Senate Procedures for CONIURATIO!

The Catilinarian Conspiracy

The procedures below are based on the handbook of Senate action, but merely outlined the issue for discussion. The relātiō
procedure written by Marcus Terentius Varro in 70 BCE at the itself was always quite brief and followed the pattern:
request of Pompey the Great and quoted by the antiquarian
scholar Aulus Gellius (14.7), writing in the second century CE, Quod bonum felixque sit populō Rōmānō Quiritium,
and on references to Senate meetings in the speeches and letters referimus ad vōs, patrēs conscriptī...
of Cicero.1
and finished with the words:
Convening the Senate
Any magistrate with the ius agendi cum senatu, “the right to Dē eā rē quid fierī placet?
consult the Senate,” could convene the Senate. Only one
magistrate could convene the Senate at any given time and for Debate
our purposes this will be Cicero. Having made his relātiō and any introductory remarks or
proposals he wished to make, the presiding magistrate would
The regular meeting place of the Senate in 63 BCE was the ordinarily open the matter for debate. This was customarily
Curia Hostilia. But the location of a Senate meeting is up to the done by calling each member of the Senate in set order to state
convening magistrate. This is way our meeting is being held in his opinion on the matter.
the Temple of Jupiter Sator. 2
During debate, senators speak the following order (the order
Attendance was that of the official list of senatōrēs (the album senatōrum): 3
Any senator (i.e. anyone whose name was on the list of
senatōrēs which had been compiled by the censōrēs) was 1. Consulēs designātī
entitled to attend any meeting of the Senate. The presiding 2. Princeps senātūs
magistrate could also grant special permission to anyone not 3. Dictatoriī
normally entitled to attend particular meeting of the Senate. 4. Censōrēs designātī
This permission was most commonly given to special guests 5. Censoriī
such as foreign ambassadors. 6. Consulārēs
7. Praetōrēs designātī
Quorum 8. Praetoriī
9. Aediles curules designātī
There was no minimum number of votes required to vote on an
10. Aediliciī curules
ordinary matter for discussion (relātiō) and to pass an ordinary
11. Aediles plebis designātī
senatorial decree (senatus consultum). The presiding magistrate
12. Aediliciī plebis
had the discretion to judge whether the meeting was sufficiently
13. Tribuni plebis designātī
full for meaningful business to be done, and his decision was
14. Tribuniciī plebis
not open to challenge.
15. Quaestōrēs designātī
Preliminaries 16. Quaestoriī
17. Privati (including other offices)
Entry and exit of magistrates: When a magistrate entered or left
the meeting, all in attendance would stand up. They might also It will be noticed that current magistrates have no place in this
stand up on the arrival or departure of any individual to whom order of debate. This is because current magistrates were not
they wished to show particular respect. called upon to give their opinion during meetings of the senate.
Current magistrates could, however, speak without being called
Conduct of the Meeting upon to do so, at any time, subject only to the normal rules of
The presiding magistrate conducted the meeting and had intercessio.
control of its agenda: he sought the advice of the Senate on
whatever matters he brought before it, and the purpose of the Delivering an opinion (Sententia)
meeting was to advise him what to do. When presiding magistrate called upon a senator by name, that
senator was obliged to stand and give some indication of his
Matter for discussion (Relātiō) opinion, even if was simply agreement with another’s position.
The presiding magistrate brought the matter for discussion Once he was on his feet, a member of the Senate was entitled to
(relātiō) before the Senate. He did not propose a specific course speak for as long as he wished without being stopped (although

1 These instructions have been adapted from those found on the website of Nova Roma (www.novaroma.org)

2 The only technical requirements for the meeting place of the Senate were 1.) that the meeting must be within one mile of the city of Rome and 2.) that it must take
place within a consecrated space (templum). Any vote taken in a place which did not meet these two requirements was invalid. Beyond these technical requirements,
practical considerations meant that meetings had to take place in locations where at least 100 people could comfortably sit and move around. The Curia Hostilia was
burned to the ground by the mob mourning the murder of the politician Publius Clodius Pulcher in 52 BCE. Julius Caesar built a replacement, the Curia Iulia.

3 In the late republic presiding magistrates occasionally called certain people earlier than their proper place as a mark of special esteem, but this was unusual.
the presiding magistrate or another magistrate might make a
brief interruption to ask a question or challenge a point). The
only requirement was that he must, usually at the end of his
speech, either make a specific proposal of what should be
done about the relātiō or else express his agreement with the
proposal of a previous speaker.
Responding to a Sententia
If in agreement with a previous speaker, a member of the
Senate might go to sit near that speaker. He might do so not
only when called on to give his own opinion but after hearing
another speaker make a proposal with which he agreed. He
might also move away from a speaker to indicate his
disapproval of that speaker's view. Thus the conclusion of a
speech might be followed by a quite extensive movement of
people from one place to another.
A speech might also be greeted by cheers, heckles or grumbles.
Moreover, senior members of the Senate were sometimes
allowed to return to the debate to respond briefly to speeches
made after they had already spoken. In particular, a speaker
who had himself put forward a proposal might wish to reply to
a later proposal, whether by briefly restating his adherence to
his original view or else by saying that he was changed his
view and now supported the new proposal. Closing of all
debate was at the discretion of the presiding magistrate.
Ending Debate
Once the presiding magistrate had opened debate he was
obliged to continue calling for opinions until he had called on
every last member present at the meeting, and if there was not
enough time for this in a single day then he was obliged to call
a new meeting on a subsequent day to continue the debate. This
interpretation is supported by references in Livy and Cicero to
meetings which went on past sunset and had to be resumed on a
subsequent day, but none of these references state explicitly that
the meetings overran because the presiding magistrate was
obliged to continue to the bitter end; it might equally be that
when sunset came there were still members whose advice the
presiding magistrate wished to hear, and that he therefore
voluntarily chose not to call for a vote on that day. In our game
we will follow this procedure. 4
Voting (Discessiō)
If there was debate on the relātiō, one or more alternative
proposals might be put forward by members of the Senate. The
magistrate had complete freedom in deciding what to do about
these proposals. He could put a proposal to a vote exactly as it
had originally been suggested, or he could make changes to it,
or he could refuse to put it to a vote at all. He could even create
entirely new proposals which had not been discussed during the
debate. The magistrate also had freedom to decide in which
order he would put proposals to a vote, and the result of one
vote might influence his decision about which, if any, proposal
4There is some debate about the convener’s power to limit debate. It has been argued that the presiding magistrate could call a vote (thus ending the debate) at any time
except while a member of the senate was speaking. This would explain why debate was so obviously dominated by the more senior (and thus earlier) speakers; and it
would seem both efficient and logical that, if the presiding magistrate had the power to do without a debate at all (the procedure per discessiōnem), he must also have
had the power to curtail that debate. However, the procedures of the senate appear to have been constructed around a senator's right to speak, rather than around logic
and efficiency, so this argument is not conclusive.
to put forward next. If the presiding magistrate attempted to
push through an unpopular proposal by including it in a single
vote with a number of more popular items, members might
protest by shouting "divide!" ("split it up"). The presiding
magistrate was not obliged to do so, but it seems that he would
often bow to pressure.
Voting was always by separation (discessiō). The presiding
magistrate would read the proposal and then say:
Quī hoc cēnsētis, illuc trānsite; quī alia omnia, in hanc
partem.
At the same time he would indicate where the first group
should go, and where the second. Those supporting the
proposal would normally be told to go over to the person who
had originally made the proposal. The options were either to
support the proposal or not to support it. Abstentions were thus
counted as votes against the proposal.
Voters
All members of the Senate participate in the vote, but the
presiding magistrate does not vote.
Counting
Once the voting members had taken up their positions in the
two parts of the meeting-place, the magistrate either counted or
simply assessed the relative sizes of the two groups, and then
declared:
Haec pars maior vidētur.
There is no evidence that his count could be challenged in any
way. Every now and then, when a result was very close, this
may have allowed the presiding magistrate to choose the result
he preferred, but social and political pressure must in most
cases have been enough to keep presiding magistrates honest in
their counting.
Veto (Intercessiō)
For most of the Roman Republic, a tribune could use a veto
(intercessio) could to block the outcome of the vote by standing
up either during or immediately after the vote and declare:
Intercēdō!
A veto would have the effect of preventing a proposal from
becoming a recommendation of the Senate to a magistrate
(senatus consultum) even if the Senate had voted to approve it.
It would instead become an informal resolution (senatus
auctoritas). It was unclear whether a tribute could veto a
senatus consultum ultimum.