Talk:Senatus consultum ultimum

SCU???

Why not just use the full term, Senatus consultum ultimum? I'm assuming it's just laziness on AC's part. Doktor Waterhouse 13:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but who is AC? Do you mean "anonymous contributor"? —Viriditas | Talk 13:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I meant 'Article creator'. Makes me a bit of a hypocrite, eh? Doktor Waterhouse 13:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This page lists the SCU of the time of the Gracchi brothers as first. What about the SCU of 186 prohibiting the Bacchic rites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.151.122 (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Senatus consultum ultimum , Direct word for word translation is.... Senate Consutlation/consulted (can't remember which), Ultimatum.

senatus consultum de re publica defendenda , Doesn't say a thing about the state, or the republic.

"Senate consulted of concerning public defence".... is the direct english translation of those words. Also used in English / Commonwealth law. In modern english (vulgar?), The Senate has Consulted on the defence of the public / public defence and issued an Ultimatum.

re = concerning. re = the thing concerning <name>. re in modern terms is sometimes spelt res.

("Decree of the Senate on defending the Republic") quote end. Ulitmatum noun, Ulitmata pl. There is no decree, it is an ultimatum, it says ultimatum. A decree is what absolute rulers hand down, or the courts, otherwise known as an order, ie: court order is a decree.

More correctly, An ultimatum is an order without limitation, with threat. "a final demand or statement of terms , the rejection of which will result in retaliation, or a breakdown in relations: Oxford concise Dictonary.

Decree: an official order that has the force of law. a judgement or decision of certain law courts, especially in matrimonial cases: Oxford concise Dictonary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.76.47 (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Senatus consultum ultimum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Looking forward to reviewing this article. Llywrch (talk · contribs) 22:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for my delay in writing this review. Part of it was caused by my being busy with off-wiki business, but part of it was due to my reluctance to provide a negative review of this article. I don't enjoy rejecting articles for GA. You have obviously put in a lot of work on this article; however, as it currently reads, this article does not completely cover the subject well enough to be considered GA quality, & maybe not even B-class.

There are two significant gaps in this article:

1. Near the beginning of the article, it states that "the senatus consultum ultimum... does not have a specific name in the sources". Since there is no specific name or language to define a SCU, how do we know the instances in this article are all of the known ones? I compared the instances in this article against two different reliable sources. One is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. My copy is dated (it's the 2nd edition published in 1970), but its article on the SCU is accurate enough & has a list one could compare the list in this article, & there are a lot of significant differences: there is no mention of the use of the SCU against Tiberius Gracchus; it lists several instances of the SCU being invoked that this article does not mention (such as against Metellus Nepos in 62 BC & against M. Caelus Rufus in 48 BC); & where this article admits that after the assassination of Julius Caesar "four SCUs can be found in the sources" but does not list them, the OCD article lists only 3 (although it mentions its invocation against Dolabella in 47 BC). Another reliable source I consulted was H. H. Scullard's From the Gracchi to Nero (Praeger, 1959). Scullard mentions the SCU several times in this history: he also does not mention the SCU being used against Tiberius Gracchus; he agrees with the OCD article that it was used against Metellus Nepos (62 BC) & M. Caelius Rufus (48 BC); but does not mention its use after 48 BC.

Now I have no problem with the Wikipedia article disagreeing with these standard references, but if the basis for this list were provided (i.e., who developed this list, & why it should be preferred to any other list), I would be more comfortable. It would help to explain the subject to the reader & provide comfort to her/him that this article does cover the subject satisfactorily.

2. I feel the explanation of the SCU is incomplete. It needs not only a more thorough explanation, but better context. First, the SCU is compared to the office of the dictator. One fact of this office (which was no longer in use by 120 BC) is that its primary purpose was to serve in military emergencies. If you look at List of Roman dictators, the majority of its invocations was to respond to military emergencies; it was rarely employed to respond to the conflict of the classes (e.g. patricians vs. plebeians) of the earlier period. As I understand the SCU, its purpose was closer to the 18th century British riot act, or perhaps similar to a government declaring a state of siege -- with the same unpleasant connotations as in the Costa-Gavras movie. One does not need to appoint a dictator to handle a riot or critical threat to the Res publica; having the Senate pass a resolution "that the Senate regarded the situation as critical and, although it did not increase their constitutional powers, it assured them [the magistrates] of the Senate's moral support" (Sullard, From the Gracchi to Nero, p. 38). In short, the Senate asked the government officials to do whatever it took to maintain law & order, even if it meant the fasces became fascism. (BTW, I feel it shows an important weakness in this article that there is no link to the article to either "riot act" or "state of emergency" -- both obviously relevant.)

As for context, I find it surprising that there is no mention of the Late Roman Republic & the problems its citizens faced -- both the Optimates & the Populares. Each was fighting for survival & their wealth (or the lack of). The Senate was the stronghold of the Optimates; the Populares were the advocates of the lower classes, who expressed their dissatisfaction with the status quo thru riots, rebellions & civil disturbances. Thus the SCU was an important tool for the Haves to control the Have-nots. Was the SCU properly or responsibly exercised in these instances? Nothing in this article even touches on this question.

These issues need to be addressed before we look at other criteria concerning GA. -- llywrch (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the very thorough review. I will adress the issues shortly! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I will probably need a couple more days to fix the issues, since I don't have too much time atm. I hope you can grant me that time. I'm quite confident that I can take care of everything. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Take as much time as you need. Even if I were to fail this nomination, you can always renominate this article at a later time without prejudice. -- llywrch (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry, the GA Cup is holding me up quite a bit. I will hopefully be able to address the issues over next weekend. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, your primary GA duty is to finish work on your own nomination; GA Cup should be secondary to that. While doing GA reviews is a great thing, Llywrch's review was posted over four weeks ago, and should be given immediate priority. (You've made over 500 Wikipedia edits since your "I will address the issues shortly" post on July 23.) Whatever time you have left over after finishing work on this nomination can then be poured into the GA Cup. You don't appear to be in any danger of elimination this round... BlueMoonset (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear BlueMoonset, thank you for your comment. This is however, not a matter of priority but of availability. llywrch went through a lot of work for this review, including finding new literature that was not previously available to me. While I am now trying to get my hands on those (and other new) sources, I am nevertheless putting the little time I have on the side to good use and try to get as many GA Cup reviews done as well. As you might see, that is also only progressing slowly. I am positive that I can do a big work-over to the SCU article this weekend. Thank you for your patience, Llywrch! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've finally found some time to make some replies. It took me a while to start looking for the sources you mention. I have now found a copy of Scullard, but it needs to be provided to me from the depository, which might take another few days. I have also checked the article in the third edition of OCD, which is really quite short.
On 1):

• Just because the SCU does not have a name in the sources, that doesn't mean that there is no way that we can know when it was passed and when it was not, since it is always mentioned by a clear phrase, which I give from what Plaumann has destilled from the sources. The question now is wether instances where other words are used could also be the same decree.
• As for the additional instances that OCD gives, I researched them and added a paragraph on them. All of them seem to have been relatively minor, so I will refrain from giving them their own paragraphs (though obviously, everyone is free to expand on them).
• As for the first instance, I added the OCD as another example of researchers who doubt that 131 is a SCU. I believe the article makes it quite clear that this is a subject of debate.

On 2):

• You are right in pointing out that the dictatorship was originally used as a matter of defense against an outside enemy, while the SCU was a measure taken against inner enemies. However, this is not the point of connection that the article is trying to draw. What is happening is that one measure of emergency power was made useless by being put under control by the rights of the people, so another emergency measure came into existence that was set to be able to break these rights, namely the veto and the provocatio. I will probably have to make that clearer. I'll try to rephrase the paragraph.
• I added State of emergency to See also, but not Riot Act, since I felt that modern decrees are too far away from this ancient sort of decree, which is very unlike modern law.
• As for your last paragraph. Yes, I will have to add more context, which I will asap. However, I do not quite agree with your interpretation of the power struggle in late Republican Rome. To say it is about the Haves to control the Have-nots sounds almost like Marxist historiography to me. Both the optimates and the populares were rich senators, so it is not about who has money and who doesn't. It's rather a struggle about the mechanisms and traditions of political fight and discourse. I will try to find a better way to phrase it.

I hope you can bear with me a while longer. I do hope to make the last changes Monday or Tuesday. Since you wrote before we look at other criteria concerning GA, maybe you can give me pointers at what else you found that does not comply with the GA criteria?

Best regards, Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Llywrch: I am very sorry, I do not seem to be able to find the time to make more adjustments at this time. Feel free to fail the review for now. I would be very glad if you would agree to review it again at a later date. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

SCU contra Ti Gracchus

Re section in current article on Ti Gracchus, in part titled First SCU against Tiberius Gracchus, multiple sources say there was no SCU.

• Finley, Politics in the Ancient World (1983) 4 ("the Senate had not issued a 'final decree'") (emphasis in original).
• Arnaldo Momigliano and Andrew Lintott, "senatus consultum ultimum" in Oxford Classical Dictionary (4th ed, 2012) URL ("The decree was first both passed and accepted by the consul in 121 BCE, against C. *Sempronius Gracchus").
• Drogula, "Imperium, Potestas, and the Pomerium in the Roman Republic" (2007) 56 Historia 448 ("the first SCU (used against C. Gracchus)")
• Ernst Badian, "Gaius Gracchus" in Oxford Classical Dictionary (4th ed, 2012) URL:

In 121, with his legislation under attack, Gracchus, supported by Flaccus, resorted to armed insurrection. It was suppressed after the first use of the so-called senatus consultum ultimum.

• Ernst Badian, "Opimius, Lucius" in Oxford Classical Dictionary (4th ed, 2012) URL ("When Gracchus and M. Fulvius Flaccus took to violence, he obtained the first ‘senatus consultum ultimum’ from the senate").

Among others. The given citation to Plutarch Ti Gracch 19 also is not dispositive. Beyond being a primary source that cannot be so easily trusted, it has no mention whatsoever of a senatus consultum ultimum or anything akin to it (dealing with the fact that the term is a semi-modern one). It says, in relevant part:

Nasica demanded that the consul should come to the rescue of the state and put down the tyrant. The consul replied with mildness that he would resort to no violence and would put no citizen to death without a trial; if, however, the people, under persuasion or compulsion from Tiberius, should vote anything that was unlawful, he would not regard this vote as binding. Thereupon Nasica sprang to his feet and said: "Since, then, the chief magistrate betrays the state, do ye who wish to succour the laws follow me."

This statement, which is derived from an archaic way to raise a levy, was not any senatus consultum ultimum insofar as no single member of the senate can just declare "we're going a'killing". Ifly6 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ifly6: Yes, if 133 was a SCU or not is disputed. But that dispute is explained in the article, citing both standpoints. So I do not really understand the problem here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying it's not disputed: there was no SCU. The closest thing is Val Max 3.2.17, which I happen to own relatively modern copy of. There are a few issues with the passage being used to support an SCU. First is the same issue as with Plutarch Ti Gracch 19. Second is that there are clear indications of a "hostile tradition" related there which "greatly overstates" Ti Gracchus' actual aims.

Looking at the specific sources cited, there is similar consensus. The Kafeng article is available absolutely nowhere, the website which claims to publish that journal is dead and the journal has an impact factor so low it's just unlisted. I'm willing to keep it around as a minority view if that article could be produced.

The other citation, Ungern-Sternberg (1970), says no SCU was given, rather than "even if there were one", which is the characterisation of the article's current text. On page 9 (rather than 8, which is what is pinpointed in the article and also gives no mention of the SCU at all), translated by Google translate because I don't read German at all fluently:

Hatte die Afforderung Scipio Nasicas einen entsprechenden Senatsbeschluss zue Folge gehabt, so kann kein Zweifel bestehen, dass dieser einem SCU zumindest sehr nahe gekommen ware: War der Hauptinhalt des letzteren, dass in einer Notlage des staats die alte magistratische Kapitalkoerzition ohne Rucksicht auf das Provokationsrechrt der romischen Burger wiederhergestellt wurde, so lag dies auch in der Konsequenz des Aufrufes Naicas. (hand transcribed)

If Scipio Nasica's request had resulted in a corresponding Senate resolution, there can be no doubt that this would at least have come very close to an SCU: Was the main content of the latter that in an emergency of the state the old magistrate's capital coercion without regard to the provocation right of the Roman burger [citizen?] was restored, this was also a consequence of Naica's appeal.

Ungern-Sternberg also asserts in "The Crisis of the Republic" in Flower (ed), Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic (2014) p 83: "Opimius induced the senate to declare a state of emergency by implementing the first suspension of the constitution (senatus consultum ultimum)". An SCU cannot have been moved against Ti Gracchus if the "first" instance of doing that was in the year of Opimius and Allobrogicus (121 BC).

More generally, the article as a whole takes a overwhelmingly discredited dyadic factionalist approach to Roman politics which, in Gruen's words, obscures rather than enlightens. That approach really should be abandoned in text. Ifly6 (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Rooting around the sources a bit further, I found one source which asserts an SCU was used. The BMCR review then notes "particularly noteworthy errors... [including] p. 124 (the so-called senatus consultum ultimum was not first used in 133, as claimed, but rather in 121...)". Given Drogula also wrote the opposite, quoted earlier, this is not a meaningful defence. Ifly6 (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ifly6: Thank you for your extensive work on this article, it has certainly improved a lot from my attempt a couple of years ago. Do you plan to nominate it for GA? Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't intend to. Now having both done a GA review and done a nomination, I don't think the time investment is worth the benefit. Ifly6 (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ifly6: Too bad! I would like to see some more history content going to GA and FA, eventually Featured Article of the Day. All those battleships are getting a bit boring... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

References