wannabes than vacancies, you were out of luck.

[Nathan Ross]

At times like this, I always find Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities provides all the answers...

Here's the section on the Senate, from the excellent Lacus Curtius site:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... natus.html

And here's the paragraph of the above detailing senate numbers in the late republic:

During the civil war between Marius and Sulla many vacancies must have occurred in the senate. Sulla in his dictatorship not only filled up these vacancies, but increased the number of senators. All we know of this increase with certainty is, that he caused about 300 of the most distinguished equites to be elected into the senate (Appian. B. C. i.100), but the real increase which he made to the number of senators is not mentioned anywhere. It appears, however, henceforth to have consisted of between five and six hundred (Cic. ad Att. i.14). Julius Caesar augmented the number to 900, and raised to this dignity even common soldiers, freedmen, and peregrini (Dion Cass. xliii.47; Suet. Caes. 80). This arbitrariness in electing unworthy persons into the senate, and of extending its number at random, was imitated after the death of Caesar, for on one occasion there were more than one thousand senators (Suet. Aug. 35). Augustus cleared the senate of the unworthy members, who were contemptuously called by the people Orcini senatores, reduced its number to 600 (Dion Cass. liv.14), and ordained that a list of the senators should always be exhibited to public inspection (Dion Cass. lv.3). During the first centuries of the empire, this number appears, on the whole, to have remained the same; but as everything depended upon the will of the emperor, we can scarcely expect to find a regular and fixed number of them (Dion Cass. liii.17).

And here, surprisingly enough, is the true cost of becoming a senator!

It has been supposed by Niebuhr (iii. p406), that a senatorial census existed at Rome at the commencement of the second Punic war, but the words of Livy (xxiv.11) on which this supposition is founded seem to be too vague to admit of such an inference. Göttling (p346) infers from Cicero (ad Fam. xiii.5), that Caesar was the first who instituted a senatorial census, but the passage of Cicero is still more inconclusive than that of Livy, and we may safely take it for granted that during the whole of the republican period no such census existed (Plin. H.N. xiv.1), although senators naturally always belonged to the wealthiest classes. The institution of a census for senators belongs altogether to the time of the empire. Augustus first fixed it at 400,000 sesterces, afterwards increased it to double this sum, and at last even to 1,200,000 sesterces. Those senators whose property did not amount to this sum, received grants from the emperor to make it up (Suet. Aug. 41; Dion Cass. liv.17, 26, 30, lv.13). Subsequently it seems to have become customary to remove from the senate those who had lost their property through their own prodigality and vices, if they did not quit it of their own accord (Tacit. Annal. ii.48, xii.52; Suet. Tib. 47). Augustus also, after having cleared the senate of unworthy members, introduced a new and reanimating element into it by admitting men from the municipia, the colonies, and even from the provinces (Tacit. Annal. iii.55, xi.25; Suet. Vesp. 9).

So it seems that the usually-quoted figure of a million is a bit off the mark, and Rob is correct that the qualification did not exist until the imperial period.

- Nathan