Bring Back the Roman Senate

According to Roman folklore, the Senate was created by Romulus during his supposed reign (ca. 753-716 BCE). The purpose of the Senate was to be the perpetual council of the Republic and consisted of one hundred men who were chosen from among the Patricians. While the size of the Senate would change over time, it reached its greatest role in government during the last century of the Republic (ca. 509-27 BCE).

The word "senate" comes to us, in a roundabout manner, from the Anglo-French senat which is derived from the Latin senatus which itself is a derivative of an even older term, senex (masculine; older, or wiser in age), from which we get terms such as "senior" and "senile." It seems more than appropriate that "senate" and "senile" derive from the same word.

The ancient Romans, having tried the "city-state" and "kingdom" models of government, wanted something with authority but that could be changed as the affairs of government changed over time. In its heyday during the Republic, not just anyone could be a member of the Senate. In order to get the job, you had to meet the job description.

1) You had to be wealthy

All sources agree on this point, but the exact amount given varies. A consensus seems to indicate that a Roman Senator was required to have a minimum personal wealth of at least 400 sestertia (1 sesterium = ~ $50). After the Empire was established by Augustus, he raised the ante to 1,200 sestertia (~ $60,000). In the Roman world, the former figure would be a considerable net worth while the latter would be in Donald Trump territory.

The logic behind this requirement is quite simple: a wealthy Senator could not be tempted to accept bribes of any kind. This would include such things as box seats at the games, meals in the forum, invitations to private orgies, and the use of army chariots to return home on weekends.

2) No one could become a member of the Senate unless they had already served in a magisterium or some other position of responsible public service.

Again, the logic is simple: a prospective candidate had to demonstrate administrative and fiscal competence before he could assume a place in the Senate. In other words, the position of Senator came as the pinnacle of a career in public service.

Although the times of service varied over the course of Roman history such a career would begin with election to the job of quaestor, equivalent to low-ranking civil service position today. From there, promotion or assumption of a higher role was (theoretically) based on merit, with a dose of family connections thrown in. Today this process is reversed, with proving one's merit for the position ranking last in priority.

3) No person under the age of 30 could become a member of the Senate.

Given that the childhood mortality rate in the Roman Republic was around 70%, 30 was late middle age to our way of thinking. If a man had lived long enough, and met the two previous criteria, he could be considered for a seat in the Senate.

By the time of Julius Caesar, the Republic had on thin ice for several years. The popular military commander simply started to believe that he was a favored mortal in the eyes of the Gods, proclaimed himself emperor and no one really cared. Except the Senate, that is, who expressed their displeasure with the turn of events on the morning of March 15, 44 BCE. His nephew, Octavian, changed his time to Augustus and everything went to Hell in a hand-basket shortly thereafter.

I will only note that, in today's world, it would be difficult if not impossible to find a man or woman that the citizens of the Roman Republic would consider fit for the office of senator.