An in-depth analysis of the nature and power of the Roman Senate
Roman History: What Kind of Institution Was the Roman Senate?What powers does it have?
In the political system of ancient Rome, in addition to the king and the citizens' assembly, there was a third authority, which differed from the royal authority in that it was not originally created to rule, and the citizens' assembly in that it was not originally created for the purpose of legislating, but it was complementary to these two powers and had a greater range of power than these two authorities. This is the Senate. There is no doubt that the origins of the Senate can be traced back to the organization of clans: according to the history that we have handed down from antiquity, at the beginning of the founding of Rome, the Senate was made up of all the clan heads, which makes sense from the point of view of the law of the state, since the later Roman clans, with the exception of those who emigrated very late, demanded allegiance to these chiefs of the ancient Roman city and considered them as their great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers.
In Rome, or at least in Lazio, each of the clans that made up the city-state was once an organization of city-states, and in fact an organization under the monarchy** system, ruled by elders elected by the members of the clan, either appointed by their predecessors, or by hereditary succession;But the Senate is different from the Citizens' Assembly, which is directly composed of all citizens, while the Senate is composed of citizen representatives and is representative. The Latins had to go through the phase of relative independence of the clan very early, but the first and most difficult stage of the transition from the clan to the commune, the retention of the clan elders, was probably experienced by the Latins long before the establishment of Rome.
As far as we know, there were no patriarchs in the Roman clans;All members of the clan are or claim to be descendants of a common ancestor, but no living member of the clan dares to claim to be a representative of a common ancestor, so in the unfortunate event of the death of the patriarch, the entire clan must be jointly responsible, including in the inheritance of property and the custody of women and children. However, due to the nature of the Senate, many important legal decisions were often attributed to the Roman Senate. In short, the real status of the Senate is not just the Council of State, but above it;The Senate was a council of the king's spokesmen and was convened to advise the king;As Homer describes, the lords and princes sat around the king, answering the king at the conference table and discussing ** affairs, not unlike the senate at the time.
The members of the Senate are made up of clan heads, and since the number of clans is not fixed, the number of members of the Senate is not fixed. But in ancient times, perhaps before the founding of Rome, the number of members of the Senate of the towns was determined to be 100, regardless of the number of clans at that time, so that after the merger of the original three towns, the number of members of the Senate increased to 300, and from then on 300 became the permanent number of members of the Senate, which was an inevitable result from the point of view of the law of the country. In addition, the elders who were often called to the Senate served for life;In later times, this was de facto, if not legal, the list of senators changed frequently, incompetent and unpopular senators were removed, and the methods of removal evolved over time.
When the head of the clan ceased to be the supreme ruler, the choice of senators was, of course, decided by the king;But in the early days, when the peculiarities of the clan were still preserved, the king would usually appoint a man of high moral standing from the clan to which he belonged to the senator after the death of the senator. It may be argued that later, as society became more united, this method of selecting the senators was abolished and left exclusively to the king, so that it would only be considered abdication if the king did not choose a replacement.
Privileges of the Senate - Decentralization. The jurisdiction of the Senate was based on the idea that the municipality consisted of clans, and that the sovereignty of the municipality belonged to the patriarch of all clans according to law, although according to the strict concept of the Roman monarchy, this sovereignty was embodied in the family, but could only be held by one of the patriarchs, that is, the king. Each member of the Senate, although not actually an ordinary king, was not much different from the king in power;Thus, the symbols of the elders, although inferior to those of the kings, are similar in nature: the shoes worn by the elders are very similar to those of the king, both are red, but the king's shoes are slightly longer and more elaborate. Thus, as already mentioned, when the king died, the throne of the Roman Commune was not vacant, but was immediately taken over by the senators. According to"There can only be one king"This eternal principle, even if there is only one person who is really in power at the time, this kind of thing"Regent"The only difference from an elected king for life is not the size of his power, but the length of his term.
The term of office of a regent is usually five days for a single ruler;According to this rule, the senators took turns ruling the country, and when the regent's term expired, the order of succession was determined by drawing lots and power was transferred to the next successor, who had to reign for five days until he was replaced by an elected king for life. Therefore, it is understandable that the municipality does not swear allegiance to the regent. Not only does the regent have the power and duty to perform all the duties of the king, but he also has the power to appoint a king for life, but the first person to be appointed as a regent does not have the power to appoint a king for life, presumably because the first person was not elected by his predecessor and is therefore considered inappropriate. Thus, the Senate had supreme authority in Roman society, and it was the sacredness of Roman society that ensured the continuation of Roman society and its monarchy, but not hereditary monarchy. Therefore, it is not surprising that later Greeks found that the Senate resembled a royal council, since the Senate also came into being in this way.
The Senate and Social Decision-Making - The Power of the Senate. The Senate was not only the eternal and living embodiment of royal power, but also a fundamental part of the Roman political system. Of course, the Senate had no right to interfere in the political affairs of the king. But when the king was unable to command the army or settle legal disputes, he would select a man from the Senate to act as his representative to exercise power on his behalf;As a result, the highest military positions in the military were later often held by senators, who also had priority in the selection of jurors. However, the king never consulted the Senate as an institution on the command of the army or the administration of justice;As a result, the later Roman Senate had no authority to command armies or make judicial decisions. On the other hand, the Senate was seen as the guardian of the existing system of controlling the crime of kings and citizens.
The Senate was responsible for reviewing all decisions made by citizens on the basis of the king's proposals. If a decision is suspected of violating the law in force, the Senate can overrule the decision;In other words, the Senate had the power to vote on social decisions such as changing the political system, accepting new citizens, and waging expansionist wars, as required by the political system. Of course, it cannot be assumed that the citizens and the Senate share legislative power, just as the House of Representatives and the Senate share legislative power in today's constitutional countries;The Senate is only the guardian of the law, it has no legislative power, and can only overturn a decision of the municipality if it is deemed to be outside its powers, violates existing obligations to God, violates promises made to others, or interferes with the municipality's own rules and regulations.
However, in more important cases, such as when the Roman king proposed a declaration of war and was accepted as a decision by the municipalities, or when other municipalities demanded the payment of reparations and this demand was not met, the Roman envoy would ask the gods for justice, and in the closing remarks he wrote:"In this case, we must ask the gods to do justice:"In this case, we must ask the elders of the state how we can defend our rights"。A formal declaration of war can only be made after a resolution has been passed by the Senate, passed by the Citizens' Assembly, and approved by the Senate. Of course, neither the purpose nor the effect of this provision is to consolidate the Senate's interference in citizens' decisions, nor to use the trusteeship to deprive the citizens' assembly of its supreme power;But just as the Senate ensured the continuity of the Commune's policy in the event of a vacancy on the throne, we can suspect that the Senate acted as the guardian of law and discipline in the face of the overwhelming power of the Commune.
The Senate acts as a Council of State: there is a seemingly very old rule in this regard: before the king can submit a law to a referendum, he must submit it to the Senate, and all members of the Senate vote on it in turn. Since the Senate had the power to veto the resolutions passed, the king naturally knew that he had to be sure in advance that the Senate would not object;On the one hand, the Romans had a Xi of seeking the opinions of others before making important decisions;On the other hand, the Senate, because of its organizational structure, became an advisory body to the rulers of the Commune in political affairs. It was the Xi of the Senate to give advice to the king, rather than the power of the Senate as described above, that led to the later growth of the Senate's power;But if it were not for the fact that the Senate had a duty to respond to the King's consultations, the advisory role of the Senate would have been insignificant.
In addition to submitting proposals to the Citizens' Assembly, the king had to consult the Senate in advance on important matters that did not fall within the judicial or military sphere, such as the collection of taxes, the collection of customs duties, the recruitment of citizens for military service, and the conduct of expansion wars, a common but legally necessary procedure. The king could at any time summon the senators and ask the questions he wished;The senators were not allowed to express their opinions unless they were asked, nor could they meet privately without being summoned;There was one exception, however, in the event of a vacancy on the throne, when the senators had to meet to decide the order of succession of the regents. It is conceivable that the king might invite the senator and his close relatives to discuss matters of state.
Of course, the advice given is not an order;The King may act in any manner other than the reply received, and the opinion of the Senate cannot be enforced in any way, except by the said veto, which does not apply anywhere"。"I have not chosen you to lead me, but I have chosen you to obey my commands"。This was said by a later writer borrowing the words of King Romulus, and in this respect the position of the Senate expressed in these words is essentially correct.