www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Roman Senate

Dear friends,

While this has little to do with Christianity or even religion in general, I thought the collective might be able to help me settle a friendly argument between myself and a roommate. Does anyone know what language was spoken in the Roman Senate during the Republic? Was it Greek or Latin? Can anyone point to any sources that point to one or the other?

In Christ,
mikey.

During the early years of the republic I believe it was Greek. Latin was a "New" language for Rome and wasn't really adapted until post Constatine. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mikey Stilts:

>>>While this has little to do with Christianity or even religion in general, I thought the collective might be able to help me settle a friendly argument between myself and a roommate. Does anyone know what language was spoken in the Roman Senate during the Republic? Was it Greek or Latin? Can anyone point to any sources that point to one or the other?<<<

The language of the Roman Senate was always Latin, from beginning to end. The procedings of curial sessions were first recorded in the time of Lucius Corneilius Sulla, ca. 82 BC. Marcus Tullius Cicero published his best Senate speeches as taken down verbatim by his slave Tyro (though he later "polished" them a bit); his "Catalina" gives a good impression of his rhetorical style.

As late as the Third Punic War, Greek was regarded by many in Rome as an effete language, and things Greek were viewed with suspicion as not entirely in keeping with the "mos maiorum". Cato the Censor (who was in fact entirely fluent in Greek) denounced those who affected the Greek tongue and Greek ways as nancy boys (that these included his political enemy Scipio Aemillianus might have had something to do with it). Latin was a manly language for manly men, and no good Roman would be caught dead speaking a sissy language like Greek.

However, Greek was the language of culture and commerce throughout the Mediterranean world, and as soon as Rome's imperial entanglements led to the conquest of Greece, Greek language, philosophy, theater, art, science, and tutors all invaded Rome, so that by the end of the second century BC, all properly educated Roman aristocrats could speak both Latin and Attic Greek. Conquered militarily, Greece culturally conquered her conquerors. The ruling class of the Empire remained bilingual until the fourth or fifth centuries, when the growing isolation of the East and the collapse of the civil authority in the West resulted in a ruling class that was exclusively Latinophrone (with some notable exceptions). In the East, Latin remained the formal language of law and administration until the reign of Heraclius (7th century AD), when Greek was made the official government language. Thereafter, few in the East could speak Latin, and few in the West could speak Greek. This definitely had something to do with the estrangement of the Churches.

[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]

Dear Friends:

Latin was the language, and "StuartK" makes a very concise case in answer to the question.

I remember reading that during a speach given to the Senate by Tiberius, the Emperor used a Greek word and then appologized for using it because there was no Latin equivalent.

I think that I know where you are comming with this question.

Mikey, I hope that you and your friend realize that the New Byzantine Empire considered itself to be Roman and not Greek.

The formal name of the capital was "New Rome" and not Constantinople.

Even the Turks called the Christian Greeks the Roman People.


defreitas

[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: defreitas ]

Friends,

I thank you for your answers. My friend and I still have not come to an agreement on it. He insists it was Greek and I insist it was Latin. One thing I would like to point out is that we are trying to ascertain the official language of the Senate in the pre-Empire Republic. He bases much of his argument on the fact that Greek culture "won the culture war" (his words) and that one of those speeches by Cicero taken verbatim was a plea to make Latin the lingua franca of the law. The fact that the Twelve Tables were written in Latin 400 years prior mean little to him (he's as stubborn as I am). The more I research it, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that there was no "official" language as decreed by the Senate itself. I'd be quite happy to be proven wrong either way. My friend and I tend to get embroiled in these friendly arguments and never quite get past them until there's resolution on one side or the other. I thank you all once again for you answers.

In Christ,
mikey.

PS defreitas, yes, we both know that the Byzantine Empire considered itself Roman.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mikey Stilts:

>>>I thank you for your answers. My friend and I still have not come to an agreement on it. He insists it was Greek and I insist it was Latin.<<<

With regard to the language used in the Senate, you are right, and your friend is wrong. He may be confused regarding the original language of the Church in Rome, which WAS Greek, and did not become Latin until some time around 381, when Pope Damasus I, recognizing that Greek was not understood by many people in Rome, changed the liturgy and Scriptures to the vernacular tongue--Latin.

>>>One thing I would like to point out is that we are trying to ascertain the official language of the Senate in the pre-Empire Republic.<<<

As the proceedings of the Senate were published in Latin, and as the laws promulgated by the Senate were written in Latin, and as Latin was the language of the courts, I think we are on safe ground claiming that Latin was the official language of the Res Publica.

>>>He bases much of his argument on the fact that Greek culture "won the culture war" (his words) and that one of those speeches by Cicero taken verbatim was a plea to make Latin the lingua franca of the law.<<<

That's novel. Wrong, but novel.

>>>The fact that the Twelve Tables were written in Latin 400 years prior mean little to him (he's as stubborn as I am).<<<

Insciptions tell the tale, don't they?

The more I research it, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that there was no "official" language as decreed by the Senate itself.<<<

Nothing in Rome was ever "official". The Senate didn't even actually "legislate" as much as it gave its seal of approval (Senatus consultum) to decrees passed in a variety of ways. Roman "law" was a very loosely arranged set of customs, practices, and decrees that was almost infinitely flexible. Even the concept of Mos Maiorum could be bent according to the needs of the person using it--it he had the auctoritas and dignitas to pull it off. So, I think you are right in saying that there was no "official" language of the Republic, but a Senator who rose to make a speech in Greek rather than Latin would certainly lose face among his fellows, first for putting on airs, second, by departing from the tradition set by the original Patres Conscripti.

>>>I'd be quite happy to be proven wrong either way. My friend and I tend to get embroiled in these friendly arguments and never quite get past them until there's resolution on one side or the other. I thank you all once again for you answers.<<<

I am still curious as to how he came to such a conclusion in the face of all the evidence.

Byzantium: Greek, Roman, Christian

www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/mango.html [fordham.edu]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by traveler:


>>>Byzantium: Greek, Roman, Christian<<<

And way, way cool.

www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/mango.html [fordham.edu]

Cyril Mango, one of the greats.

Dear friends,

Well, my friend finally conceded to the argument, thanks to Stuart's well thought out treatise on the subject AND because of a few emails I got about the subject from doctors of classical studies from around the world. God bless the internet, I tell you! Within 24 hours of emailing a dozen professors from places like UPenn, Duke, and King's College in London, I received three emails back asserting the use of Latin in the Senate, with more coming in. It's quite amazing that little old me with my silly little question can get such a response from distinguished academes so quickly! I thank you all again for your interest and help.

In Christ,
mikey.

Dear Mikey,

Working at a legislature as I do, I've come across an interesting symbol that is apparently derived from the Roman Senate.

Whenever a Senator wished to speak, he raised two fingers, with the thumb and final two fingers joined, just like the Christogram that clergy (and Old Believers) use to trace the Sign of the Cross!

I see legislators raise their hands in this same way today.

In courts, people also placed two fingers in this exact same way on the Bible to indicate that what they have to say is solemnly stated before God.

Isn't that fascinating? I think it's fascinating . . .

You wouldn't know more about that, would you?

In addition, the "Lestovka" or Russian leather prayer rope ends with two triangles at the bottom after the manner of a Roman Senatorial toga.

I've picked up the study of Latin in my old age and have learned so much about the English and French languages as a result.

Ad Fontes!

Alex

Alex,

That is quite fascinating. I shall definitely have to look into that now that I've acquired a number of excellent sources on the Roman Senate. These little arguments I have with my friend have caused both of us to build up quite extensive libraries, and now that we're living under the same roof, the growth is almost ridiculous! I'm curious to see what will set off the next debate about God knows what!

In Christ,
mikey.

One of the best rules of the Roman Senate was its strict order of precedence: junior senators sat at the rear of the chamber (becoming the "back bench"), and could not speak during debates, unless asked or (after a law passed by Sulla) they had been awarded a major crown--Corona Aurius, Corona Civica, Corona Granea--for heroism in battle). All other senators spoke in a recognized order based on seniority and auctoritas. The Consuls spoke first, then the Princeps Senatus, then the Consulars, the Praetors and Protpraetors, then the other magistrates, then the rest. The Princeps Senatus got the last word, before the Consul summed up the debate and called for a division. Of course, the rules were followed in the breach more than the observance towards the end, but while it worked, it worked very well indeed.

Dear Stuart,

Yes, the use of the Coronae and your presentation of that tradition - excellent!

I'm not bragging, but I was granted a personal coat of arms by the Crown in right of Canada for some things that I won't mention (because then I would be bragging ) and one of the symbolic items in my arms is a coronet granted on the basis you outline.

The same rules governing "back-benchers" still apply in the parliamentary system, as you know.

Do you know anything about the use of the two fingers in the Senate?

Alex

Alex, r.e.: "the use of the Coronae" Are you talking about the Mexican beer? Love that stuff and if I had a coat of arms I'd put a bottle on mine too! Hugs Don

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:

>>>and one of the symbolic items in my arms is a coronet granted on the basis you outline.<<<

So, either you were the first man over the walls of the enemy city, or you saved a fellow citizen from the enemy army, or you saved the entire army?

>>>The same rules governing "back-benchers" still apply in the parliamentary system, as you know.<<<

Yeah, but then you get guys like Winston Churchill who think the rules aren't made for them. "We are all worms, but I do believe that I am a glow worm".

>>>Do you know anything about the use of the two fingers in the Senate?<<<

Only the use of two fingers in the second grade.