DOCSLIB.ORG

The Constitutional Powers of the Senate During the Reign of Augustus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Constitutional Powers of the Senate During the Reign of Augustus THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF THE SENATE DURING THE REIGN OF AUGUSTUS OWEN P. PETTIT SUBMITTED IN TOTAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS (BY THESIS ONLY) DECEMBER 2011 THE SCHOOL OF HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE ABSTRACT The question addressed in this dissertation is that of how the radical changes initiated by Augustus between 28 and 19 BCE affected the constitutional status of the res publica. The focus in particular is the repercussions of these constitutional changes on the legal prerogatives of the Roman Senate. The first chapter looks at the changes to the state orchestrated by Augustus between 28 and 19 BCE. The restitutio of 27 and the three settlements of 27, 23 and 19 BCE are reconstructed and investigated with special reference to how they affected the legal status of the Senate and its members. The second chapter discusses the implications of the constitutional changes to the state for Augustus, the Senate and the individual senators. Augustus remained a member of that body while establishing his pre-eminence, and his interactions with and in the Senate help to understand the relationship between the autocratic emperor and the oligarchical senators. The third and fourth chapters are a review into the interactions between the Senate and Augustus throughout his reign, with an analysis of how closely the constitutional responsibilities and privileges of the princeps and the Senate were observed. The third chapter addresses all known accounts of the Senate exerting control in the res publica, whether through its power or its influence. The actions of the Senate are discussed thematically: foreign policy, the senatorial court, administration, legislation and ceremonial roles. The fourth chapter investigates the actions of the emperor and his new imperial bureaucracy, and contrasts these actions with the prerogatives of the Senate. The two aspects of imperial encroachment – by Augustus himself and by the combined senatorial, equestrian and freedmen members of his bureaucracy – are treated separately in this final chapter. The intent and effect of the study is to understand the legal foundations of Augustus’s power and the extent to which he respected the new constitution of the res publica through his actions from 28 BCE-14 CE. The arguments combine to show that the prerogatives of the Senate were not changed during the redefinition of the Roman 2 state; rather, Augustus and his bureaucracy carried out many traditional senatorial duties without actually removing any powers from the Senate. Augustus was careful to respect the honour of the Senate and allowed them to keep most of their Republican privileges. While the prerogatives of the Senate had not changed, and their prestige in society was maintained by Augustus, in practice the Senate had little influence on the major decisions of the new imperial res publica. 3 DECLARATION This is to certify that: (i) the thesis comprises only my original work towards the Masters (ii) due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used (iii) the thesis is 31849 words in length, inclusive of footnotes, but exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices Signed: ………………………………………………….. 4 AKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my eternally patient wife and family for their unwavering support. Special thanks also to Frederik Vervaet who has been an exceptional and dedicated supervisor. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 2 Declaration 4 Acknowledgements 5 Table of contents 6 Introduction 9 Chapter 1. The Developing Constitutional Position of Augustus 15 1.1. Introduction 15 1.2. The Res Gestae Divi Augusti 16 1.3. Cassius Dio 17 1.4. The Official Position of Augustus 19 1.4.1. 28 BCE 19 1.5. The First Settlement Of 27 BCE 22 1.5.1. Restitutio 22 1.5.2. The Power to Control Laws 23 1.5.3. Political Power 24 1.5.4. Provincial Power 25 1.5.5. Conclusion 26 1.6. The Second Settlement of 23 BCE 26 1.6.1. Introduction 26 1.6.2. Consular Imperium 28 1.6.3. Tribunicia Potestas 28 1.6.4. Repercussions Of 23 BCE 29 1.7. The Third Settlement Of 19 BCE 30 1.8. Conclusion 30 Chapter 2. The Imperial Senate 32 2.1. Introduction 32 6 2.2. The Emperor’s Senate 32 2.2.1. Introduction 32 2.2.2. Organising Attendance 33 2.2.3. Senatorial Reluctance 34 2.2.4. The Consular Nobilitas and the Pedarii 35 2.2.5. The Future of the Senatorial Order 37 2.2.6. The Ideal Senate? 38 2.2.7. Convening the Senate 39 2.3. The Emperor as Senator 40 2.3.1. Introduction 41 2.3.2. Seating Arrangements 41 2.3.3. Methods Of Discussion 43 2.3.4. Augustus’s Consilium 43 2.3.5. Decrees Of The Senate 44 2.4. Conclusion 46 Chapter 3. The Senate’s Attested Actions 47 3.1. Introduction 47 3.2. Foreign Policy 48 3.2.1. Key Attestations 48 3.2.2. Foreign Policy in Rome 49 3.2.3. Embassies and Diplomacy 50 3.2.4. Triumphs 51 3.3. The Senatorial Court 53 3.3.1. Key Attestations 53 3.3.2. The Senate as a Court 53 3.3.3. The Case of Cornelius Gallus 54 3.4. Administrative Roles 56 3.4.1. Key Attestations 56 3.4.2. Grants of Power 57 3.4.3. New Imperial Administration 59 3.5. Legislation 60 7 3.5.1. Key Attestations 60 3.5.2. Augustan Laws 60 3.5.3. Augustus’s Immunity from Prosecution 61 3.6. Ceremonial Acts 62 3.6.1. Key Attestations 62 3.6.2. The Phrasing of Senatorial Decrees 63 3.7. Conclusion 63 Chapter 4. Imperial Encroachment 65 4.1. Introduction 65 4.2. The Imperial Bureaucracy 66 4.2.1. Introduction 66 4.2.2. Senatorial Officials 67 4.2.3. Equestrian Officials 71 4.2.4. Other Officials 76 4.2.5. Conclusion 77 4.3. Encroachment by the Emperor 79 4.3.1. Introduction 79 4.3.2. Foreign Policy 79 4.3.3. Law-Making 83 4.3.4. Other Imperial Roles 86 4.4. Conclusion 87 Conclusion 88 Bibliography 90 Primary Sources 90 Secondary Sources 91 8 INTRODUCTION In 28 BCE Augustus was officially named princeps senatus: the first man in the Senate of Rome. Augustus needed a new system if he wished to remain pre-eminent in the Roman res publica. The only official roles that matched his triumviral power were rex or dictator, but these were associated with Tarquin and Julius Caesar, whose precedents Augustus didn’t want to follow. Institutional change had characterised the civil wars and Augustus could not maintain the role that triumviral power gave him and claim to be re-establishing the res publica. The years 28-19 BCE were characterised by Augustus adapting his constitutional position in the res publica, ostensibly to protect the state. As a direct result, the role and prerogatives of the Roman Senate were also modified. The Senate still played an important role in the machinery of the state. Thus the legal prerogatives of senators continued to include greeting foreign embassies on behalf of Rome, codifying administration in public provinces, and issuing decrees for moral reform. The primary aim of this work is to investigate the formal senatorial prerogatives of the Augustan era, and assess how closely they were actually reflected by the actions of the Senate and respected by those of Augustus. The thesis will also study whether Augustus’s interactions with the legal prerogatives of the Senate adapted over the course of his reign. The Senate of Augustan Rome has received occasional attention over the course of the last century of scholarship, but it is time for a review of senatorial prerogatives and associated actions. Recent relevant books include W.K. (Patrick) Lacey’s Augustus and the Principate (1995) and Richard Talbert’s The Senate of Imperial Rome (1988).1 Neither, however, pays close attention to the legal prerogatives of the Senate. The authors focus instead on the actions and character of Augustus (and future emperors). Ronald Ridley’s analysis of the Res Gestae (2003) is excellent, and Cooley’s recent book on the same subject (2009) is also relevant to the constitutional powers of the 1 W.K. Lacey, Augustus and the Principate: The Evolution of the System (Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1996); Richard Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987). 9 Senate, as are several recent commentaries on primary historians.2 However, none of these works is specifically designed to examine the direct actions of the Senate in light of their alleged customary prerogatives. This thesis aligns with a new concept of the constitutional position of Augustus, as recently presented by Frederik Vervaet.3 Vervaet presents convincing evidence that Augustus was a triumvir of Rome until his restitutio speech in the Senate in 27 BCE, which was effectively an abdication of his triumviral role. Vervaet argues that Augustus was coldly precise in re-arranging the res publica as part of the three settlements from 27 to 19 BCE that gave him the powers that he needed to control the Roman Empire. This thesis aims to present an analysis of the legal situation of the Senate in Rome in the context of this new evaluation of the official position and political strategy of Augustus. This work is divided into four chapters. Chapter One will outline the position of Augustus in the res publica: identifying the specific legal changes to Augustus’s position that came about in the period 28-19 BCE.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the D
    The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Marion Woodrow Kruse, III Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: Anthony Kaldellis, Advisor; Benjamin Acosta-Hughes; Nathan Rosenstein Copyright by Marion Woodrow Kruse, III 2015 ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the use of Roman historical memory from the late fifth century through the middle of the sixth century AD. The collapse of Roman government in the western Roman empire in the late fifth century inspired a crisis of identity and political messaging in the eastern Roman empire of the same period. I argue that the Romans of the eastern empire, in particular those who lived in Constantinople and worked in or around the imperial administration, responded to the challenge posed by the loss of Rome by rewriting the history of the Roman empire. The new historical narratives that arose during this period were initially concerned with Roman identity and fixated on urban space (in particular the cities of Rome and Constantinople) and Roman mythistory. By the sixth century, however, the debate over Roman history had begun to infuse all levels of Roman political discourse and became a major component of the emperor Justinian’s imperial messaging and propaganda, especially in his Novels. The imperial history proposed by the Novels was aggressivley challenged by other writers of the period, creating a clear historical and political conflict over the role and import of Roman history as a model or justification for Roman politics in the sixth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Noted Previously, Was an Archaic Form of Marriage in Which the Woman Passed from Her Natal Family to Her Husband’S
    GAIUS’ INSTITUTES – PERSONS – PART 2 – OF ONE’S OWN RIGHT vs. SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF ANOTHER (GI.1.48–200) 1. There follows a massive graphic on those of their own right (sui iuris) and those subject to another’s right (alieno iuri subiecti, normally shortened to alieni iuris): B sui iuris 1,13 vs. A alieni iuris 1,8 __________|________________ ________|_________ | | | | | | totally tutela 6,10,11 cura 12 in potestate 6 in manu 7 in mancipio __________|______ _____|_____ ___|______ | | | | | | | | | | testament legit fiduc dat pro min fur dominica patria 2 | 5 | 2 | _______| |____________ |__________________ | | | | | | | | children freedmen wom. litig. sine iust. nupt. mixed adoptivi 3 4 7 8 9 3 4 5 a. The numbers indicate the order in which Gaius takes up the topic. The combination of the Latin and the abbreviations necessary to get this all into one graphic make the specifics hard to follow. The point of the graphic is not the specifics, it’s the structure. b. (On the slide A and B are reversed; this follows the order of the graphic above.) Both sides of the dichotomy have four levels. Levels 1 and 2 deal with categories of persons: level 1 those sui iuris and those alieni iuris, level 2 those totally sui iuris, those in tutelage (tutela), those in another form of guardianship (cura), those in power (in potestate), those literally ‘in hand’ (in manu), those in ‘hand-capture’ (in mancipio). Levels 3 and 4 are mixed dealing sometimes with categories of persons and sometimes with ways of acquiring the status.
    [Show full text]
  • RICE, CARL ROSS. Diocletian's “Great
    ABSTRACT RICE, CARL ROSS. Diocletian’s “Great Persecutions”: Minority Religions and the Roman Tetrarchy. (Under the direction of Prof. S. Thomas Parker) In the year 303, the Roman Emperor Diocletian and the other members of the Tetrarchy launched a series of persecutions against Christians that is remembered as the most severe, widespread, and systematic persecution in the Church’s history. Around that time, the Tetrarchy also issued a rescript to the Pronconsul of Africa ordering similar persecutory actions against a religious group known as the Manichaeans. At first glance, the Tetrarchy’s actions appear to be the result of tensions between traditional classical paganism and religious groups that were not part of that system. However, when the status of Jewish populations in the Empire is examined, it becomes apparent that the Tetrarchy only persecuted Christians and Manichaeans. This thesis explores the relationship between the Tetrarchy and each of these three minority groups as it attempts to understand the Tetrarchy’s policies towards minority religions. In doing so, this thesis will discuss the relationship between the Roman state and minority religious groups in the era just before the Empire’s formal conversion to Christianity. It is only around certain moments in the various religions’ relationships with the state that the Tetrarchs order violence. Consequently, I argue that violence towards minority religions was a means by which the Roman state policed boundaries around its conceptions of Roman identity. © Copyright 2016 Carl Ross Rice All Rights Reserved Diocletian’s “Great Persecutions”: Minority Religions and the Roman Tetrarchy by Carl Ross Rice A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts History Raleigh, North Carolina 2016 APPROVED BY: ______________________________ _______________________________ S.
    [Show full text]
  • Zeynep Koçak-Şimşek* This Article
    M ARSILIUS OF P ADUA : T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACTARIAN Zeynep Koçak - Şimşek * This article aims to demonstrate that Marsilius of Padua' s Defensor Pacis (1324) encompasses the basics of the social contract theory. Marsilius arrives at the social contractarian theory drawing upon both his past and present political engagements, and the theoretical legal - political debates of his time. He reconciles his back ground in the city - state of Padua, which struggled with the Holy Roman Empire to keep its autonomous legal order of republican liberties, with his political tendency to and his engagement with the i mperial order. Yet, in constructing his political thought, he benefits immensely from the legal and political debates that had been going on since the beginning of the 10th century with the emergence of the Bologna law school, as well as the revival of both Aristotelian scholarship and Ulpian ' s contribution to th e Digest. All of this had a decisive impact on the scope of the debates. The legal debates sought the legitimate origin of the Holy Roman Emperor ' s sovereignty . H owever, by breaking sovereignty into parts as executive power and legislative power, Azo Portius introduced the possibility of the separation of powers into the debate. Armed with his engagement with the Aristotelian ' doctrine of the wisdom of the multitude ' and the renaissance of the Codex, Marsilius was able to further what Azo had dismantle d by shifting the power that underlay the sovereignty from a bundle of legislative and executive powers to merely legislative ones. Through a convention that he derived from l ex r egia, he constituted the first version of the social contract .
    [Show full text]
  • The Cursus Honorum
    itself, but they did possess the same rights: of calling a session of the senate and of vetoing proposals and decrees. Theonly emperors between Augustus and Hadrian not to hold these powers were Galba, Otho, and Vitellius.17 Thesethree were military leaders, and took power through the forceof their soldiers, though by no means were they the only ones to rise in this way. They each ruled onlybriefly and, along with Vespasian, their reigns have come to be knowncollectively asthe year of fouremperors. Theseemperors did not earnthe same right to rule, because they took control by force, without any attempt to smooth the situation or any pretense of observing laws or customs. While be was dictator, Julius Caesar instituted severalchanges in the political structure of Rome, modifications which Augustus retained. Caesar reduced the office of the consulship to a powerless honor, since allother magistrates were subordinate to him as a perpetual dictator. The high office still had a great amount of prestige, and the Caesars exploited this fact to reward their loyal supporters.18 Other changes included lowering the required ages for entering the competition for the cursushonorum, which meant that more men would be competing each year for the small number of offices.19 He also introduced a new entry�level office, the vigintiviri;there were twentyseats, and the officerswere assigned to assistvarious positions within the government. A man could not proceed through the cursus honorumwithout earningthis rank first.20 By the time of Claudius, the gap between the active republican senate and the rising direct control of the emperor was apparent.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rhetoric of Corruption in Late Antiquity
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE The Rhetoric of Corruption in Late Antiquity A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Classics by Tim W. Watson June 2010 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Michele R. Salzman, Chairperson Dr. Harold A. Drake Dr. Thomas N. Sizgorich Copyright by Tim W. Watson 2010 The Dissertation of Tim W. Watson is approved: ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Committee Chairperson University of California, Riverside ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In accordance with that filial piety so central to the epistolary persona of Q. Aurelius Symmachus, I would like to thank first and foremost my parents, Lee and Virginia Watson, without whom there would be quite literally nothing, followed closely by my grandmother, Virginia Galbraith, whose support both emotionally and financially has been invaluable. Within the academy, my greatest debt is naturally to my advisor, Michele Salzman, a doctissima patrona of infinite patience and firm guidance, to whom I came with the mind of a child and departed with the intellect of an adult. Hal Drake I owe for his kind words, his critical eye, and his welcome humor. In Tom Sizgorich I found a friend and colleague whose friendship did not diminish even after he assumed his additional role as mentor. Outside the field, I owe a special debt to Dale Kent, who ushered me through my beginning quarter of graduate school with great encouragement and first stirred my fascination with patronage. Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to the two organizations who have funded the years of my study, the Department of History at the University of California, Riverside and the Department of Classics at the University of California, Irvine.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Rome
    Ancient Rome William E. Dunstan ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK ................. 17856$ $$FM 09-09-10 09:17:21 PS PAGE iii Published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com Estover Road, Plymouth PL6 7PY, United Kingdom Copyright ᭧ 2011 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. All maps by Bill Nelson. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. The cover image shows a marble bust of the nymph Clytie; for more information, see figure 22.17 on p. 370. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dunstan, William E. Ancient Rome / William E. Dunstan. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7425-6832-7 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-7425-6833-4 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-7425-6834-1 (electronic) 1. Rome—Civilization. 2. Rome—History—Empire, 30 B.C.–476 A.D. 3. Rome—Politics and government—30 B.C.–476 A.D. I. Title. DG77.D86 2010 937Ј.06—dc22 2010016225 ⅜ϱ ீThe paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/ NISO Z39.48–1992. Printed in the United States of America ................
    [Show full text]
  • The Roman Republic: Lesson Plan
    The Roman Republic: Separation of Powers - History of Global Democracies Series | Academy 4 Social Change The Roman Republic: Lesson Plan Topic The Republic is the period in Roman history dating from the end of the reign of Rome’s last king in 509 B.C. to the ascension of Augustus in 27 B.C. that marked the beginning of the Roman Empire. During this time, elite Roman men pursuing political careers tried to work their way up the highly competitive hierarchy of political offices called the cursus honorum in order to gain more prestige and power. The highest annually occurring office in Rome was that of the consul, held by two men each year. In addition to Rome’s various magistrates, there was a powerful advisory body called the senate, as well as citizen assemblies that elected officeholders and voted on proposed laws, trials, and military decisions. Possible subjects/classes Time needed ● Government ● History 30-45 minutes ● Politics ● Philosophy Video link: https://academy4sc.org/topic/the-roman-republic-separation-of-powers/ Objective: What will students know/be able to do at the end of class? Students will be able to... ● Describe the three major areas of the government under the Roman Republic. ● Explain how the Roman Republic incorporated the concept of separation of powers. Key Concepts & Vocabulary republic, cursus honorum, consul, senate, assembly Materials Needed Worksheet, computers The Roman Republic: Separation of Powers - History of Global Democracies Series | Academy 4 Social Change Before you watch Turn & Talk: What does the phrase “separation of powers” mean to you? What about “checks and balances?” Have students discuss their answers in small groups.
    [Show full text]
  • El Dualismo Autoridad-Potestad Como Fundamento De La Organización Y Del Pensamiento
    POLIS. Revista de ideas y formas políticas de la Antigüedad Clásica II, 1999, pp. 85-109 EL DUALISMO AUTORIDADPOTESTAD COMO FUNDAMENTO DE LA ORGANIZACIÓN Y DEL PENSAMIENTO POLÍTICOS DE ROMA F. Javier Casinos Mora Universidad de Valencia En el marco de la constitución política romana resulta de singular interés el concepto romano de auctoritas, pues tal concepto, a diferencia del de «poder» en sus manifestaciones de imperíum o potestas, constituye un caracterismo genuinamente romano'. La presencia en la mentalidad romana desde tiempos remotos de este concepto sustancialmente opuesto al de «poder», aunque com­ plementario del mismo, que se proyecta en todos los ámbitos de la vida social y política, será el fundamento de una teoría política que al menos hasta la época imperial descansará sobre el dualismo esencial autoridad-potestad. ' Sintomático de la genuinidad romana de la idea de auctoritas es el hecho de que no existe en griego clásico un término al que se pueda verter satisfactoriamente tal idea. Cuando Dión Casio quiso expresar en griego la idea de auctoritas (Dion Cas. 55, 3, 4) no pudo sino hacer una mera transcripción fonética de dicho término. Cfr R. Heinze, «Auctoritas», Herines 60, 1925, 363-364; A. D'Ors, «Auctoritas, ayoentia, authenticum», Apophoreta Philologica, Mantua 1984,375; y G. Nocera, s.v. «Autoritá», Enciclopedia del Diritto IV, 465. También prueba la genuinidad romana de auctoritas la traducción vacilante de dicho término en la versión griega de las Res gestae divi Augusti (Augus. res gestae 8, 12, 20, 28 y 34). 85 El dualismo autoridad-potestad como fundamento de la organización y del pensamiento..
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen
    PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen The following full text is a publisher's version. For additional information about this publication click this link. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/197438 Please be advised that this information was generated on 2019-09-09 and may be subject to change. Studies ANCIENT HISTORY “THE USURPING PRINCEPS”: MAXENTIUS’ IMAGE AND ITS CONSTANTINIAN LEGACY Abstract: This article deals with self-representation of Maxentius, who ruled over Italy and North Africa between 306 and 312. It focuses on the imagery and language that was distributed through coins and portraits during Maxentius’ reign, as well as their reception under Constantine immediately after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312). It argues that Maxentius revitalized the tradition of a princeps at Rome in order to play upon sentiments of neglect felt at Rome and the time. In coinage, this was most explicitly done through the unprecedented use of the princeps title on the obverse, which initially may Sven Betjes have caused a misunderstanding in the more distant parts of the Maxentian Institute for Historical, Literary and Cultural Studies, realm. The idea of the princeps was captivated in portraiture through visual Radboud University similarities with revered emperors, especially with Trajan, and through [email protected] insertion of Maxentius’ portraits in traditional togate capite velato. When Constantine defeated Maxentius in 312, he took over some of the imagery Sam Heijnen and language that had been employed by his deceased adversary. Constantine, Institute for Historical, Literary and Cultural Studies, too, presented himself as a princeps.
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar of Roman Events
    Introduction Steve Worboys and I began this calendar in 1980 or 1981 when we discovered that the exact dates of many events survive from Roman antiquity, the most famous being the ides of March murder of Caesar. Flipping through a few books on Roman history revealed a handful of dates, and we believed that to fill every day of the year would certainly be impossible. From 1981 until 1989 I kept the calendar, adding dates as I ran across them. In 1989 I typed the list into the computer and we began again to plunder books and journals for dates, this time recording sources. Since then I have worked and reworked the Calendar, revising old entries and adding many, many more. The Roman Calendar The calendar was reformed twice, once by Caesar in 46 BC and later by Augustus in 8 BC. Each of these reforms is described in A. K. Michels’ book The Calendar of the Roman Republic. In an ordinary pre-Julian year, the number of days in each month was as follows: 29 January 31 May 29 September 28 February 29 June 31 October 31 March 31 Quintilis (July) 29 November 29 April 29 Sextilis (August) 29 December. The Romans did not number the days of the months consecutively. They reckoned backwards from three fixed points: The kalends, the nones, and the ides. The kalends is the first day of the month. For months with 31 days the nones fall on the 7th and the ides the 15th. For other months the nones fall on the 5th and the ides on the 13th.
    [Show full text]
  • Expulsion from the Senate of the Roman Republic, C.319–50 BC
    Ex senatu eiecti sunt: Expulsion from the Senate of the Roman Republic, c.319–50 BC Lee Christopher MOORE University College London (UCL) PhD, 2013 1 Declaration I, Lee Christopher MOORE, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 2 Thesis abstract One of the major duties performed by the censors of the Roman Republic was that of the lectio senatus, the enrolment of the Senate. As part of this process they were able to expel from that body anyone whom they deemed unequal to the honour of continued membership. Those expelled were termed ‘praeteriti’. While various aspects of this important and at-times controversial process have attracted scholarly attention, a detailed survey has never been attempted. The work is divided into two major parts. Part I comprises four chapters relating to various aspects of the lectio. Chapter 1 sees a close analysis of the term ‘praeteritus’, shedding fresh light on senatorial demographics and turnover – primarily a demonstration of the correctness of the (minority) view that as early as the third century the quaestorship conveyed automatic membership of the Senate to those who held it. It was not a Sullan innovation. In Ch.2 we calculate that during the period under investigation, c.350 members were expelled. When factoring for life expectancy, this translates to a significant mean lifetime risk of expulsion: c.10%. Also, that mean risk was front-loaded, with praetorians and consulars significantly less likely to be expelled than subpraetorian members.
    [Show full text]