Severus Posted June 19, 2006 Report Share Posted June 19, 2006 I'd just like to say this board has been a great source of information and discussion. I am glad to have stumbled upon it. My question is this (and I've looked through threads on the forum but couldn't find one that answered it) Can anyone help clarify who was allowed into the senate in regards to Plebians/Patricians? I am sure this question will have different answers depending on the time frame but I have no good sources on this and would like to clarify the info. Also what were the requirements for becoming a magistrate (any part of the cursus honorem) Any good websites or books that might help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted June 19, 2006 Report Share Posted June 19, 2006 You're right... it's highly dependent upon time frame, any in particular in which you are targetting? As for a book... I highly recommend Constitution of the Roman Republic by Andrew Lintott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted June 19, 2006 Report Share Posted June 19, 2006 (edited) A nice description of the cursus honorum can be found here. For a description of public offices, the Little dictionary is also nice. Briefly, for most of Roman history, plebeians were allowed to hold magistracies from the quaestorship to the consulship, which was the requirement for entry to the senate. Far from being excluded, plebeians held the majority of Senate positions from at least the time of Sulla, who raised a great many plebs to senatorial rank. Patricians on the other hand were excluded from holding the tribuneship and many other offices. Between 367 and 300 BCE, laws were passed mandating that at least one of the two consuls, censors, and aediles be plebeian and half of all priesthoods had to be plebeian. Although the Senate was open to freeborn Romans regardless of Patrician ancestry, there were property qualifications for various magistracies. [EDIT: I'm referring to how things stood while the Republic still breathed; after that, a horse could be made senator.] Edited June 19, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted June 19, 2006 Report Share Posted June 19, 2006 Ahh thanks for that little dictionary link Cato, I wasn't familiar with that. It reminds me a bit of the William Smith Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. (Scroll down to the government section for the stuff you are looking for Severus) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted June 19, 2006 Report Share Posted June 19, 2006 I forgot to mention that the classic statement on the constitution of the Roman republic comes from Polybius 6.11.11-6.18.3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted June 19, 2006 Report Share Posted June 19, 2006 ...after that, a horse could be made senator. But NEVER was!! Several "mules" held office under the moribund republic though. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 ...after that, a horse could be made senator. But NEVER was!! Caligula made a horse a senator, but to my knowledge, only humans were senators in the Repubic (although there was this one guy who pretended to be the descendent of Venus). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLavius Valerius Constantinus Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 ...after that, a horse could be made senator. But NEVER was!! Caligula made a horse a senator, but to my knowledge, only humans were senators in the Repubic (although there was this one guy who pretended to be the descendent of Venus). I hope people will understand that Caligula was just joking in contempt of the annoying Senate. He probably was like, "You Senators do nothing but plot against me, even that horse there would be a better and active senator." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Thank you FVC, you took the words out of my mouth!! There is no evidence Gaius ever carried through his "threat" - if it was ever made. But my reference to "mules" was a bad pun on the concept of Marius' "mules" - ie his heavily burdened legionaries, extended to cover his supporters. But if one thinks of the characteristics of a mule as stubborness and stupidity (I know I probably libel mules everywhere) then men like Bibulus might qualify for the term. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotWotius Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Thank you FVC, you took the words out of my mouth!! There is no evidence Gaius ever carried through his "threat" - if it was ever made. But my reference to "mules" was a bad pun on the concept of Marius' "mules" - ie his heavily burdened legionaries, extended to cover his supporters. But if one thinks of the characteristics of a mule as stubborness and stupidity (I know I probably libel mules everywhere) then men like Bibulus might qualify for the term. Phil I'm under the impression that Caligula made his horse a senator, but died before he could make it Consul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.