8/3/2019 3066125

1/3

The Workings of the Senate

Le Snat de la rpublique romaine de la guerre d'Hannibal Auguste: Pratiques dlibratives etprise de dcision by Marianne Bonnefond-CoudryReview by: Arthur KeaveneyThe Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 40, No. 2 (1990), pp. 377-378Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3066125 .Accessed: 11/12/2011 14:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3066125?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3066125?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

8/3/2019 3066125

2/3

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 377Nobilior is well known for his looting of works of art from Ambracia. Marcellusbegan the practice, and was criticised by Polybius. An exception was ScipioAemilianus' action in returningworks of art taken from Carthage to the Sicilian citiesfrom which they originated. He was not merely being generous, but deliberatelyplacing himself in the tradition of conflict between Carthage and the Western Greeks,

as well as indulging in imitatio Alexandri,who had returnedto Greek cities works ofart removed by Xerxes.Finally, F. is less sceptical than many about the evidence of Cicero for the friendsof Aemilianus and the influence of Panaetius on them, while Jocelyn's views on therelationship of Roman aristocrats and Greek philosophers (BRL 1977, 323ff.) aredescribed, in a nice turn of phrase. as 'trop systematiquement negatives'.Universityo' Manchester JOHN BRISCOE

THE WORKINGS OF THE SENATEMARIANNE BONNEFOND-COUDRY: Le Senat de la republiqueromaine de la guerre d'Hannibal a Auguste. pratiques deliberatives etprise de decision. (Bibliotheque des Ecoles Franqaises D'Athenes etde Rome, 273.) Pp. v+837+xl; 28 tables, 5 plans. Rome: EcoleFranqaise de Rome, 1989.The short title of this book naturally brings to mind P. Willems' classic work whichis still essential reading for anybody interested in the Staatsrecht. But although Ms.Bonnefond-Coudry cites Willems frequently she leaves us in no doubt (p. 2) that herbook is of a different order, which is hardly surprising considering that a hundredyears separates it from its great predecessor. B.-C. declares that she walks in thefootsteps of L. R. Taylor and C. Nicolet and that following the 'orientations recentesde la science politique americaine' she proposes to present 'la realite objective desphenomenes de pouvoir et des mecanismes selon lesquels fonctionne un systemepolitique'. In other words, the aim is to show how the senate worked. The results willbe published in two books (p. 17), the first dealing with 'les conditions materielles del'activit6 du Senate', the second with the 'seances proprement dites'.This is a big book. Nevertheless, I think it is possible to give the reader some ideaof the range of topics it contains even in a moderate compass.Book 1 is entitled 'Le Senat dans l'espace et le temps civiques' and opens with asection discussing the buildings within and without the pomeriumwhich the senateused and the reason for that choice (pp. 31-197). The second section has as its theme'Le Calendrier des seances'. This attempts to answer a basic question, 'quantle senat se r6unit-il, et pourquoi les seances se tiennent-elles a tel ou tel moment?' (p.199). The investigation begins with an examination of the proportion of meetings heldon the various types of days (e.g. fasti, comitiales). The discussion then moves on toconsider if the activities of the senate obeyed a 'rythme'. Were certain times of theyear given over to certain types of debate, e.g. military questions, religious matters?The difficulties of this kind of investigation are fully acknowledged (p. 261) and thefinal conclusion appears to be that while we may speak of a 'calendrier partiel' orperhaps better of a programme, the senate, at no time, lost its 'disponibilit6' (pp.329-33).We have now come to Book 2 or 'Les Seances du Senate'. The first chapter has as0009-840X/90 $3.00 ? Oxford University Press 1990

15-2

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 377Nobilior is well known for his looting of works of art from Ambracia. Marcellusbegan the practice, and was criticised by Polybius. An exception was ScipioAemilianus' action in returningworks of art taken from Carthage to the Sicilian citiesfrom which they originated. He was not merely being generous, but deliberatelyplacing himself in the tradition of conflict between Carthage and the Western Greeks,

as well as indulging in imitatio Alexandri,who had returnedto Greek cities works ofart removed by Xerxes.Finally, F. is less sceptical than many about the evidence of Cicero for the friendsof Aemilianus and the influence of Panaetius on them, while Jocelyn's views on therelationship of Roman aristocrats and Greek philosophers (BRL 1977, 323ff.) aredescribed, in a nice turn of phrase. as 'trop systematiquement negatives'.Universityo' Manchester JOHN BRISCOE

THE WORKINGS OF THE SENATEMARIANNE BONNEFOND-COUDRY: Le Senat de la republiqueromaine de la guerre d'Hannibal a Auguste. pratiques deliberatives etprise de decision. (Bibliotheque des Ecoles Franqaises D'Athenes etde Rome, 273.) Pp. v+837+xl; 28 tables, 5 plans. Rome: EcoleFranqaise de Rome, 1989.The short title of this book naturally brings to mind P. Willems' classic work whichis still essential reading for anybody interested in the Staatsrecht. But although Ms.Bonnefond-Coudry cites Willems frequently she leaves us in no doubt (p. 2) that herbook is of a different order, which is hardly surprising considering that a hundredyears separates it from its great predecessor. B.-C. declares that she walks in thefootsteps of L. R. Taylor and C. Nicolet and that following the 'orientations recentesde la science politique americaine' she proposes to present 'la realite objective desphenomenes de pouvoir et des mecanismes selon lesquels fonctionne un systemepolitique'. In other words, the aim is to show how the senate worked. The results willbe published in two books (p. 17), the first dealing with 'les conditions materielles del'activit6 du Senate', the second with the 'seances proprement dites'.This is a big book. Nevertheless, I think it is possible to give the reader some ideaof the range of topics it contains even in a moderate compass.Book 1 is entitled 'Le Senat dans l'espace et le temps civiques' and opens with asection discussing the buildings within and without the pomeriumwhich the senateused and the reason for that choice (pp. 31-197). The second section has as its theme'Le Calendrier des seances'. This attempts to answer a basic question, 'quantle senat se r6unit-il, et pourquoi les seances se tiennent-elles a tel ou tel moment?' (p.199). The investigation begins with an examination of the proportion of meetings heldon the various types of days (e.g. fasti, comitiales). The discussion then moves on toconsider if the activities of the senate obeyed a 'rythme'. Were certain times of theyear given over to certain types of debate, e.g. military questions, religious matters?The difficulties of this kind of investigation are fully acknowledged (p. 261) and thefinal conclusion appears to be that while we may speak of a 'calendrier partiel' orperhaps better of a programme, the senate, at no time, lost its 'disponibilit6' (pp.329-33).We have now come to Book 2 or 'Les Seances du Senate'. The first chapter has as0009-840X/90 $3.00 ? Oxford University Press 1990

15-2

8/3/2019 3066125

3/3

its theme, the senatusfrequens, attendance and absences. A number of diverse topicsare considered, the obligation to attend, the powers of the presiding magistrate tocompel such as they were, the Ciceronian notion of attendance as a duty and the waysin which magistrates and senators turned infrequentiato their advantage. There isalso an interesting discussion of the quorum and the reforms Augustus introduced inthis department.Next we have a very long chapter devoted to the life-cycle of the s.c. from itsinception to 'les phases ultimes: mise en forme et enregistrement'. The authorbelieves that three principal stages are discernible: before the relatio, the relatio itselfand the vote. These broad headings harbour a number of separate issues which makeup the whole. For instance, under the relatio we have treated the 'place de l'initiativesenatorielle', while under the vote we have remarkson matters such as, 'l'eliminationde sententiae'. To finish there is also a special consideration of the role of thepresiding magistrate.The last substantial chapter - before the generalconclusion - is concerned with thedistribution of power in the house and the question of who exactly took part in thedecision making process. We begin with the second century and a prosopographicanalysis of individuals and a sociological one of groups. Then it was the seniores whodominated. They are not always easy to define. They are 'reunis par des choixideologiques'. But, though the title is metaphorical it does have a literal origin in aclash of generations at the end of the second Punic War (p. 616). The second part islabelled as 'les mutations de l'epoque Cic6ronienne'. Two characteristics areespecially noted. Contribution to the debate is no longer confined to the upperreaches of the senate and the authority of a senator rests 'moins nettement sur sonanciennete dans le rang qu' il occupe' (p. 617). This leads into an examination of thoseat the top, namely the consulars (as delineated by Cicero) and those at the bottomnamely the pedarii. The author believes (p. 655) that, in the final analysis onlyconsulars and occasionally praetorii deserve to have their role emphasised. The nextsection on the dynamics of decision making is concerned with a study of the wordsauctoritas, voluntasand princeps. The conclusion is reached that auctoritas is all (p.710). The final section examines Sallust's Letter to Caesar (accepted as genuine) withits proposal for reform of the senate.In a work of this size it is almost inevitable that something will be found todisplease everybody. Speaking for myself I cannot say I profited much from thesearch for the 'rythme' of the activities of the senate (pp. 261-328) and I suspect thatsome may query the view taken of Sallust's letter here (pp. 711-48). On the other handI found helpful the discussions of senatusfrequens (pp. 357-438) and the pedarii (pp.655-82). And these are but two examples. In general it may be said that this is a usefuland worthwhile book which contains much that is helpful and informative. Its greatstrengthis that it is firmlybased on the sources. The author is rarely swayed by dogmaor by a priori hypothesis. What B.-C. presents us with is the fruit of her close readingof the ancient authorities. Within the book's chosen scope a wide range of topics iscovered with thoroughness and care.In sum, I would describe this book as a distant descendant of that manual ofsenatorial procedure which Varro once prepared for Pompey. Given its size I doubtif anyone would stuff this tome into the folds of his toga for a quick peek when thedebate hotted up and, if he did, he would hardly be aided by its wordiness, a faultwhich, I may say, the author herself appears to acknowledge (p. 589). However, onthe other hand the scholar who peruses it at leisure will, I believe, benefit from theexercise and learn something of how the senate worked.Darwin College, Universityof Kent at Canterbury

378 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

ARTHUR KEAVENEY