| Politics of theRoman Republic | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||||||||
| 509 – 27 BC | ||||||||||
| Constitution and development | ||||||||||
| Magistrates and officials | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| Senate | ||||||||||
| Assemblies | ||||||||||
| Public law and norms | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Senatus consultum ultimum ("final decree of the Senate", often abbreviated to SCU) is the modern term given to resolutions of theRoman Senate lending its moral support formagistrates to use the full extent of their powers and ignore the laws to safeguard the state.
The decree has been interpreted to mean something akin to martial law, a suspension of the constitution, or a state of emergency. However, it is generally accepted that the senate did not have power to make or provide exceptions to laws. No laws were actually suspended; the senate merely lent its moral authority to defend a magistrate's extra-legal acts.
First used againstGaius Gracchus in 121 BC to suppress a violent protest against repeal of a colonisation law and accepted thereafter, recourse to the decree accelerated over the course of the last century of the republic. Its use was politically disputed, although usually in terms of whether a decree was justified by the challenges facing the state rather than in terms of its overarching legality.
The decree does not have a specific name in the sources, where it is usually mentioned "by quoting what was obviously its opening advisory statements to the magistrate who had it passed".[1] Rather, it is a modern term that emerges fromJulius Caesar'sCommentarii de Bello Civili,[2] in which he writes:
Recourse is had tothat extreme and final decree of the senate...[3]
Caesar coined the term from his tendentious claim that it was passed as a last resort when, in Caesar's words, "the city of Rome itself was already practically in flames and there was despair over the safety of everyone in the state".[4] Since this is the shortest mention of the decree available, "the label... seems to have stuck".[1] The specific phraseology of the senatorial resolution was much longer:
That the consuls, praetors, tribunes of the people, and proconsuls in the city, should take care that the state received no injury.[5]
Earlier versions of the decree may have, however, mentioned only the consul presiding.[6] A minority of modern scholars prefer the namesenatus consultum de re publica defendenda rather than Caesar's coinage.[7]
The decree was a statement of the senate advising the magistrates (usually theconsuls andpraetors) to defend the state.[2]
Thesenatus consultum ultimum was related to aseries of other emergency decrees that the republic could resort to in a crisis, such as decrees to levy soldiers, shut down public business, or declare people to be public enemies.[8]
The decree was seen as permitting the magistrates to use force against public enemies, not necessarily specified in the text of the law, without regard to the law.[2] The decree's impact was mainly in terms of the senate establishing political cover for magistrates to take legally dubious actions.[9] Per Lundgreen in theEncyclopaedia of Ancient History:
Contrary to the (modern) wording and the sometimes assumed notions of certain emergency powers, thes.c.u. should thus not be assessed from a legal perspective but from the point of political rhetoric.[10]
This political cover took the form of a senatorial promise to use itsdignitas andauctoritas to support magistrates executing the decree if they were later prosecuted.[11] The decree was generally the only way for the republic's government to stop political violence in the absence of a police force.[12] Actual enforcement of the decree required "the authorities [to] count on a substantial number of followers in the citizen body" to employ repression: "thus, consensus within the citizenry was a necessary precondition for the implementation of emergency measures, with respect to the physical means of power as well as to the legitimacy [thereof]".[13]
Normally, citizens were protected against the power of magistrates by the right ofprovocatio and the protection of thetribune of the plebs. One of the effects of thesenatus consultum ultimum may have been in directing or convincing the tribunes not to intervene; there are also cases where tribunes actively supported it.[14] The final decree may also have been the senate's instruction that the consuls ignore the laws and use theirimperium (the power of military command) within thepomerium (the boundaries of the city), "overpower[ing] the normalpotestas [civil magisterial authority[15]] of all other magistrates, including that of the tribunes".[16] Because the decree was vague, its specific effects were at the discretion of the magistrates charged with putting it into effect.[17]
The senate itself had no authority to authorise the breaking of laws; it did not do so when moving asenatus consultum ultimum.[18] Its vague decree, rather, urged the magistrates, with substantial discretion, to resolve a crisis; in doing so, it pinned all legal liability for those actions on the magistrates themselves.[18] Passing the decree instead signified that the senate offered its support of the measures taken and that extra-legal measures were needed for the safety of the state.[19]
In the aftermath of the decree's usage, those responsible for the use of force were regularly prosecuted on grounds that citizens had been killed extrajudicially; the defence in the courts then was one of justification.[2] In the first instance, in 121 BC, the consul executing the decree justified his actions in terms of public safety; Cicero in his time may have brought a similar argument inDe legibus in his tagSalus populi suprema lex esto ("Let the safety of the people be the supreme law").[20] By Cicero's time (c. 63 BC), the decree had been legitimised merely by custom and precedent.[20]
There are multiple cases where magistrates or their followers taking actions armed with asenatus consultum ultimum were faced with the prospect of being hauled before the courts in later years:Lucius Opimius,[21]Gaius Rabirius,[22] andCicero[23] being prime examples.[2] The senate, at times, would attempt to use its influence to secure an acquittal of a magistrate charged, or otherwise threaten to declare anyone who brought chargeshostis.[9] Opponents, rather than disputing the validity of thesenatus consultum ultimum in general, rather disputed the need or justification of a specific instance thereof.[24]
Livy asserts that thesenatus consultum ultimum was first used in 446 and 384 BC, but scholars do not read these as actual usages of something akin to thesenatus consultum ultimum of the late republic.[10][25] Modern scholars believe it is likely that these claims are anachronisms inserted into the early republic.[26]
In cases of sedition in Rome, the republic faced a three-fold problem. First, there was no standing army or police force with which to maintain public order. Second, well-protected rights ofprovocatio and tribunician intercession constrained magisterial powers of punishment. Third, the operations of the criminal courts were insufficiently rapid and could regardless be disrupted by armed mobs.[27] Thesenatus consultum ultimum may have emerged naturally as a response to these problems as a means of self-help.Theodor Mommsen, for example, argued that the temporary suspension of legal process was excusable due to its necessity.[17] Gerhard Plaumann agreed and argued that the decrees made such legal lapses less arbitrary.[17]
Its usage in the late republic also was in contrast to the general practice of the early republic to appointdictators to resolve domestic unrest. By the time of the emergence of thesenatus consultum ultimum in 121 BC, the dictatorship had been in abeyance for some time, the last having been appointed in 202 BC.[28] The development of the final decree was likely motivated by the dictatorship's abeyance.[29] That the consuls also were more likely to be in the city due to magisterialprorogation also made empowering the consuls to act more feasible.[30]
Some scholars trace thesenatus consultum ultimum to 133 BC with the killing ofTiberius Gracchus,[10] arguing that the instance meets the criteria of being a senatorial action calling upon the consuls to protect the republic.[31] However, as the consul at the time rejected the senatorial vote and Gracchus was killed by a private citizen (the then-pontifex maximusScipio Nasica Serapio), historians disagree as to whether this qualifies as an actual senatorial decree.[32]
The first official use of the decree was in 121 BC, when the senate passed it againstGaius Sempronius Gracchus (Tiberius' younger brother) andMarcus Fulvius Flaccus.[33][34] It was issued in response to a violent protest held by Gracchus and Flaccus against repeal of legislation to establish a colony at Carthage that they and allies had passed the previous year.[35] In the aftermath, Gracchus, Flaccus, and their supporters were killeden masse as one of the consuls of that year,Lucius Opimius, brought soldiers across the pomerium and laid siege to Gracchus and Flaccus' positions on theAventine Hill.[35]
The following year, Opimius was prosecuted by a tribune for killing citizens without trial,[36] but was acquitted after he justified his actions on the basis of thesenatus consultum ultimum.[35] While this set a precedent that actions taken under ansenatus consultum ultimum were normally free from legal consequence and could be used to justify substantial repression,[37][38] the decree remained controversial and continued to be debated by contemporaries.[39]
It was next used againstLucius Appuleius Saturninus andGaius Servilius Glaucia in 100 BC.[2]Gaius Marius was then one of the consuls. The proximate cause of thesenatus consultum ultimum was Saturninus and Glaucia's assassination of afellow candidate for the consulship at that year's elections[40] and their general usage of political violence to advance factional political interests.[41] Marius raised a militia which besieged Saturninus and Glaucia after they seized theCapitoline Hill. They surrendered after receiving guarantees against summary execution from Marius and were imprisoned in thesenate house, but were then lynched by a mob.[40][42]
Marius' suppression of Saturninus and Glaucia in 100 BC was not quickly forgotten. One of his lieutenants,Gaius Rabirius, was tried twice – both times in 63 BC, decades after the suppression of Saturninus' revolt, – and almost convicted before the trials were disrupted.[22]
A brief and muddled account suggests that asenatus consultum ultimum was moved by the senate, which at the time was under the domination ofLucius Cornelius Cinna's faction, againstSulla shortly beforeSulla's civil war in the year 83 BC.[43]
The next usage well-established was against the uprising ofMarcus Aemilius Lepidus in 77 BC. This marked its normal application not against civil disturbance from within the city but also against external enemies without a direct threat to Rome itself.[2] Lepidus, who was governor of Transalpine Gaul, marched on Rome with an army after his reform programme was blocked by his co-consulQuintus Lutatius Catulus Capitolinus.[44][a] After the senate was convinced at the urging of a senior senator,Lucius Marcius Philippus, that Lepidus' forces were a threat against the stability of the recently established Sullan constitution, they moved thesenatus consultum ultimum and in early 77, Catulus defeated him in battle outside Rome,[b] forcing him to flee to Sardinia, where he was later killed in further fighting.[48]
Following Lepidus' revolt, the final decree was moved again in 63 BC againstLucius Sergius Catilina. Catiline formed aconspiracy to overthrow the government and install himself as consul after being twice defeated in consular elections and having run out of money to finance a further campaign.[50] He then raised an army to pursue his goals by force and proclaimed himself consul after the conspiracy was discovered.[51][52]
Controversially, Cicero, with the backing of the senate, executed a number of the conspirators who were captured in Rome without trial,[53] partly because of his lack of confidence in the courts on which the Sullan republic was based.[54] This was especially questionable because the men Cicero had killed were not actively under arms or amid armed men; both law and custom in such cases would have directed the state first to convict them before having them killed.[55][56]
Cicero was immediately attacked by two of the plebeian tribunes for his death sentences.[57] While he was reprieved for a few years by the senate's voting of immunity and its threat to declare anyone who initiated a prosecution against him a public enemy, he nevertheless was forced into a temporary exile in 58 BC whenPublius Clodius Pulcher passed a new law – overriding the senatorial grant of immunity – sentencing anyone who had put to death citizens without trial to exile.[58]
Thesenatus consultum ultimum was raised again in the following year againstQuintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos, who was then tribune of plebs, andJulius Caesar to suppress their attempts to violently force through a proposal to give the command against the Catilinarians to Pompey.[2][59][60][61] Caesar and Metellus Nepos backed down and their careers continued (they reached the consulship in 59[62] and 57 BC,[61] respectively).[59]
The next instance was in 52 BC, which occurred in a climate of profound political instability. For the last two years, it had been almost impossible to hold regular elections.[63] In 53, the year started without consuls, for there had been no elections, and it proved impossible for seven months to hold elections due to constant street skirmishes between mobs loyal toPublius Clodius Pulcher andTitus Annius Milo and tribunician vetos against election ofinterreges to call elections.[64] The elections for 52 were similarly delayed; in January 52, there were no magistrates in the city, and a chance encounter between Pulcher and Milo led to Pulcher's death by Milo's hand, leading to the burning of the senate house by a mob.[65]
The senate moved thesenatus consultum ultimum and instructed aninterrex, with the support ofPompey and his troops, to restore order[66] and suppress the Clodian and Milonian mobs.[2] Pompey was then elected sole consul to maintain order.[67][68] Order was restored relatively quickly and there were no large-scale extrajudicial killings; Milo was then duly prosecuted for murder under thelex Pompeia de vi in 52 BC.[69]
One of the most famous usages of thesenatus consultum ultimum was against Julius Caesar in 49 BC, after negotiations between him and senate broke down the first week of January that year. While thesenatus consultum was vetoed by tribunes friendly to Caesar, this was ignored, as the senate was convinced that conflict was inevitable.[70] This, along with Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon days later, triggeredhis civil war.[71]
Caesar, for his part, objected to the use of thesenatus consultum ultimum: while accepting its legitimacy in general,[72] he objected more specifically to the use of the decree – which he characterises as a last resort – in the absence of violence in the city and its use to put Caesar-aligned tribunes to flight, enabling the senate to act against him without the tribunes' interventions.[73][74] Caesar's claims were not entirely accurate: there was precedent for passing asenatus consultum ultimum against a target far from Rome; moreover, Caesar's claim that the tribunes were put to flight is debated, for Cicero reports the Caesar-aligned tribunes left without the pressure of violence.[75]
Thesenatus consultum ultimum remained in use during the civil war. It was used to suppress a revolt for debt relief instigated byMarcus Caelius Rufus andTitus Annius Milo in 48, resulting in both their deaths.[76][69] It was used again against civil disturbance instigated byPublius Cornelius Dolabella in 47 BC when he seized theForum in an attempt to force through a law abolishing all debts.[77]Mark Antony, then Caesar'sdictatorial lieutenant, led troops to disperse Dolabella's encampment, which resulted in the slaughter of, reportedly, eight hundred citizens.[78] Dolabella, however, survived and was later pardoned by Caesar.[79]
Following Caesar's civil war, thesenatus consultum ultimum remained in use for a short time until its last recorded use in 40 BC.[d] During the short war between the senate and Antony, Antony was possibly targeted by asenatus consultum ultimum in 43 BC[81] which the consuls,Aulus Hirtius andGaius Vibius Pansa Caetronianus, enforced by marching north and engaging Antony in battle.[82] The consuls marched north with the aid ofOctavian, who had been votedimperium pro praetore and directed to join the consuls.[83]
Although victorious, both consuls were killed in the fighting andOctavian demanded the consulship, which the senate refused; in response, he marched on Rome with his army (adduced by defections from the now-leaderless consular armies).[84] Octavian was then targeted by anothersenatus consultum ultimum which directed the urban praetor –Marcus Caecilius Cornutus – to defend the city, but the remaining forces under the senate quickly defected to Octavian, leading to his irregular election as consul withQuintus Pedius.[84] Whatever the military resources made available to the senate by asenatus consultum ultimum, they were not sufficient to defeat those of the dynasts.[85]
Thesenatus consultum ultimum and political violence were both a symptom and a cause of the weakened elite cohesion that contributed to the fall of the republic.[86] Its use from 121 BC onward signalled a loss of elite cohesion,[87] which would have, with its strong cohesion and norms of collective government, precluded such crises in the first place.[88] Perspectives differ as to the extent to which this displayed senatorial weakness: while use of the senate'sauctoritas in this manner itself implied its insufficiency to restrain seditious behaviour, targets (like Caesar) argued not against the decree's inherent invailidity, but rather its application to their circumstances, showing his at least ostensible need to respect the traditional political culture which placed the senate at the republic's heart.[89]
Moreover, as Harriet Flower argues, "the decree itself, in tone and in effect, seems to subvert the effectiveness of the existing norms of the very republican government that it purported to uphold",[90] adding that its use against Gaius Gracchus and Flaccus in 121 BC set a dangerous precedent that "suggested violence as the logical and more effective alternative to political engagement, negotiation, and compromise within the parameters set by existing political norms".[91]
Some scholars who believe in the factionalist interpretation of Roman politics betweenpopulares andoptimates also frame the decree in terms of the ostensible struggle between the two factions and in terms of an attempt to disguise core sociopolitical disputes as legal arcana.[92] Attempts by older scholarship to paint the so-calledpopulares as opponents of the decree's use, or of the death penalty, are widely rejected as being inconsistent with the evidence of acceptance and use of the decree across the political spectrum. By the post-Sullan period, the use of the decree was both normalised and accepted: Caesar accepted its legality (although he denied its suitability in his situation), as did the late republican historianSallust.[24][93]
the so-calledsenatus consultum ultimum was not first used in 133... but rather in 121