124 Radtki
body,15 and it was rarely called upon to debate important political issues (and
in those rare cases it was its moral support that was sought).16 The late antique
Senate gathered on twenty-five days per year with fifty members required as
the minimum for a quorum. We do not know much about the content of their
meetings, but we possess the verbatim record of the proceedings in the Senate
when the Theodosian Code was promulgated as a body of law in 438, indicat-
ing a detailed procedure of acclamations after the senatorial discussion and
decision-making.17 In the year 446 the Senate was officially given permission
by Theodosius II and Valentinian III to participate in legislative activity, but
it is not certain whether this was simply a token gesture.18 Compared to its
previous role as a constitutional body, the late antique Senate’s political power
was very limited. However, because of its role in the history of the early Roman
republic, the Senate remained an institution that conferred the dignity of tra-
dition and a degree of legitimacy to the state.19 New emperors could exploit
this legitimating role during episodes of a succession crisis. As a consequence,
although the western Roman Senate lacked actual power, it retained consid-
erable political importance during various crises of the 5th century. For the
western Roman emperors after Valentinian III, the Senate became a source of
stability and, next to the army and the eastern Roman emperor, remained an
important legitimating instrument. Magistri militum like Stilicho, Aetius, and
Ricimer were well aware of this and therefore strove for cooperation with the
Senate, and individual actions by certain emperors/magistri militum are known
that strengthened the Senate’s position (e.g. Maiorian withdrew the control
over construction work from the praefectus urbi to give it to the Senate).20
In addition to that, a number of 5th-century emperors were even drawn from
the Roman Senate, e.g. Attalus, Maximus, and Olybrius.21
As John Matthews fittingly observed, “viewing the Roman Senate of the
time of Odovacer and Theoderic, one might have been forgiven for mistaking
15 Henning, Periclitans, p. 271. For a general overview of the western Roman Senate’s
development in Late Antiquity see Henning, Periclitans, pp. 271ff., Näf, Senatorisches
Standesbewusstsein, and Chastagnol, Sénat Romain.
16 Jones, Later Roman Empire, p. 329.
17 Codex Theodosianus (cited hereafter as CTh), Gesta Senatus. For a detailed description of
this record see Jones, Later Roman Empire, pp. 330f. and Demandt, Spätantike, p. 255.
18 Codex Justinianus (hereafter CJ) 1.14.8.
19 Otherwise there would be no explanation for Constantine also establishing a Senate in
his new capital. See Henning, Periclitans, p. 271 and Matthews, Western Aristocracies.
20 Nov. Maiorian 4 (458); Henning, Periclitans, p. 273.
21 This is an observation corresponding to the growing significance of the Senate within
the context of a contracting imperial court newly relocated to Italy, see Gillett, “Rome,
Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors”, pp. 148ff.