Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A culture of sociability: Popular speech in ancient Rome
(USC Thesis Other)
A culture of sociability: Popular speech in ancient Rome
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
“A CULTURE OF SOCIABILITY: POPULAR SPEECH IN ANCIENT ROME” by Peter O’Neill A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (CLASSICS) May 2001 Copyright 2001 Peter O’Neill R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. UMI Number: 3027760 Copyright 2001 by O'Neill, Peter All rights reserved. ___ ® UMI UMI Microform 3027760 Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. UNIVERSITY OF SO U T H E R N C A LIFO R N IA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007 This dissertation, written by under the direction of hX ?........ Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re quirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ----- Dean of Graduate Studies D a te ........... DISSERTATION COMMITTEE * m E wz “ ................................................. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Peter O’Neill Chair: Prof. T.N. Habinek ABSTRACT A CULTURE OF SOCIABILITY: POPULAR SPEECH IN ANCIENT ROME This dissertation aims to deepen our understanding of the Roman plebs as a political actor through the study of its cultural activity, concentrating on various sites of popular sociability among the urban plebs in the late Republic. Through a study of representations of popular practices, I examine the impact of such activity on the political system at Rome and the strategies developed in response by Roman elites to maintain their moral, intellectual and political hegemony over the rest of the population. Inherent in my approach is a dialectic between a detailed philological and historical examination of textual and material evidence, and a conceptual framework in which such evidence is seen as reflecting ideological struggles for power. The dissertation attempts to contribute to recent debates on whether the Roman Republic can be considered to have been democratic. I argue that the democratic potential of the Roman political system can best be observed in politics that lay outside the political institutions which have traditionally been the focus of Roman historians. The dissertation also contributes to the study of the ideological dimension of Roman literature, with particular attention to class discourses. After a philological examination of circuli and circulatores which demonstrates the contested nature of such sociability, the dissertation looks at compita and at tabemae, the major social and economic sites for plebeian sociability. The study also examines the “Forum crowd” and how sociability and politics in the Forum relate to compita and tabemae. The project reflects a historiographical interest in Roman history writing, examining the origins of Roman History’s focus on political institutions. In particular I examine the social and political contexts of nineteenth- century historiography’s interest in Roman constitutional and institutional history. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Chapter One: Chapter Two: Chapter Three: Chapter Four: Chapter Five: Chapter Six: Chapter Seven: Works Cited Table of Contents Introduction. 1 The Mommsenization of Ancient History: Or the Contradictions of a Nineteenth-Century Radical Liberal. 28 Going Round in Circles: Popular Speech in Ancient Rome. 94 The Compita and Vici: Rome at a Crossroads. 134 Tabemae. 194 The Politics of the Forum 254 Conclusion 299 302 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Introduction I. Roman Democracy The word ‘democracy’ functions on contemporary western and particularly American civilization as a magic spell, and it is probably comforting to discover in another great republic, for who would want to be told that die Roman Republic was able to achieve its lasting military success only because it had never known a democratic government? Jerzy Linderski. This dissertation focuses on what I describe as “popular sociability” in ancient Rome. In very general terms, this project looks at popular culture in its broadest sense, examining a fundamental aspect of that culture--how, where and with what consequences people came together at Rome and interacted. Several long-standing interests have come together in this project. Firstly, and perhaps most fundamentally, this dissertation reflects a concern with the nature of democracy and a conviction that any democracy worthy of the name is built upon a democratic culture which extends to and is reflected in people’s everyday lives. Secondly, the project reflects a dissatisfaction with recent attempts to describe the Roman republican constitution as democratic. This unease with recent Roman history extends to a wider dissatisfaction with the way Roman history has often been conceived. The “democracy at Rome” thesis is primarily associated with Fergus Millar.1 Millar’s revisionist account of the Roman constitution was in many ways framed in opposition to what he saw as the excesses of the Roman prosopographers who had dominated the field of Roman History since the work of Miinzer and whose most important exponents in the English speaking world were Syme, Scullard and Badian 1 See Millar 1984, 1986, 1989, 1995a, 1995b and above all 1998. In the preface to Millar 1998, Millar points out that he is deliberately presenting only one side of the story and that he is hoping to provoke a debate. 1 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (who extended the method to Macedonia with thrilling results in a series of studies of the court of Philip and Alexander).2 Before Millar began his attack, Peter Brunt had already in several articles shown up the excesses of prosopographical history, with its emphasis on clientela and marriage relationships among noble households as essential to an understanding of the Roman political system.3 Millar built upon this work in his attempt to show that the driving factor in Roman politics was not elite connections but rather the populus Romanus as it gathered in the Forum to listen to lawsuits in coronae, to attend contiones and to vote on legislation in the comitia tributa.4 For Millar, as for Polybius, Republican Rome can be likened to a Greek polis with the assembled people possessing sovereign authority and, through its role in legislation, constitutive of the democratic element in the constitution.5 Millar’s work has by no means been unreservedly accepted. German and American scholars in particular have come to the defence of Gelzer and an oligarchic model of Roman politics and have noted how a veneer of popular power can serve to legitimate and reinforce aristocratic authority; moreover, several scholars have pointed to the importance of visual symbols in reinforcing an aristocratic ideology of service and power and in accustoming the people to accept deferentially magisterial 2 See especially Millar 1986: 1 n. 1 for an explicit statement of his opposition to prosopographical approaches. 3 See the essays assembled in Brunt 1988. 4 For the corona see Millar 1998: 41, 178 and 217f. For contiones and the comitia tributa see Millar 1998 passim. See the chapters on the compita and on the Forum for discussion of how democratic the comitia tributa actually was. The comitia centuriata was patently undemocratic, despite several apologetic treatments (see tabemae chapter). Cicero in the de Rep. has Scipio tells how this assembly was designed to give influence to the wealthy, observing the fundamental political principle that the greatest power should not go to the greatest number (2.39). Cf. Scipio’s famous remark at de Rep. 1.43 that when government is carried out by the people their equality is in fact unequal because it acknowledges no degrees of merit. Cf. 1.53. 5 Note that Millar stresses Polybius book 6 in support of his argument for the democratic nature of the constitution. However, note Polybius 23.14 where Scipio is said to be pursuing fame e v 2 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. auctoritas.6 In general, however, criticisms of Millar’s revisionism have largely remained centered on the institutions that Millar focuses on, critiquing Millar for not emphasizing the lack of popular legislative initiative or for denying the importance of the confinement of freedmen into the four urban tribes.7 As I will argue in chapter two, this focus on political institutions can be traced back to Mommsen where it served particular political and social needs. Here I attempt to broaden the debate in two ways. As has been said, scholars have argued that the popular participation that Millar stresses in fact served primarily as a means to legitimate an essentially aristocratic government and to reinforce senatorial authority. In this dissertation, the focus is not so much on the aristocratic manipulation of a popularist ideology as on the discrediting of competing forms of political and cultural interaction that were not very clearly under elite surveillance and control. It is precisely these alternative kinds of political activity and their impact on the Roman political system which I am interested in. dptaTOKpcmKcp noAtTeusiocTi. Cf. Catulus in his speech before the people at Dio 36.32 for Rome as a democracy. 6 Among German historians, note Burckhardt 1990: 89-98, Eder 1991, Holkeskamp 1993 and the collection of essays edited by Jehne 1995, especially Jehne’s introduction (see Jehne 1995: 8 on the people’s symbolic participation in the government of the city). Note Burckhardt 1990: 96: “We are not thereby justified in viewing the relationship of orator to the masses, of speaker to his audience, as the most politically important social connection of the Roman Republic; the impression and dispositions with which both speaker and listener entered the forum were of much more central importance for the results of the political process.” US-based scholars suspicious of Millar’s thesis include Harris 1990 and Gruen 1991. Note Gruen 1991: 267: “The ruling elite fostered the impression of a broader public interest while pursuing its own ends.” For the importance of the visual element, see Gruen 1996 and Bell 1997; also Marshall 1984. For interesting work focusing on the spatial aspects of the Roman political system and their relevance to the question of democracy, see MacMullen 1980 and Thommen 1995. In the United Kingdom, Millar’s work has received a powerful endorsement by Peter Wiseman. See Wiseman 1999: 540: “I think this is one of those books that shifts the onus of proof in a historical debate. Up to now it has seemed self-evident that the Republic was an oligarchy, and to call it a democracy has been to maintain a paradox.” For a more balanced approach see North 1990. Note 18: “The popular will of the Roman people found expression in the context, and only in the context, of divisions within the oligarchy.” See also Lintott 1999: 199. 7 Note the characteristally vigorous statement of Linderski 1995f: 288: "Popular sovereignty without popular legislative initiative is mere fiction.” See the chapters on compita and on the Forum for the question of liberti and their confinement in the urban triibes. 3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Secondly, little attempt is made in discussions of Roman democracy to look at the broader culture. This is a striking contrast with, for example, fifth century Athens, where the radical democracy is seen as pervading all aspects of cultural, social and local life. In my focus on and indeed search for democratic culture, I should make clear the broad debt that I owe to work by the pioneers of British Cultural Studies and of cultural history, scholars such as Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams and E.P. Thompson. These scholars were able to demonstrate a vibrant culture among the British Working Classes, which they considered as fundamental to what Williams, in optimistic mood, described in 1961 as “the Long Revolution,” a gradual spread of social and political power away from the center to an ever-increasing number of people. Hoggart, Williams and Thompson were all interested in a culture which promoted and expressed solidarity as opposed to a bourgeois individualism and, in their very different ways, they focused on the development of cultural forms, particularly those which grew out of the labor movement, which expressed and contributed to an effective class politics. For these intellectuals, it was essential to build upon what they saw as the most positive aspects of this popular culture in order to establish a real democracy where people had real control over their lives, their communities and their country. Of course, ancient Rome is a far cry from industrial Britain and these scholars serve as exempla and open up questions rather than offer a precise theory with which to explain Roman politics and culture. But an approach which learns from this model of Cultural Studies, with its emphasis on the interrelatedness of culture, broadly conceived, and the wider social and political contexts, can, I believe, contribute to questions traditionally dealt with by Roman historians.8 My own work focuses on one particular, 8 See Habinek and Schiesaro 1998 for a collection of essays which takes seriously the interrelatedness of cultural, social and political change. 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. albeit fundamental, aspect of popular culture at Rome. I look at popular interaction and the kinds of cultural activity that this gives rise to. In particular, I examine the discourses that come to surround popular speech and interaction and the kinds of strategies used to accommodate and deal with such cultural activity. I suggest that the Roman elite’s adoption of such strategies to deal with alternative social practices, practices which might indeed be seen as a basis for a local democratic culture, in itself should make us sceptical of any notion of a Rome that was democratic in a meaningful sense. Of course, historians have focused attention in the past on non-constitutional activities, especially on the politics of the theater and the games.9 Indeed, recognition of the importance of ludi was made by Cicero in the pro Sestio, where the orator pointed out that the Roman people made its will known in contiones, in comitia and ludorum gladiatorumque concessu (106). Furthermore Cicero says that the contiones and comitia had degenerated and that it was only at games that the people’s true feelings were known. It is true that the recognition of the theater audience here is a consequence of the fact that Cicero is recalling an occasion when it happened to show support for his cause.1 0 But Cicero also makes clear elsewhere the importance of the theater in particular in Roman political life.1 1 If these arenas for what Gruen describes as “legitimate” expression of popular desires (1974: 447) have been much studied, relatively little work has been done on less formalized expression, on the politics of the everyday: what Maurice Bloch describes as “the reality of social intercourse, people 9 The bibliography is large, but see above all Cameron 1976: 157-192 and works cited in the discussion in the circulus chapter. 1 0 See the Forum chapter for this episode. 1 1 For the political aspect of the theater see e.g. Cic. Att. 14.3.2; Att. 2.19.3; Sest. 120-6. See Tacitus Ann. 1.77 for theatri licentia. See e.g. Gunderson 1996 and Gruen 1992 for the circus and 5 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. saying things to each other, people coming into contact with each other” (1975: 2). This dissertation is interested precisely in this politics of everyday practices, attempting to show how these were accommodated within, served to legitimate, or produced tensions in the broader political system.1 2 Throughout this dissertation, we will see an unease over all but the most formalized social and political gatherings. Here I will mention two passages from Livy which make this theme explicit. Livy, in his account of the debate on the repeal of the Lex Oppia in 195BC, has the consul Cato make clear his concern about uncontrolled communication: equidem fabulam etfictam rem ducebam esse uirorum omne genus in aliqua insula coniuratione muliebri ab stirpe sublatum esse; ab nullo genere non summum periculum est si coetus et concilia et secretas consultationes esse sinas (“I really used to think it a fable, a piece of fiction— that story of the destruction, root and branch, of all the men on that island by a conspiracy of the women. But in fact there is the greatest danger from any class of people, once you allow meetings and conferences and secret consultations," 34.2.3-4). Later in his history, in the account of the uncovering of the Bacchanalian “conspiracy,” Livy has the consul Postumius attack the Bacchanalian cells as against Roman tradition; he says: Maiores vestri ne vos quidem, nisi cum aut vexillo in arce posito comitiorum causa exercitus eductus esset, aut plebi concilium tribuni edixissent, aut aliquis ex magistratibus ad contionem vocasset, forte temere coire voluerunt; et ubicumque multitudo esset, ibi et legitimum rectorem multitudinis censebant esse debere. (Livy 39.15) Your ancestors did not wish that you should assemble fortuitously and rashly: they did not wish you to assemble except when the standard was set up on the citadel and the army was called out for an election, or when the tribunes had proclaimed a council of the plebs, or one of the magistrates had summoned you theater as venues which played an important role in reproducing elite ideology and in guiding public opinion. 1 2 Cf. the research of de Certeau 1984, viewing everyday life, at work, at home, and in leisure, as an oppositional space. 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. to a contio\ and they held that, whenever a large number collected, there should always be a legitimate director of it. As these passages make clear (and many others will be seen in later chapters), the Romans were extremely suspicious of unauthorized meetings of Romans.1 3 And as Cicero makes Scipio say, the Republic is literally the property of the public (res publicd)\ but not every kind of human gathering, congregating in any manner, should be considered a public, only a numerous gathering that is brought together by community of interest and legal consent (de Republica 39). Meetings of the populus Romanus were only welcomed when they were held in official institutions with the presence of a magistrate. As we will see, the official institutions of the Roman state functioned in ways which favored the Roman aristocracy, not least because of the opportunities they provided for the auctoritas of magistrates to be displayed. Respect for magisterial auctoritas was essential for the workings of the Roman political system and for the maintenance of aristocratic power, in part because of the absence in the Republic of any kind of formalized body capable of policing the city.1 4 It is telling that in the de Legibus, the reason Cicero gives for opposing the secret ballot is precisely the fact that it was opposed to the auctoritas of the ‘optimates’ (quis autem non sentit omnem auctoritatem optimatium tabellariam legem abstulisse, 3.34). And in the same work Cicero, in his description of the magistrate as a “speaking law” (magistratum legem esse loquentem, legem autem mutum magistratum, 3.2) extols the imperium of a magistrate as bound up with the dictates of nature. Without this imperium, no house, state or clan can survive, not even the human race, nature or the universe itself (3.2). Cicero goes on to tell how 1 3 There was a particular anxiety about meetings that met at night. See e.g Nippel 1984: 24-5, Nippel 1995: 27-30 and Habinek 1998: 71-2. See also circulus chapter. 7 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. magistrates should be responsible for ensuring that disturbances do not occur at meetings of the peope (3.11 and 3.42).1 5 We are told that a presiding magistrate controls and shapes not only the minds and will of those over whom he presides, but almost their facial expression (voltus) as well (3.40). Interestingly Cicero tells how this influence does not have an impact in the Senate where the senators each command their own attention and do not need to look to a presiding official (non ad alterum referatur animus, sed quise ipse spectari velit, 3.40). Doubtless Cicero here is open to the charge of wishful thinking and of idealism in the face of political turmoil.1 6 But his outlook is indicative of the way in which the Roman aristocrats felt the political system should work, and indeed had worked in the past. And Cicero is remarkably explicit about the nature of popular freedoms and powers. As he says of the libertas which had been bestowed on the plebs: “In fact that freedom was bestowed in such a way that the people were induced by many excellent institutions to acquiesce in the aristocrats’ authority” (quae tamen sic data est, ut multis institutis praeclarissimis adduceretur, ut auctoritati principum cederet, 3.25).1 7 And earlier Cicero told how Publicola, by granting the people a modest amount of freedom, was able to preserve more easily the authority of the leading citizens (2.55). The ideal balance of power, from the 1 4 See Nippel 1984 and 1995. Also Meier 1966: 157-9. 1 5 Cicero says that this concept of magisterial responsibility was an idea of L. Crassus. See Rawson 1971: 86. 1 6 See Millar 1986: 3-4: “We cannot help the plain fact that a high proportion of our evidence derives from the writings of Cicero. But we should read his judgements as reactions to a political system and not as descriptions of it, still less as expressions of the values which actually prevailed in it. Cicero’s conception of the Roman state-or rather his aspirations and hopes for a Roman state dominated by the examples set by the boni and optimates, and controlled politically by the Senate-has had far more success with posterity than it ever had in his lifetime, except for a single decade, or before it.” For a rather different approach to Cicero’s political views, see Brunt 1978: 126-7: "They were articulated so clearly and their practical implications brought out so explicitly, precisely because they were under challenge; men seldom feel the need to state and justify their beliefs when those beliefs are universally shared .. .Nonetheless, the threat to all that Cicero valued was grave." 8 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. aristocratic point of view, is perhaps summed up at de Legibus 3.28. Here Cicero says that a Senate made up of former magistrates is a democratic measure since the people elect the magistrates; however, he immediately adds that if the Senate controls public policy and if the other orders allow the state to be directed by the guidance of the senators, then a constitutional compromise takes place since power is invested in people but authority is in the hands of the Senate.1 8 In Roman thought, then, the power and authority of a magistrate was crucial. As Linderski says, “not by chance did Mommsen begin his discussion of the Roman constitution with the magistratus" (1995f: 288). Popular power was to be tempered by magisterial authority and Roman institutions were such that they were conducive to the performance of this authority. Cicero’s famous comment in the pro Rabirio, that the people should listen only to the opening words of a law that is being read out in order to see if it relates to them {Rob. 14), is indicative of the attitudes of the Roman aristocracy towards popular participation in political institutions. Given such attitudes, Millar’s search for democracy in such locations is, I suggest, misguided. Of course, elite authority occasionally broke down, and we will see examples of this in the course of the dissertation. But usually auctoritas was respected and the veneer of popular power functioned essentially to reinforce aristocratic hegemony.1 9 1 7 See the discussion in the Forum chapter on various ways in which the spectacle of Roman politics enhanced magisterial auctoritas. 1 8 Cf. Syme 1939: 10: “The Senate again, being a permanent body, arrogated to itself power, and after conceding sovranty to the assembly of the People, was able to frustrate its exercise.” 1 9 Bound up with magisterial auctoritas was the religious role of aristocrats. See e.g. Liebeschuetz 1979, North 1986, North 1990: 17 and Rawson 1991b. For a comprehensive account of the Roman ‘constitution,’ see most recently Lintott 1999. The short account at Finley 1983: 84-96 is extremely suggestive. Also Finley 1983: 117ff, Brunt 1988: 12-43, Lintott 1987 and Holkeskamp 1993. Other works will be cited in the course of the dissertation. 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2. Popular Sociability and Popular Speech Abscisa servom quid figis, Pontice, lingua? Nescis tu populum, quod tacet ille, loqui? Martial 2.82 Why, Ponticus, are you crucifying the slave, with his tongue cut off? Do you not know that the people speaks that which he cannot? Of course it was impossible to prevent people gathering and meeting outside of the official political organs. Indeed in many ways Roman life was such that outdoor gatherings were essential, no matter how much anxiety they might cause the elite. Rome’s climate and its often intolerable and overcrowded living conditions would have ensured that a great part of the day was spent outside, and increasingly great structures were erected for public sociability, not least the great imperial baths.2 0 This outdoor life was largely a feature of the plebs, not of the wealthy. As MacMullen says: “The wealthy in their big houses had no need for that; but space occupied by rus in urbe, by pleasure-, vegetable-, and flower-gardens, by peristyles, stables, private baths, and vast reception halls, was space taken from the less fortunate” (1974: 62). Moses Finley argued that the Mediterannean, face-to-face society of Athens, in which people congregated on the streets throughout the city, provided a political education for the citizens of the radical democracy: All provided oporutunities for news and gossip, for discussion and debate, for the continuing political education I stressed earlier. Nor was this an exclusively urban phenomenon. Athenian peasants lived not on isolated farm homesteads but in hamlets and villages, with their village squares, local cult-centres and occasional assemblies with a political life 2 0 See Yavetz 1958, Scobie 1986 and MacMullen 1993 for living conditions in the city. MacMullen 1974: 57-87 is very sensitive to the outdoor culture that conditions in Rome would have produced. Also Pina Polo 1996: 98-9. See e.g. MacMullen 1974: 64: “The street was their livingroom, as for the restaurant-owner it served as an extension of his business premises. In that sense, then, everyone spent his day at work or play in his neighbor’s house.” For the high population density in Rome see MacMullen 1974: 62-3 and also the compita chapter. 10 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. of their own that was linked constitutionally with that of the city-state. (1983:82) But the Roman Republic was a far cry from democratic Athens, and as such it is not surprising to find popular talk seen not as an education in democracy but rather as a cause of anxiety. Of course, mmor and gossip were pervasive in ancient Rome. Indeed Hopkins suggests that certain untrue stories about emperors, such as rumors, predictions and miracles, were the currency of the political system, just as money is the currency of the economic system (1978: xi).2 1 One example from Cicero will suffice here to show the importance of rumor and gossip in the Late Republic. At Phil. 14.10 Cicero speaks of wicked rumors spread in the city by Antony’s men which had caused alarm, and at 14.14 he speaks of gossip alleging that Cicero would come to the Fomm with the fasces. Clearly these rumors proved damaging: Cicero tells how they were spread by the Antonians to bring odium (14.15) and we learn that a contio was called by the tribune Apuleius to attempt to exonerate Cicero of suspicion (14.16).2 2 Cicero goes on to say that the Roman populus notices everything that takes place and that they evaluate (existimant) each of us as they think we deserve (14.19).2 3 Existimatio is perhaps the closest concept the Romans had to ‘public opinion.’ As Yavetz has shown, it was taken seriously and had political consequences, illustrating the importance of unauthorized 2 1 For a striking statement of the political effects of rumor, see Tacitus on Nero’s downfall: Nero nuntiis magis et rumoribus quam armis depulsus {Hist. 1.69). Cf. Cic. Phil. 5.26 for opinio and fama often governing the outcome of civil wars. 2 2 For rumor in Rome see Pina Polo 1996: 98ff, Schatzmann 1974 and Dubourdieu and Lemirre 1997. Note Cicero pro Caelio 38 for the city as a maledica civitas, full of slanders and sermones. Also Cic. Att. 5.5.1 where Cicero asks Atticus for non modo res omnis sed etiam rumores of the city. Cf. Fam. 2.8.1, 3.11.1, and 4.3.1. On the social function of rumor in general, see Kapferer 1990 and Turner 1993. 11 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. communication.2 4 We have seen that aristocratic rale was dependent upon a popularist ideology, and as such what the people were saying and thinking mattered. Here my focus is less on rumors and gossip than on everyday speech more generally. Feeney, in a discussion of free speech in Ovid’s Fasti, writes: “Wherever speech of a public character is at issue in Rome, we find the state systematically involved in marking off appropriate times and places” (1992: 10). But if public speech could to some extent be controlled, private speech was less easy to regulate or to appropriate.2 5 Throughout this dissertation, we will witness a persistent anxiety concerning popular speech and the development of an elite discourse which dismisses such speech by comparing it unfavorably with aristocratic speech, especially with the speech of the trained orator. Bourdieu 1991 has problematized the notion of popular speech, pointing out that speech is always more complex than such a notion suggests and that it only becomes a single unity when it is used as a concept by elites to dismiss what those of a lower social class might have to say. We will see that something similar occurred in Rome. For instance, it is striking that Cicero, writing to his friend Papirius Paetus, pleads that he should be able to adopt a plebeius sermo with him, specifically contrasting such speech with the speech of a iudicium or of a contio (Fam. 9.21).2 6 But as well as developing a discourse in which “popular speech” was denigrated and dismissed, we will also see the Roman elite developing its own style of speech, a speech marked by formal rales which require a certain education and training 2 3 Cf. Phil. 2.9 for a recognition of the importance of existimatio: quid enim me interponerem audaciae tuae, quam neque auctoritas huius ordinis neque existimatio populi Romani neque leges ullae possent coercere. 2 4 Yavetz 1974 and Yavetz 1983: 185-226. See also Habinek 1998: 45-49 for existimatio as fundamental to aristocratic self-definition. 2 5 Feeney 1992: 10 notes that certain festivals offered “prostitutes and low people” a fixed segment of time in which libertas— or licentia— v/as allowed. 12 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. to acquire. Indeed Cicero’s de Oratore has as one of its major purposes the goal of showing that eloquence is dependent not on natural talent and practice, as Quintus suggests, but on the trained skill of educated men.2 7 3. Outline of the Dissertation. I begin with a historiographical introduction. Rather than simply surveying relevant scholarship, I look at the social and political background to Roman History’s traditional focus on institutional and constitutional history. The most influential Roman historian was Theodor Mommsen and it is his Romische Staatsrecht which more than any other historical work has set the agenda for scholars of Roman history. Yet Mommsen’s focus on Roman institutions and Roman law served social and political needs that were peculiar to nineteenth-century Germany. In particular I locate his scholarship within a context of German liberalism and attempt to show that the type of history that Mommsen wrote survived long after the social circumstances which had produced it were altered. As nineteenth-century German liberalism became entangled and compromised in a rising tide of nationalism, so did the scholarship which it produced. But I suggest that such compromises were provoked not only by support for a nationalist agenda, but also out of anxiety concerning the rise of mass politics. The chapter surveys several kinds of history writing which were excluded as a result of the dominance of German historiography and also looks ahead to twentieth century Roman history writing and at the major alternative to institutional history, 2 6 On class differences in Roman speech, see e.g Bloomer 1997, MacMullen 1966 and 1974: 194 n. 58, and Palmer 1988: 151. See especially the circulus chapter. 13 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. prosopography, a school of history writing which, I argue, was also in part a response to concerns about the role of the masses in history. Recent developments in Roman History, with their attention to the democratic element in the Roman constitution witness in part a return to the preoccupations of the institutional approach to writing about Rome. More speculatively, I would suggest that this scholarship, along with recent work on the formation and expression of consensus, may also reflect a return to a liberal agenda, this time mirroring the victory of western liberal democracy as the prevailing political ideology and a neo-liberal global order in which the forces of cultural hegemony tend to silence resistant voices.2 8 The general aim of this chapter is to locate my own work within a scholarly tradition. But more specifically it seems useful, at the outset of a study of popular politics in Rome which sees ancient writers’ prejudices and silences as reflecting anxieties about the various activities of the plebs urbana, to see how modem scholars and the most influential historical paradigms have been influenced by fears and preoccupations not altogether different from those whose works they study. After this historiographical essay, I turn to Rome itself and the issue of popular sociability and popular speech. In order to show the importance of this issue, I examine in some detail, relying largely on a philological approach, one aspect of ancient sociability which appears to me to have had significance in Rome: groups of people who gathered in small groups referred to as circuli. Through an examination of how 2 7 See e.g. de Or. 1.5: solesque nonnunquam hac de re a me in disputationibus nostris dissentire, quod ego prudentissimorum hominum artibus eloquentiam contineri statuam; tu autem illam ab elegantia doctrinae segregandam putes, et in quodam ingenii atque exercitationis genere ponendam. 9 C For consensus in the early Principate see Rowe 1997. For a wide-ranging discussion of consensus formation and expression in the Roman Empire, see Ando 2000 especially chapter five. MacMullen 1992 is a good account of some of these resistant voices. Note Purcell 1996: 797-8: "The immemorial paradox between the constitutional inferiority which guaranteed the domination of the oligarchy and a real tradition of free expression, political engagement and actual practical influence." 14 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. this term is used, often in very marked ways, I attempt to demonstrate the contested nature of such sociability more generally and to see the kind of speech that took place at circuli as, like other non-authorized speech, potentially troublesome for a ruling class whose power depended so much on the people respecting deferentially its auctoritas. I also examine the related figure of the circulator and suggest that circulatores were more than simply the popular entertainers that they are described as; they also had a political role in communicating unauthorized news in the city and in the spread of gossip and rumor. Through studying the representation of circuli and circulatores, I try to tease out the anxieties that the culture of sociability of which they were a part caused the Roman elite. In particular, I focus on the representation of the speech of the circuli and of the circulatores which is often compared to the official speech of Roman orators and found lacking. This chapter is more chronologically wide ranging than other chapters which have more of a focus on the Late Republic and Early Empire. This chronological flexibility is necessitated by a need to draw on as much evidence as possible to unpack the significance of these circuli and circulatores in Roman life. But the flexibility is also advantageous in that it shows the longevity of this aspect of popular culture. As comparative studies in pre-industrial societies suggests, popular culture tends to be part of the longue duree.2 9 The next chapter focuses above all on the last generation of the Roman Republic and examines the role of the local neighborhoods, or vici, in Roman life. Central to each vicus was its compitum, the crossroads which was at the center of Roman local life, religion and culture. I begin the chapter by looking at the role of the vici and the Compitalia, the festival which worshipped the Lares Compitales whose 2 9 See Horsfall 1996: 14-15 for the static nature of Roman popular culture. Note also MacMullen 1992: xi: “There is no possibility of following a straight narrative line, since whatever has no success 15 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. cult was centered around the compita, in the violence of the Late Republic. In particular, I identify the group primarily associated with the compita as made up of predominantly slaves and freedmen, and I suggest that much of the street politics of the 60s and 50s centered around issues that were relevant to this group. I also examine here the role of the compita in the formation of a plebeian consciousness and of a plebeian historical tradition. One of the major aims of this chapter is to see the compita as a site for a culture which at times showed signs of being truly democratic, serving the true interests of the people who lived there in contrast to the central institutions which Millar focuses his attention upon in his search for democracy at Rome. It was the genius of Augustus to recognize this democratic element in the culture of the compita, and I also examine in this chapter ways in which he appropriated this local cultural activity as a means of according popular support for his regime, a regime which rested on the ideology of tribunicia potestas. I end the chapter with a discussion of how crossroads and the speech that was associated with them were represented in Roman literature. As with the speech of circuli and circulatores, I point to an elite discourse whose effect was, in part, to render illegitimate modes of speech and political activity which lay outside of the recognized political institutions, institutions favored by and favoring the Roman aristocracy. The compita were, I believe, the major social site for interaction among the urban plebs. The next chapter examines the tabemae, which, along with the officinae, were the major site of plebeian economic activity. I argue that the tabemarii consisted of essentially the same people who were associated with the compita, primarily freedmen and people who were involved in collegia (the association of collegia with compita is made clear in the previous chapter). I argue here that for the urban plebs, has no long succession.” 16 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the economic sphere and the social sphere were interconnected, interconnected in ways which were potentially explosive (a striking contrast to the deliberate distancing of the economic from the social among Roman aristocrats). Like the culture of the compita, the culture of the tabemae was distinctly popular in character and this chapter notes occasions in which tabemae and tabemarii were involved in popular political activity, most famously during the Catilinarian conspiracy and during the period of Clodius’ hegemony over the urban plebs. I end the chapter with consideration of fabula tabemaria, a genre of Roman national drama — fabula togata— which was, I argue, closely bound up with the social world of the segment of the population which I discuss in this chapter and in the chapter on compita. As with the culture of the compita, we find that the street theater associated with tabemae was appropriated and rendered safe by the Roman elite. I also discuss in this chapter ways in which architectural developments in the city gradually separated the economic world of the tabemae from the political institutions of the city. The final chapter attempts to draw connections between the previous chapters and the politics that took place in the Forum. The Forum is the place in which Millar locates Roman democracy, in the populus Romanus assembled at contiones, in coronae and in the comitia tributa in which it voted to pass legislation. However, I argue that these official institutions tended to advantage the Roman aristocracy and that the attempt to see them as democratic institutions where the people could exert its theoretical powers is misplaced. But the Forum was indeed a site where the crowd could exert its will successfully, but it was in contexts of non-constitutional activity that this tended to happen. This chapter also examines the so-called “Forum crowd,” what Christian Meier described as the plebs contionalis, and attempts to show that this crowd was identified as being drawn from a specific segment of the population— the 17 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. tabemarii and theliberti whom we have been discussing. This crowd, it is true, would have attended contiones and other official political institutions. But it also took part in non-constitutional, occasionally violent, activity and, as such, it incited the ire of men like Cicero. I also try to show that we can glimpse evidence of a symbiotic relationship between this Forum crowd and the vici, with both involved in various political activities designed to further the popular cause. Again, then, I suggest that signs of a democratic culture can be seen not in the space of official politics but in areas of Roman life where it is not usually sought. 4. Method The study of Roman popular culture poses severe epistemological and interpretative difficulties. The sources that a Rude can make use of in his studies of the Paris and London crowd (most notably police records) are simply not available.3 0 It is true that material evidence can be illuminating in many ways.3 1 And indeed there have been attempts to approach street activity and several of the issues that this dissertation is concerned with through archaeological means.3 2 Here my approach is primarily to examine literary sources in order to identify the reaction among elites to the aspects of popular culture which I am interested in; through an essentially philological approach I attempt to identify representations of such activity which seem to be marked as 3 0 See e.g. Rude 1959, 1966 and 1971. Also Hobsbawm 1965, Huerrin 1996 and Fox 1997. 3 1 Recent studies of material culture include Joshel 1992 on attitudes to work expressed in occupational inscriptions; Purcell 1995b examining dice games and slogans written on surviving game boards; and recent work on defixiones, e.g. Gager 1992 and Faraone 1990. 3 2 See e.g. Laurence 1995, an attempt to measure the relationship between doorways and graffiti in Pompeii, arguing that the relationship between inhabitants and vistors to the city was more dominant than inhabitant-inhabitant relationships because the highest occurrence of doorways and street 18 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. significant and I try to find traces of anxieties concerning this culture. Epigraphical and material evidence is used mainly to confirm, to challenge or to deepen the understanding of popular practices which emerges from the literary sources. Of course, reading popular culture from elite texts is distinctly problematic. However, in some senses it is primarily representations of such activity rather than the activity itself that interest me, especially in so far as they suggest potential fissures in elite rule. As Whittaker says,"through the terror of the propertied classes, we catch a glimpse of the collective power of the poor, before they sink back into controlled oblivion" (Whittaker 1993: 287-8).3 3 But given the consistency of the representation of popular culture, in texts ranging across a wide chronological period, there is grounds for some confidence that a culture existed among the urban plebs of the kind described, in distorted form, in our sources. This confidence is increased when there is material evidence to lend support, as, for example, in the case of inscriptions which allow us to determine the status of magistri vicorum. And comparison with other societies where similar phenomena are observed increases confidence further still.3 4 Of course, literary texts have often been mined for the information about plebeian activities and culture that they offer, as in Horsfall’s recent book which, with messages are found along throughroutes from the city gates to the center of the city. I find such approached to ancient sociability unconvincing. 3 3 For some of the problems in studying popular culture in early-modern England, see T. Harris 1995, especially 10: “Rather than struggling to overcome the limitations of the sources, which might not in the end, be particularly productive, a better approach could be to play to the sources’ strengths. That is, since the sources tell us about the interaction of elite and popular culture, maybe we should make the nature of that interaction the focus of our study rather than the attempt to isolate what was purely popular, which could end up being a futile endeavour.” 3 4 See for example the chapter on circuli for comparisons with Elizabethan England where there was legislation against vagrancy and against slanderous speech. See Fox 1997. Note MacMullen 1992: iv, describing how his book took shape while lecturing on modern European history: “I could assume as a matter of course that among all the people of the Roman empire, as in any population ever, there were bound to be manifestations of choice, meaning deviance, meaning freedom, which the ancient 19 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. great learning, attempts to reconstruct a plebeian culture based largely on the memorization of popular songs.3 5 However, such an approach, while necessary, may not in itself advance either a sociological or an historical understanding of non-elite practices, which is the aim of this dissertation. I attempt here to deepen our understanding of the cultural life of ancient Romans in order to flesh out our understanding of the urban plebs as a political actor.3 6 Peter Wiseman in particular has brought out many aspects of plebeian culture, and my debt to him will be obvious. However, Wiseman tends to treat literary sources as giving a straight-forward access to popular cultural practices. Here I read representations of popular practices as not reflecting a simple reality but as negotiating a response to tensions that such practices create.3 7 It is precisely this dynamic response which gives insight into the importance of such practices in the political system. Also, in the kinds of plebeian cultural activity which he focuses on, Wiseman tends to reproduce elite cultural interests: for instance, establishment took little notice of, and so partly hid from our modern view, or which the establishment tried to suppress, with the same result.” 3 5 Horsfall 1996. Also note the older handbooks of Friedlander 1910, Carcopino 1940 and Balsdon 1969. 3 6 Good work in this area has been carried out by Nicholas Purcell. See for example his attempt to identify a plebeian consciousness (Purcell 1995). Cf. McKibbin 1990 and 1998 for interesting studies of the interconnectedness of culture and class in early twentieth-century England and of the importance of this culture in the broader political system. See e.g. McKibbin 1998 ch. 5 and also 522-3 for elite attempts to bring about a “depoliticized sociability” among the working class. See also the pioneering work of Williams 1958, especially its famous conclusion (1958: 285-323). Note Beik 1977: 266: “The search for popular culture is thus an attempt to bring back to life the missing political and cultural component in the social fabric, the subordinate but omnipresent world of work, service, deference, and resistance with which the ruling elite lived and coped.” 37 See Habinek 1998 for Roman literature as embodying elite strategies to deal with various social, political and cultural anxieties and tensions. My method is explained further in the circulus chapter. Note Fitzgerald on the pseudo-Virgilian Moretum as the only detailed representation of life of the working poor in Latin poetry that is not explicitly framed so as to relate it to some other agenda (1996: 390). See 391-2: "But the poor urban plebs did concern the upper-class Roman to the extent that its desperation might make it eager for revolution; not that writers like Sallust would have acknowledged that destitution drove people to revolt, for their outook was always moral: the lazy plebs wanted something for nothing. The desire to hold the poor criminally responsible for their 2 0 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. his focus on popular theater and on popular poetry recitals. Undoubtedly he is right that these were important aspects of popular culture, but the attention which he accords to them perhaps reflects the interests of Roman elites more than their importance in the broad cultural life of the city. Finally, there is perhaps a tendency in his writing to attempt to merge elite culture with popular culture. For instance, he emphasizes the people’s interest in, for example, the poetry of Lucretius; he sees Catullus as having an alternative career as a popular mime writer, and he envisions Roman poets as trying out their works on popular audiences before producing a final version.3 8 By contrast, I tend to emphasize the gulf between non-elite and elite culture and to see this gulf as serving the political interests of the elite. I should speak briefly about my use of Livy, whose account of early Rome has proved to be important to my argument, especially in the chapters on circuli and on the Forum. In general, I see Livy’s narrative as performing a mythic function, describing a body of stories which were of cultural significance to the society for which it was produced. This is particularly the case in the earlier books of Livy, whose historicity is more questionable than later books where the historian could make use of contemporary sources such as Polybius. The first Decade of Livy was probably written during the Triumviral period and the first years of Augustus’ regime. As such, I see its account of the violence of the Regal period and the Stmggle of the Orders as negotiating anxieties and tensions produced during the turmoil of the late Republic, the Civil Wars and the transition to the Principate. This is often obvious in specific revolutionary potential led the Roman upper classes to produce idyllic images of a contented and self- sufficient poverty, almost always rural" (e.g. the portrayal of Philemon and Baucis in Ovid Met. 8). 3 8 For Lucretius, see Wiseman 1974 and 1987c: 271. For Catullus see Wiseman 1985a and for trial audiences for poetry see 1987c: 271. For the latter, Wiseman cites Cicero de Off. 1.147. However, Dyck ad loc. shows that Cicero here is merely recommending that poets need the judgement of others, not necsessarily that of the vulgus. 21 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. episodes. For instance Livy’s account of the three early populares, Sp. Cassius, Sp. Maelius and Manlius Capitolinus, is clearly representative of a Roman tradition which invented stories around these figures, stories which worked out and explored concerns about popularis activity from the Gracchi onwards. Indeed it is striking that each of the three early populares were associated with a popular issue which was to cause revolutionary turmoil in the late Republic: land (Cassius), grain (Maelius) and debt (Manlius).3 9 Livy’s narrative, then, reflects a tradition of story-telling in which the Romans assured themselves of what should be the correct response to and punishment of such provokers of sedition. But as well as such specific episodes, I will argue more generally that the shaping of Livy’s narrative as well as seemingly insignificant details and unspoken assumptions in the text can tell us much about the response of Romans to the crisis of the Late Republic. Of course, Livy is not inventing everything he writes as a reponse to contemporary turmoil. But the sources he follows for the early period of Roman history had already described events and institutions in ways that reflected the period in which they were writing. For instance, Gabba has shown how the early history of collegia was described in terms which responded to the involvement of collegia in the violence of the Late Republic by stressing their original function of maintaining the cohesiveness of the state (Gabba 1984). Finally, it will be helpful to define more clearly who are the subjects of this dissertation. My general belief is that, in the Republic, Rome was governed essentially 3 9 On these figures (and also Appius Claudius) see Lintott 1970, associating them very closely with Gracchan politics. Note also their association with the Gracchi by Cicero de Rep. 2.49. See also Seager 1977 and Wiseman 1987a: 293-6, arguing at 295 that the names of these figures are “patently aetiological,” but pointing out that there may have been certain events in the historical record which provoked these stories. For instance a famine which may have been recorded as taking place in 440 (Cato fr. 77P) might have led to the invention of the Maelius episode. See also Vasaly 1999 for Livy’s presentation of the Quinctii as ideal moderatores rei publicae who use popular oratory in a way that serves the interest of the State as a whole rather than in a divisive fashion. 22 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. by an aristocracy consisting of a relatively small number of plebeian and patrician families.4 0 This aristocracy was open, with difficulty, to outsiders, especially to members of the municipal nobility, but in general it was self-perpetuating. Moreover the very effort involved in entering this inner circle tended to acculturate outsiders very firmly in aristocratic values and the aristocratic belief system. This aristocracy was by no means always cohesive, but it tended to unite in times when it was threatened and, through its control of the Senate, it was able to keep a reasonably firm grip on the running of the state.4 1 The aristocracy formed part of what I describe as the Roman elite, with the nobiles in particular elevated above the rest of society. But I would argue that equites too formed part of this elite, both because of the fact that many of them were members of the same families as senators— indeed many equites were senators in waiting— and because of their wealth, wealth which was recognized politically through the census and their privileged position in the comitia centuriata.4 2 On the whole, the Roman elite overlapped with Cicero’s boni, those who favored the status quo in opposition to popular measures. As Cicero puts it in the de Officiis: neque enim de sicariis veneficis testamentariis furibus peculatoribus hoc loco disserendum est, qui non verbis sunt et disputatione philosophorum sed vinculis et carcere fatigandi, sed haec consideremeus quaefaciunt ii qui habentur boni (“For this is not the place to examine assassins, poisoners, forgers of wills, thieves, and embezzlers, who should be 4 0 See Syme 1939: 10-27. 4 1 See Holkeskamp 1993 for the development of the patrician-plebeian aristocracy as a result of the Struggle of the Orders. See 34 for the importance of the Senate in guaranteeing continuity. For recruitment into the elite, cf. Hopkins and Burton in Hopkins 1983. For the concept of nobilitas, see Shackleton-Bailey 1986 and Burckhardt 1990 upholding Gelzer’s definition of nobility (descendents of a consul) against the attack of Brunt 1982 (who felt that nobiles were the descendents of anyone who had the ius imaginum, i.e. any curule magistrate). Note Linderski 1992: 125: “The senate and the people formed the two parts of the Roman state, and the official denomination senatus populusque Romanus was not only a handy phrase but also an exact description of the political reality with the senate taking precedency over the (theoretically sovereign) populus.” 23 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. tormented not by the words and arguments of philosophers but by chains and prison; rather we should consider what those people do who are considered boni," 3.73).4 3 As Lintott says: "Thus optimates and boni have a common cause, which may be roughly called conservatism, but it is only this which links them. They are too broad a group to be fairly described as a political party, since they might include the whole governing class of Rome” (1999: 174). However, the overlap between the Republican elite and the boni is not perfect. Many of the most prominent enemies of the boni were drawn from the ranks of the Roman elite and indeed from Rome’s most noble families, for instance the Gracchi, Clodius and Caesar. I occasionally refer to the senators and equites as either a ruling or a governing class. In general, I feel that such an application of class terminology to the Roman Republic is not inherently anachronistic. Certainly the Romans themselves thought in terms which cut across the formalized ordines (as in Cicero’s efforts to form a harmonious coalition of senators and equites which would defend the state from the popularist attacks to which it was subjected by Catiline and Clodius). Moreover, we will see below that there are glimpses of a sense of collective identity and a sense of collective intererst among the plebsA A \ and there can be little doubt that the Roman elite, especially at times of crisis, was conscious of its collective interest in uniting to preserve its privileges.4 5 Indeed, at a time when Flavius was 4 2 For equites, see Nicolet 1966 and Wiseman 1987f. 4 3 See Lintott 1999: 173-4 for the boni and for optimates. See 174: “Cicero's terminology reflects that found earlier in the Greek world, where the upper class is usually given names such as the 'handsome and good men’ , 'best men', 'most virtuous' or 'most agreeable men': Thucydides by contrast bluntly talks of the 'powerful' (dunatoi) or 'most powerful.’" See Tatum 1999: 252 n. 3 for bibliography on populares. 4 4 See Purcell 1995 cited above for hints in our sources of a plebeian self-consciousness. 4 5 For a vigorous defence of the category of class for Rome, see Ste Croix 1981; see the more cautious Harris 1988 and Shaw 1984b (a review discussion of Ste Croix). For a vigorous defence of status rather than class as the essential factor in Roman society, see Finley 1983: 1-23. For Cicero’s terminology concerning class and status, see Beranger 1970. Poulantzas 1973: 58-70 is a helpful 24 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. pressing for a bill which would redistribute land to the plebs and to Pompey ’s veterans, Cicero spoke to Atticus of the “army of the rich” who would defend their landed interests from such an attack: is enim est noster exercitus, hominum, ut tute scis, locupletium {Att. 1.19). Cicero goes on to say that he does, however, support the purchase of land, since that would remove the “dregs of the city” {sentina urbis) from Rome.4 6 As for the element of the urban plebs which I consider, I am essentially interested in those who lived in the city, the urban rather than the rural plebs. Like Whittaker, "I am concerned here only with urban poverty; it is better known, sometimes more extreme, and usually more dramatic because it combines all the squalor of city life with the social and political fears of the rich" (1993: 275-6). Within the urban plebs itself I am interested particularly in those who did not identify strongly with aristocratic houses. In the Histories Tacitus divides the people of Rome into two, each of which had a very different reaction to the death of Nero: pars populi integra et magnis domibus adnexa, clientes libertique damnatorum et exulum in spem erecti: plebs sordida et circo ac theatris sueta, simul deterrimi servorum, aut qui adesis bonis per dedecus Neronis alebantur, maesti et rumorum avidi (“The hopes were raised of the section of the people that was upright and attached to the great houses, the clients and freedmen of condemned men and of exiles; the plebs sordida, used to the circus and the theater, and the worst of the slaves and those who, when their possessions had been eaten away, had been fed through the disgrace of Nero, were sad and eager for rumors,” Histories 1.4). It is primarily this plebs sordida, independent of the theoretical discussion of class as the totality of social, economic, political and ideological relations and structures. For class terminology, see also Giddens 1974. 4 6 See Att. 1.13 in the context of the bona dea trial for similar interests being presented not in terms of rich and destitute but rather of boni and improbi. 25 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. aristocracy and forming a potential political power, which will be the focus of the following chapters.4 7 As we will see, this part of the city population (described by Cicero as the sordes urbis et faex, Cic. Att. 1.6) included many people of middling status, unlike the truly destitute who were often forced to rely on handouts from noble families. These middling Romans were often liberti (not least because full citizens tended to receive land allotments in Italy and abroad), and many worked in tabemae and officinae as retailers or artisans. This section of the people was often problematic for the ruling elite, and it had to be appeased by donations of money and above all by grain subsidies. The patronage system, then, bound many of the poorest citizens to noble houses. As such those who identified their own interests with the interests of elites or non-elites did not neatly correlate with a division between rich and poor. Moreover, other divisions in Roman society were not necessarily coextensive with a high-low or a rich-poor structure. For instance there were often tensions between landed and commercial interests in Rome, tensions which can be glimpsed in such legislation as the lex Claudia placing restrictions on the amount of trade a senator could participate in or in Cicero’s confrontations with Cato over the need to offer relief to over-extended publicani.4 * Indeed such tensions may have been embodied by the Forum which originally seems to have been outside the city; and we will observe in the chapter on tabemae tensions between the economic and political activities of the Forum. Elite culture at Rome is sometimes marked as distinct from a rural, landed culture. This is most obvious in pastoral, but it is also found in elegy and other forms of poetry. Ovid, for instance, praises the culture of his day in contrast to the rusticity of the past:.. .sed 4 7 See Yavetz 1965 on this passage. He compares Veil. Pat. 2.3 and App. BC 3.4.6. 4 8 See Lintott 1987: 46-7. 26 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. quia cultus adest, nec nostros mansit in annos / rusticitas, priscis ilia superstes avis (Ars 3.127-8). However, I would argue that this distinction often masks the real function of elite culture which was to distance cultivated Romans above all from the city population for whom acquisition of this culture was beyond their means. The land-city distinction also to some extent divided the plebs, with the rural and the city plebs often having very different demands, as was shown most clearly when the urban plebs turned against Satuminus and Glaucia who had brought in agrarian legislation favoring the rural plebs and the Marians (Appian BC 1.28). But in general, despite such complications, I believe that the distinction between elites and non-elites at ancient Rome is profound and that Romans would in general have been very conscious of their position in society.4 9 4 9 See Yavetz 1988: 141-155 for the terminology used to describe the plebs. Note 154: “In the days of the French revolution, Bamave called by name of peuple all those who did not belong to the aristocracy and bourgeoisie. In a like manner one has to understand the terms plebs, vulgus, etc. as designations of persons who belonged neither to the ordo senatorius nor to the ordo equester, or, in the words of Horace, ‘est animus tibi, sunt mores et lingua fidesque, sed quadringentis sex septem milia desunt: plebs eris’” (citing Horace Ep. 1.1.57-9). 27 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The “Mommsenization of Ancient History”: or the Contradictions of a Nineteenth-Century Radical Liberal Die Wiederbelebung des klassischen Civilrechts in Deutschland ist vollig gleichzeitig mit den Anfangen jener Revolution, welch die Volker Europas zur Freiheit zu fiihren begonnen hat. Theodor Mommsen (1965a: 593) Unter seinem EinfluB stehn alle folgenden; mochten sie ihm zustimmen oder ihn bekampfen, entziehn konnten sie sich ihm nicht. Eduard Meyer (1924: vii) It all begins with Mommsen, of course. A.N. Sherwin-White (1956: 1) 1. Introduction Kenneth Dover, in his highly idiosyncratic autobiography, Marginal Comment, recounts his enthusiasm as an undergraduate at Oxford for the Roman historian Hugh Last. However, he expresses one element of criticism for the historian’s lectures on Roman epigraphy: “He shocked me, though, by beginning a lecture on the newly- discovered Tabula Hebana by saying, ‘The first question a historian should ask is, “What would Mommsen have said about this?”’” (1994: 60). As this anecdote suggests, Mommsen’s influence on the practice of Ancient History has been enormous. In very many ways, of course, his influence has been and continues to be hugely positive. The purpose of this chapter is not to critique in any way Mommsen’s achievement but rather to understand the social context in which some of Roman History’s most powerful scholarly paradigms were created. In particular I will attempt 28 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. to analyse the social and political factors underlying Mommsen’s association of Roman history with the study of the Roman constitution and its public and private law, an association which has proven to be one of his most enduring legacies. This association was outlined by Mommsen himself on several occasions, for instance in a speech of 1874: Ahnlieh verhalt es sich mit dem Studium des Rechts, wobei ich allerdings nicht zunachst die eigentliche Jurisprudenz meine, sondem die Kenntnis des offentlichen Rechts, der Verfassung des betreffenden Staats, die freilich wieder durchaus untrennbar ist von der Kenntnis des Privatsrechts desselben Volkes. Es bedarf der Auseinandersetzung dariiber nicht, dab diese Verfassung und ihren Wandelungen eben die Geschichte selber sind, und natiirlich kann kein Historiker von ihr eigentlich absehen. (1905: 13)5 0 And of all Mommsen’s works, of particular influence among professional ancient historians has been the great examination of Roman public law, the Romisches Staatsrecht, in which Mommsen gives a classic account of Roman political institutions.5 1 As a result, there has been a tendency for subsequent ancient historians, especially in the generations following Mommsen, to place the emphasis of their research and publications on a very narrow notion of what could be considered political history, concentrating on constitutional and institutional issues. It is this focus by the 5 0 Cf. the preface to the second edition of the Staatsrecht: “Die Arbeit wird ja wohl nicht verloren sein; denn zweierlei steht nun einmal fest: keine politische und keine historische Forschung im groBen Stil kann absehen von Rom; und das Studium nicht der pragmatischen oder der dafiir sich gebenden Tradition, sondem das der politischen institutionen fiihrt ein in die Erkenntnis der romische Geschichte” (1952:1.I.xiv). 5 1 Of course one cannot underestimate the influence of Mommsen’s work on projects such as the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum or of his numerous essays. And for a powerful account of the significance of the Romische Geschichte, especially its portrayal of Caesar, cf. Meyer 1922: 324. But as a scholarly exemplum and as a work which has opened up countless areas of debate among later Roman historians, it is surely the case that none other of Mommsen’s works has had such an impact on the practicing ancient historian as the Staatsrecht. 29 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. discipline on constitutional and institutional history that I refer to as the “Mommsenization of Ancient History.”5 2 This “Mommsenization” of the discipline encouraged and intensified a state of affairs in which the classical philologist was interested in a wider range of historical issues than the ancient historian. Caldcr 1988 refers to a correspondence between the philologist Wilamowitz and the historian Eduard Meyer in which the great scholars distinguish the tasks of the philologist and of the ancient historian. Wilamowitz suggests that the philologist pays much greater attention to the ancient texts, and he stresses Quellenforschung, source criticism, more than the historian is accustomed to do.5 3 In reply, Meyer says that the historian stresses Entwicklung, development, by which he means essentially constitutional history, while the philologist interprets das Gegenwartige, the “presence” of a text which, as Calder says, “one can hold in one’s hand” (1988: 172). Of course, the dominant tendency of nineteenth-century German philology was to approach texts through historical method (Turner 1993: 465). As Wilamowitz suggests early on in his career in his famous Zukunftsphilologie, a response to what he saw as Nietzsche’s unhistorical speculation in the Birth of Tragedy, the task is “to grasp all historically produced phenomena in terms of the assumptions of the time in which they were developed, and to see their justification in 52 By the term “Mommsenization,” I suggest that Mommsen’s example was extremely influential on contemporary and subsequent ancient historians. But of course Mommsen reflects a wider historical tradition. For nineteenth century (and later) German history writing in general, cf. Iggers 1983. For the historical theory of Ranke, the most influential and important exponent of political, national history in nineteenth century Germany, see Krieger 1977: 1-20 and Iggers 1983: 63-90. See Raaflaub 1986: 4-5 for the dominance of an institutional and legal approach to Roman history. Also Marshall 1984: 128. 5 3 It was a philologist, Felix Jacoby, who compiled Die Fragmente der Griechischer Historiker, probably the greatest of all contributions to Quellenforschung. Perhaps the most distinguished of all Quellenforscher, Eduard Schwartz, who wrote the famous entries on the Greek historians for the first few volumes of Pauly-Wissowa, was also considered a philologist rather than a historian; Jacoby continued Schwartz’s work for the later volumes. 3 0 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. terms of their own historical necessity.”5 4 The historical method of Classical Philology had led to the ideal of an Altertumswissenschaft, a study of antiquity in all its aspects, and, as Turner says, the “expansionist” nature of philology, most famously advocated by Boeckh in his famous quarrel with Hermann,5 5 had led to a situation in which professorships of Ancient History were more usually held by scholars trained in philology rather than history (1993 pl70).5 6 In order to understand a text historically, the philologist might delve into a wider range of historical issues than the historian, who, after the “Mommsenization” of the discipline, would tend to limit his study to political issues— which tended to be restricted to constitutional issues. As Momigliano says, “when speaking of national history in antiquity one thinks immediately of Mommsen; and the Mommsen of 1880 had by now linked his name to reductive tendencies within national history, because he preferred institutional to political history” (1994: 212). Wilamowitz in his letter to Meyer accepts that study of the constitution and the law (das Rechi) is a crucial, indispensable element of Ancient History, but points out that this is not enough for a full understanding: “das recht ist in der geschichte was die analogie in der grammatik 5 4 Quoted in Nimis 1984: 109. Also cf. Wilamowitz’s famous remarks at the beginning of his History of Classical Scholarship: “and the task of scholarship [Philologie] is to bring that dead world to life by the power of science [ Wissenschaft]— to recreate the poet’s song, the thought of the philosopher and the lawgiver, the sanctity of the temple and the feelings of believers and unbelievers, the bustling life of market and port, the physical appearance of land and sea, mankind at work and play” (Wilamowitz 1982: 1). Also see Usener 1913: 357, commenting on how a philologist’s investigation of a culture’s vocabulary offers access to the whole history of the inner and outer life of a people: “Wenn, wie hier, verschiittete Institutionen ausgegraben werden, so kann das nur durch sorgfaltige exegetische und grammatische Untersuchung des Wortschatze geschehen. In seinem Wortschatze lagert ein Volk die ganze Geschichte seines inneren und auBeren Lebens ab.” 5 5 For a useful account of this quarrel see Selden 1990: 160-166. Selden may, however, stress too much the opposition between Boeckh’s Sachphilologie and Hermann’s Sprachphilologie. Grafton 1997: 87-93 points out that it was precisely Hermann’s interest in a historical criticism that inspired Ranke who attended his lectures in 1814: “He showed the young Ranke how to think as a historical critic: he cautioned him to view traditions of texts with suspicion and to reason about the age and value of sources” (92). 31 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ist. wir wissen ja, dass sie fur die concrete sprachgeschichte und ihre erzeugnisse nich ausreicht, aber was waren wir ohne sie?” (Calder 1994: 115).5 7 Thus there is the odd situation in which even a historian of the phenomenal range of Meyer is to an extent limited in what he deals with, unlike the philologist willing to do whatever it takes to interpret the text in his hand. As Calder says: We find also that the Universalhistoriker, who covers the Orient, Israel, Egypt, Greece and Rome, despite his astonishing breadth, just because he is a Realhistoriker, is confined to that part of a civilization that is less important because it has vanished. Wilamowitz, who knows Greek and Latin and not the languages of the Orient, as a Kulturhistoriker, unexpectedly has a far greater breadth, one that includes politics, arts, literature, religion and philosophy. (1988: 172-3)5 8 This chapter has two major aims. I want to look at some of the things that were lost by the increasing focus within the discipline of Ancient History, after Mommsen, on constitutional politics and history. However, the main body of the chapter attempts to show that this stress on constitutional and institutional history closely reflects German political currents. It is commonplace to see Mommsen’s Romische Geschichte as reflecting the author’s liberalism. It is perhaps less customary to see the later constitutional and juridical studies as reflecting German liberals’ anxieties about socio political currents and movements throughout Europe, and especially in Germany, where the very existence of traditional constitutional and legal authority was being threatened 5 6 A continuing complaint; cf. MacMullen 1989: 243. 5 7 The lower cases are in Wilamowitz’s original letter. 5 8 Cf. Calder 1994: 113: “From a modem point of view Wilamowitz is far more a historian than what American classicists call a literary critic.” At 129 Calder suggests that “Meyer, from Wilamowitz’s point of view, improved with age. This was due in part to his increased interest in the history of religion at the expense of traditional constitutional history .. .To speak with authority about such matters requires familiarity with more than Thucydides. The historian has embraced the Totalitdtsideal of the philologist. A Realhistoriker is on the way to becoming a Kulturhistoriker.” Baehr 1998: 208 cites a remark of Momigliano’s that Meyer was one of the very few German ancient historians who 32 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. by the rise of mass social and political movements. This study attempts to show that Mommsen’s scholarship, which so came to dominate the profession of Roman History, reflects strongly a nineteenth-century liberalism which was full of contradictions and which was becoming increasingly irrelevant in a rapidly- industrializing Germany. Even if Mommsen himself came to reject the compromises that German liberalism was making with the new forces in German political life, nevertheless it seems important to point out how his writings, which form some of Ancient History’s most powerful scholarly exempla, are implicated in what was rapidly becoming an out-dated political ideology. 2. Mommsen, the Constitution, and German Liberalism In his study of Mommsen as a historian, Albert Wucher draws attention to Mommsen’s focus on constitutional issues even when this focus strains reality: In Mommsen’s Werk, so heiBt es hier, komme ein starkes normatives Element zur Geltung; der Historiker stelle den Buchstaben der Verfassung oftmals uber die Wirklichkeit; er erklare, wie die Verhaltnisse sein sollten, nicht zunachst, wie sie tatsachlich waren; er postuliere geradezu die Geltung der Verfassung auch dort, wo die wirkliche Handhabung sie verleugnete. (1956: 37) An obvious instance of this constitutional approach which seems to do less than justice to the historical situation at Rome is Mommsen’s famous thesis in the Staatsrecht that the princeps was essentially a Republican Magistrate and that the Principate was a “dyarchy,” with power shared by the Princeps and the Senate and based upon the support of the Roman people. Mommsen’s legalistic description of the Principate here surely strikes the modem reader as extraordinary: were independent of Mommsen. This suggests the power Mommsen exerted in the profession through 33 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Wie die friihere Republik, so ruht auch der Principat auf der Volkssouveranetat. Alle Gewalten im Staate iiben nicht eigenes Recht aus, sondem stellvertretend dasjenige des Volkes, und der Princeps ist nichts als ein Beamter mehr, und zwar ein Beamter nicht mit einer Machtfulle, die ihn liber die Verfassung stellte, sondem mit einer in die verfassungsmassigen Ordnungen eingefiigten und fest umschriebenen Competenz. (1952: HH.749-750)5 9 The Forward of the Second Edition of 1876 to the second part of the Staatsrecht suggests that Mommsen’s aim was above all to fit the Principate into the schema of Roman Public Law. Mommsen writes that Roman historians depend more than is usually believed on the Roman juristic tradition, and that scholars move among the categories left by the periti iuris publici (HII.v). Mommsen goes on to complain that the Principate has never found a place in the system of Roman Public Law, and he laments that Greek authors such as Appian and Dio falsified affairs since, as a result of their Greek background, they viewed the Principate as a monarchy. By contrast, Mommsen sees the Principate as closely bound constitutionally to the Republic: Dieser Denaturirung gegeniiber ist mein Bestreben gewesen vor allem den Principat des ersten Jahrhunderts in seinem engen Zusammenhang mit der spateren Republik zu entwickeln und die letzte Schopfung der staatsbildenden Kraft der romischen Republik in ihrem ebenso seltsamen wie groBartigen, ebenso individuell romischen wie zugleich das Ende des specifischen Romerstaates bezeichnenden Wesen fur unsere heutige Anschauung verstandlich zu machen. (Ml.vii) For Mommsen, the Principate was less of a break from the Republic than the Dominate was from the Principate (cf. Demandt 1990: 191), a view surely reflecting not political his involvement in and leadership of the vast academic projects organized by the German Academy. 5 9 Cf. Linderski 1995b: 51: “But legal notions are often a poor guide to history, and nowhere is this more glaringly obvious than in Mommsen’s treatment of the institutions of the Principate.” But as Linderski points out, "Mommsen was well aware that the Staatsrecht dealt with the species rerum, but unlike many recent interpreters he also knew that no res exists sine specie" (52). 34 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. reality but rather his belief that the Principate, like the Republic, was a constitutional entity whose legitimacy was ensured by the sovereignty of the people.6 0 Mommsen’s focus on the constitutional problem, at the expense of other factors, strongly reflects the nature of German liberalism in the nineteenth century. As is well known, Mommsen was active politically throughout his life. As a north German Burgher, it was natural that Mommsen should be drawn towards liberalism, a political philosophy which had the advantage for the increasingly self-confident middle classes of stating their own most important values as universal ideals. In the Vormdrz period, the period before the March revolution of 1848, Mommsen was active in Schleswig- Holstein, editing a radical newspaper and opposing Danish claims to these states. In 1848 Mommsen was called to the University of Leipzig and became involved with the German liberals there who were trying to defend the Saxon constitution that had been 6 0 One might compare Mommsen’s famous article on the terminal date of Caesar’s command, the so- called Rechtsfrage (1965b); this paper has of course led to massive scholarly discussion of the constitutional aspect of the origin of the Civil War, though it might be doubted how much such considerations affected Caesar’s and the Senate’s calculations. Yet Mommsen’s basic approach still has followers: cf. Erich Gruen’s account of the origin of the Roman Civil War, especially the last paragraph of his book: “It is fitting that the bewildering wrangle over Caesar’s ratio absentis and its technical ramifications should have precipitated the civil war itself. Both sides rested their public case on an allegedly strict interpretation of Roman law and properties. That fact points up all the more markedly the persistent attention— even when perverted— to constitutional principles and their interpretation. When a crisis developed, it came not from revolutionary action but from dispute about and divergence from traditional procedures. The conventions mattered— they were themselves the agents of tension and conflict that finally engulfed Rome in civil war” (1974: 507). See also Lintott 1999: 213: "It was not so much that Rome's mixed constitution evolved into monarchic demagogy, but that the conflicts of institution and ideology which were built into it created an impasse which led to civil war." We might also view recent work by, for instance, Fergus Millar, which emphasizes the formal importance of the popular element in the Roman constitution, as continuing in the tradition of the Staatsrecht. Note Lintott’s defence of Mommsen’s constitutional take on Roman history: "The study of the constitution should be central to the study of the Roman Republic . . .However, I have also sought to rescue Roman constitutional studies from the stigma of being old-fashioned, smelling of the attic of nineteenth-century scholarship, and out of tune with modem approaches to the analysis of society. It is of course true that the constitutional approach is not the unique route to understanding the way ancient societies worked, but that was recognized by Mommsen, when he was writing the Staatsrecht— a work that is much less narrowly legalistic than is often supposed. And the 35 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. won soon after the revolution of that year began. Mommsen narrowly avoided imprisonment in 1850 for his activity in 1849, and, along with his great friend Otto Jahn, he lost his position at the University of Leipzig and went to Zurich.6 1 In 1854 he returned to Germany with an appointment at Breslau, and in 1857 he was called to Berlin. It was in the Prussian capital that, in 1861, he helped to organize the new Fortschrittspartei, a progressive liberal party which challenged the National Liberals. And after the foundation of the Reich in 1870, Mommsen was involved in politics as a member of both the Landtag and the Reichstag. Mommsen’s politics were complex and will be discussed in more detail below. First, however, I want to look more generally at the importance of constitutional thinking in liberal thought in Germany and elsewhere, and also to examine Mommsen’s legal training and the connection between German juridical thought and liberal politics. Mommsen’s education in law rather than in philology is well-known and his legal background has often been used to explain his attention to legal issues in Rome; in particular his late work on Roman Criminal Law, the Romische Strafrecht, is seen as a return in old age by the historian to the passion of his youth.6 2 However, Mommsen’s legal training carries wider political implications than such an account would suggest and indeed in a speech of 1848 Mommsen passionately described the mission of the student of historical jurisprudence in bringing about needed reform: Die deutsche Nation fordert und fordert jetzt mit groBerem Rechte als je, von ihren Rechtsgelehrten ein einheitliches und nationales Civilrecht. Es ist uns also die Aufgabe gestellt aus jenem ungeheueren Material das Geschichtliche ganz auszuscheiden, das praktische Civilrecht aber in ein same may be said of earlier constitutional studies reaching back to Macchiavelli and indeed to Polybius" (1999: v). 6 1 According to a letter of Mommsen to Otto Jahn of October 11th 1850, he had been sentenced to nine months inprisonment (Mommsen-Jahn 1962: 80). 6 2 Cf. Wilamowitz 1982: 157: “he returned in time to the love of his youth to write, in his eighties, his Roman Criminal Law.” 36 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. systematisches Rechtsgebaude zusammenzufassen, so daB jede einzelne Institution sowohl in ihrer durch historische Studien erforschten Individualitat als im Einklange mit dem ganzen Rechtssystem erscheint und dieses Rechtssystem also zugleich die Quintessenz der historischen Rechtsforschung und der methodische Ausdruck der gegenwartigen Rechtsbegriffe sein wird. (1965a: 587)6 3 Recently, James Whitman has brought out how closely implicated the “last generation of Roman lawyers” was in German politics. Whitman studies the generation of lawyers who entered university in the 1830s, a period in which Friedrich Karl von Savigny was at the height of his prestige and was calling for a revival of Roman law. The corpus iuris was still operative in many of the various German courts and Savigny and others saw Roman law as a means to restore political and legal health to German society (1988: 211). Savigny’s mission was essentially conservative, to maintain German values which were identified with the Volk, the old German village society (1988: 213). After the revolutions of 1848-9, such confidence in traditional German society was harder to find, and, accompanying the beginnings of German industrialization, “materialism” was gaining ground in German thought. This “materialism” was a much vaguer notion than the philosophical concept that was being explored in the thought of Feuerbach and, of course, Marx (who was himself one of the “last generation of German lawyers,” though his career was very different from the lawyers Whitman concentrates on). As Whitman says: Materialism was a vague conviction that one could no longer avoid accepting ‘the modern world’. This ‘modem world’ included hard science, industry and commerce. In politics the materialist ‘modem world’ included the Caesarism of Mommsen and the ‘Realpolitik’ of August von Rochau; it also tended to include some measure of Hegelianism. .. The only feature common to materialist activity was a sense of willing surrender to the forces of change. (1988: 215) 6 3 According to Kiibler, the editor of the volume of Mommsen’s collected works, in which this speech appears, the location and occasion of the speech are not known. 37 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Lawyers such as Mommsen, Bernhard Windschein and, above all, Rudolf von Jhering (author of Geist des romischen Rechts) are seen by Whitman as, unlike the conservative, backward-looking Savigny, attempting to accommodate Roman Law within the new emerging forces in German society; this was seen as the only way to save Roman Law as an institution from being replaced by a modem legal code.6 4 But if Roman law was to maintain its hold in a changing world, it would, as Jhering wrote to Gerber in 1852, need to be invigorated by new historical and legal research; just as biology was in the new age free from Aristotle and Pliny, Roman law must free itself from the authority of Paulus and Ulpian (Whitman 1988: 217). Mommsen’s Staatsrecht and Strafrecht can surely be seen as part of this project. More generally, Whitman sees the classical scholarship of a new generation of scholars after 1848, men such as Curtius and Bemays, as well as Mommsen, as reflecting the prevailing “materialism” in their willingness to see the ancients as “ordinary men” who were not free of base motivations and superstitions, and in their increasing emphasis on physical evidence, in which, of course, Mommsen’s role in collecting, editing and publishing documentary material was unparalleled. As Whitman writes, “the familiar great strides forward of mid-nineteenth century German classical scholarship owed much to the prevailing materialism of the day; odd as it may sound, Pauly’s Reallexicon and Rochau’s Realpolitik were in some sense products of the same intellectual movement” (215).6 5 Even in his writings which were not explicitly on 6 4 Only in 1900, when the German Civil Code was adopted, did Roman Law lose its importance in the German legal system (Whitman 1990: x). As Whitman 1988: 223 says, “ . . .once the Civil Code went into effect, the Corpus Iuris had no more place in German law. German Roman lawyers were condemned to become what Bachofen had wished them to become: classicists.” 6 5 By contrast, cf. Thomas 1951 on the conferences of Classical Philologists in the Vormarz, where the philologists had been concerned to protect their discipline from the rising tide of “materialism.” Cf. especially 72-80 on Friedrich Thiersch’s desire for philologists to champion idealism and to ally their discipline with the existing order. 38 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. juridical themes, Mommsen’s interests are never too far away from a materialist concern with the relevance of Roman law and Roman history to modem society. So, for instance, in the 1850s when talk of a new commercial law code was in the air, Mommsen, according to Whitman, was keen to show that Roman history was relevant to modem commerce and that Roman legal texts were therefore of relevance to commercial relations. Hence Mommsen’s insistence in the Romische Geschichte, written in the mid 1850s, on referring to Roman capitalists.6 6 As Whitman says, this “was quite typical of the 1850s, when lawyers and classicists were desperate to show that antiquity was tough enough to keep its place in modem life” (1998: 220). But it is important to note that it was by no means a new phenomenon for classicists to use ancient law for political ends. The Roman agrarian laws had been earlier studied in an attempt to justify private property, reflecting the anxieties, in a revolutionary era, felt by scholars such as Niebuhr concerning the land question (Momigliano 1994: 230-1).5 7 Mommsen’s legal training and sympathies thus complement his liberal political desire to bring about reform by perfecting legal institutions. I would suggest, however, that while the law was always seen as crucially important to Mommsen, equally important was the related area of the constitution. Indeed nineteenth century liberal thought was obsessed with the importance of constitutional government. Liberals feared nothing more than a truly popular revolution. A repeat of the Reign of Terror was the last thing they wanted and maintaining their privileges was a sine qua non of 6 6 Cf. Marx’s footnote to Book One Chapter Six of Capital attacking Mommsen for such anachronisms: “In encyclopaedias of classical antiquity we find such nonsence as this— that in the ancient world capital was fully developed, ‘except that the free labourer and a system of credit was wanting.’ Mommsen also, in his ‘History of Rome,’ commits, in this respect, one blunder after another” (Marx and Engels 1978: 337). 6 7 Momigliano 1994: 225-251 (a section of his article on “New Paths of Classicism in the Nineteenth Century”) discusses the preoccupation of many major scholars with the issue of Roman land in the nineteenth century. 39 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. liberal politics. But it was recognized that reform was necessary to maintain social order. “Timely reform which would make revolutions unnecessary was the liberal therapy to immunize society against the danger of revolution” (Langewiesche 1992: 98). And liberal proposals for reform always centered on a constitutional government in which the various sections of the State were represented (albeit far from equally).6 8 As Wucher writes: Mit welcher Gloriole hat man doch damals das Wort ‘Verfassung’ umkranzt, und wie hat die liberale Bewegung geglaubt, daB die staatsrechtliche Fixierung des Gemeinschaftslebens alle Problem lose— so sehr, daB die gelegentliche iiberschatzung des erstrebten Grundgesetzes mit seinem Normen geradezu in der Natur der Dinge lag. (1956: 36) This emphasis on the importance of the constitution greatly influenced liberal historians. James McGlew has spoken of a “liberal historiography of revolution,” a consensus among historians who were writing in the period 1830-1880 in their interpretations of such turbulent events as the Reformation, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the French Revolution and the Prussian Reforms. As McGlew says, “all these periods were represented-in terms that now, in the era of social history, look untenably legalistic— as struggles between constitutionally progressive and conservative forces, the former claiming to articulate the Volkswille, the ultimate power of the nation, while the latter comprised the direct ministerial authority of the state” (1986: 425). The crucial and difficult task for historians of revolution was to ask what constituted the success and legitimacy of a revolution. McGlew locates Mommsen’s Romische Geschichte in this tradition and points to the importance of the constitution and the law in the work: 6 8 Cf. Iggers 1983: 93 on German liberals’ attitudes: “Analogous to liberals in England and France at the middle of the century, they generally opposed universal suffrage and regarded socialism and democracy with a great deal of suspicion, although both Mommsen and Gervinus had some sympathy for the idea of popular sovereignty. As in the case of English and French liberals, they saw in constitutional monarchy the best protection of the rule of the law against the despotism of the masses.” 40 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. “They were understood in the Romische Geschichte, rather as the sphere of human innovation and the sole means in a civilized state, whereby dilemmas caused by social and economic conditions could find their solutions, and were therefore, for Mommsen, as for all the liberals of his time, the historian’s principal concern” (432).6 9 Liberals may have preferred to solve social and economic problems through a healthy constitution and legal system rather than through revolution, but nevertheless they were a major driving force in the revolutions that occurred throughout Europe in 1848-9. However, it is tme to say that the majority of those liberals involved in the uprisings were extremely cautious about the events that were occurring and their first act in times of political instability was always to set up a parliament and attempt to bring the revolution under its control.7 0 Not surprisingly, Engels was less than impressed with those liberal “revolutionaries” who made up the famous German Assembly that met in the Paulskirche in Frankfurt in May 1848 to work out the details of a German constitution. They were described by Engels as “an assembly of old women.. .more frightened of the least popular movement than of all the reactionary plots of all the German governments put together” (quoted at Gildea 1996: 95).7 1 Liberal thought can be criticised on several fronts. However, it seems important to distinguish between the Vormarz and the period after the failure of the Revolutions, 6 9 Cf. Wucher 1956: 131 on Mommsen’s vision of Rome as the ideal constitutional state: “Sozusagen das Ideale des Rechtstaates! Das Ideal des Liberalen, der nicht mtide wurde, im immer neuen Wendungen zu betonen und zu bewundem ...” 7 0 See Langewiesche 1992: 98-9 on the revolutions in Germany in 1830, 1848-9 and 1918-9. 7 1 Berger 1997: 28 describes this parliament as a “parliament of professors,” and points out that many of the deputies were historians, for instance Dahlmann and Gervinus. These two historians had belonged to the so-called Gottingen Seven, who had been expelled from the University in 1837 for protesting the suppression of the Hanover constitution and had met subsequently in conferences at Frankfurt in 1846 and Liibeck in 1847 with the aim of establishing a legal path towards constitutional renewal; and in good liberal fashion they had founded a newspaper, the Deutsche Zeitung (Berger 1997: 28; Gildea 1996: 77). Cf. also Iggers 1983: 91, who lists the great ancient historian Droysen as among the members of the Frankfurt Parliament. 41 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. when liberals became more than ever before willing to sacrifice their earlier ideals to a Prussian solution to the German question. As has been said, nineteenth century liberalism never seriously contemplated any kind of radical democracy, preferring representative governments where those with wealth, culture and property would be able to maintain political dominance. However, it is probably true that earlier liberals genuinely believed that progress would enable more and more of the population to enter the ranks of the increasingly self-confident bourgeoisie and that society would become increasingly classless, without too great an extreme of either wealth or poverty. As Langewiesche says of the German liberals: “their message was: become bourgeois and you will become a member of bourgeois society with full political rights. Although the citoyen was to be found at the heart of the liberal conception, he was required to have property and education in order to qualify for the title” (1992: 101). And reformist liberals were keen to offer wider access to education, if not to property. It was only with the rise of more mass-based movements (both socialist and Catholic) in the second half of the century that German liberals lost confidence in their claim to be a universal class and became increasingly reactionary, with liberalism more and more becoming a defensive middle-class movement. As Wolfgang Mommsen writes: There was a further danger for the liberal movement: at the very moment when its battles against authoritarian tyranny or feudal privileges seemed to have been won, it was beginning to lose its political cohesion and its ideological appeal. It could no longer be seen, as it still had been seen in the 1860s, as an emancipatory movement pure and simple, acting on behalf of the interests of the nation as a whole. On the contrary, it was gradually settling into a state of mind where what mattered most was preserving the status quo and passing liberal economic legislation directed against both the right and, increasingly, the left, rather than defending, or indeed extending, what had been achieved in the constitutional sphere. In so doing, liberalism lost its force as a moral cause and became, ineluctably, a mere class-based movement, not only in an ‘objective’ sense but in the eyes of liberals themselves. (1995: 62) 42 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. But if liberalism was flawed because of its inability in practice to extend its values, which it claimed were universal, to the population at large, it was also problematic because of its inextricable association in the German lands with nationalism. This complicity of liberalism with nationalism helped give German liberalism its peculiar character. In the Vormarz, liberal demands were inseparable from national aspirations. This was somewhat inevitable in a Germany where unity was still lacking and where romanticism was such a force. The romantic Humanitatsideal, the belief, fostered by Winckelmann’s studies on Greek sculpture, that each individual had his own spirit which should be developed to its full extent was extended by, for example, Herder to include nations, and this was to prove a particularly powerful idea among a people who had yet to achieve the unity necessary for that spirit to achieve its full potential. This striking association of liberal freedoms with national unification is brought out in a stirring passage from Mommsen’s speech of 1848 in which the young legal scholar emphasized the importance of historical jurisprudence in affecting change: Denjenigen gegeniiber, die das Recht zur Empirie herabziehen, mussen wir ein einheitliches; denjenigen gegeniiber, die das heutige Recht antinational und halb antiquarisch finden, mussen wir ein rein deutsches und gegenwartig praktisches; denjenigen gegeniiber, die in dem heutigen Recht eine Reliquie und ein Werkzeug der Despotie erkennen, mussen wir ein solches Rechtssystem entwickeln, das nicht die Fesselung, sondem die Ordnung der Freiheit ist. Und wenn man uns sagt, daB dies eine freie deutsche Recht erst mit und durch das eine freie Deutschland geschaffen werden kann, so nehmen wir das Omen an und werden am deutschen Lande so wenig wie am deutschen Rechte verzweifeln. (1965a: 581-2) But German liberalism was not only different from other European varieties of liberalism because of its association with nationalism; it was also, like all German thought, influenced by the prevailing idealism.7 2 English liberal historians belonged to a strongly empiricist national tradition, which had been given its philosophical 43 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. underpinning in the Enquiry of Hume with its distinct separation of subject and object, of sense perceptions from the consciousness that receives them. As a result English historians tended to be ready to believe that historical facts were out there waiting to be collected by the enquiring historian.7 3 However German historians had to contend with Kant and Hegel and a more complex view of the relationship between the external world and how it is perceived. Like the Hegelian philosophers, German historians tended to share the Idealist view of history as a rational process with a metaphysical reality lying behind historical phenomena. But, unlike Hegel, they felt that this reality could not be reduced to an underlying rational principle and believed that it could be approached by historical study and historical intuition alone, not by abstract rationality. Thus German historians of a liberal frame of mind tended to see liberal reforms as necessary to the ideal German state that history was bringing about. As Berger says, possibly with some exaggeration of the specific influence of the role of Prussia at this time in the question of German unification, “The Prussian historians had turned politics into metaphysics long before 1848 by judging every event according to what was allegedly historically necessary, ie the building of a German state by Prussia” (1997: 29). In Frankfurt in 1848, the German Assembly took the need for a liberal constitution and united Germany basically for granted; the major debate was whether the new constitutional league would incorporate Austria or not (the Grofideutschland versus Kleindeutschland debate). Fifty years of romantic nationalism had made some kind of German solution inevitable. The Assembly eventually opted for a 7 2 Even German materialism, the least ‘ideal’ of all philosophies, was inspired by and was a reaction to Hegel’s idealist system. 7 3 An approach that was furthered by the positivistic thought of the French philosopher Comte, who was to have a great influence on English liberals such as J.S. Mill. 44 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Kleindeutschland, offering the crown on 28 March 1849 to the Prussian king, on the condition, of course, that he accept a proposed constitution which would set up a Staatenhaus (an Assembly of the German states) and a Volkshaus (a body elected with universal suffrage); the Prussian king would be hereditary emperor with a suspensive but not an absolute veto (Gildea 1996: 95). Friedrich Wilhelm IV refused this offer, saying that he would not “pick up a crown from the gutter” (Millington 1984: 37) and managed to persuade various German princes to unite against the liberal assembly and to act to ensure that any new German federation would be of a distinctly conservative nature. The more radical elements took part in armed uprisings, especially in Saxony and Baden, to defend the Frankfurt constitution, but they were, of course, crushed. Those who were most involved in the 1849 risings included men such as Bakunin, Rockel and Heubner whose socialist and anarchist leanings were far from acceptable to most German liberals. However, Mommsen too continued to play a role and lost his university post at Leipzig for his revolutionary activity in 1849, when he took part in protesting a constitution imposed on Saxony by the Saxon King, replacing the German constitution of 1848-9, and in supporting the subsequent May uprising in Dresden. It is worth noting, however, that Mommsen was not formally exiled, as is sometimes claimed (e.g. Baehr 1998: 173), and his stay in Switzerland was short. In 1854 he was called to a position at Breslau and in 1857 he became a member of the Prussian Academy in Berlin (Heuss 1956: 166). This suggests that Mommsen’s revolutionary activities were not considered particularly dangerous and that it was his position as a university professor that was seen as most threatening. By contrast, the most famous exile from 1848-9, Richard Wagner (who was far from being the leading light in the 1849 rebellion in the other major Saxon city, Dresden), was unable to set foot on 45 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. German soil until 1860, even then receiving only a partial amnesty and being forbidden to return to Saxony (Millington 1984: 68). Following the bitter failure of 1848-9 there was a reaction among many liberals, who were now increasingly to put national aspirations ahead of liberal demands and saw the need for strong leadership to make unification possible. Progressive demands could wait until afterwards. Revolution was seen as too dangerous, threatening the privileges which the middle-classes were willing to spread to others but not lose. Mommsen’s Romische Geschichte, written in the 1850s, is certainly in part a response to what had happened in 1848. As Carr says, commenting on how historians inevitably write about their own times as much as about the past: “I should not think it an outrageous paradox if someone were to say .. .that anyone wishing to understand what 1848 did to the German liberals should take Mommsen’s History of Rome as one of his text-books” (1964: 37). For Carr, Mommsen typifies the idealistic German liberal who became disenchanted by the futile debates made by the revolutionaries in 1848 and saw instead the need for strong leadership. Indeed, Mommsen’s idealized portrait of Caesar is “the product of this yearning for the strong man to save Germany from ruin, and .. .the lawyer-politician Cicero, that ineffective chatterbox and slippery procrastinator, has walked straight out of the debates of the Paulskirche in Frankfurt in 1848” (Carr 1964: 36-7).7 4 Demandt has argued that Mommsen’s main aim in his work was to teach contemporary political lessons through his history. For Mommsen 7 4 Cf. Meyer 1922: vii: “Aber wenn seine Romische Geschichte ein unverganglicher Besitz unserer Nationalliteratur ist und das geschichtliche Verstandnis gewaltig gefordert hat, so ist sie doch zugleich Parteischrift durch und durch, das Werk des alten Achtundvierzigers, der liberall mit der ganzem Wucht und leiderschaft seiner imponierenden Personlichkeit fur seine politische Uberzeugungen kampft, und in der romischen Aristokratie und dem Senat das verhaBte Junkertum der Reaktionszeit treffen will.” Note also Meyer’s interesting discussion of Mommsen’s portrait of Caesar at 324-8. See p324: “es ist vielleicht die bedeutendste Manifestation, welche der radikale Liberalismus von 1848 in der groBen Literatur gefunden hat.” 46 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. “culture no longer held primacy over politics; his ideal man was the homo politicus, and the aim of writing history was ‘political pedagogy’” (1990: 287).7 5 Thus a political raison d ’ etre has taken over from the Humboldtian notion of Bildung, with its idea that the study of antiquity would help an individual develop as a human being.7 6 Certainly, the celebration of the creation by Rome of an Italian state described in the Romische Geschichte surely reflects Mommsen’s increasing wish to see a German nation-state come into being, even if the manner of unification might compromise older liberal values.7 7 And Mommsen’s celebration of the unification of Italy in his Roman History would have had resonances of the Italian risorgimento and the Piedmontese- led unification that was taking place in the 1850s, which German nationalists were closely watching. Indeed Mommsen specifically states, in a passage in which the influence of German idealism seems stronger than the influence of liberal constitutionalism, that his project is the history of Italy, not the history of Rome: We intend here to relate the history of Italy, not simply the history of the city of Rome. Although, in the formal sense of political law, it was the civic community of Rome which gained the sovereignty first of Italy and then of the world, such a view cannot be held to express the higher and 7 5 Demandt 1990: 293 goes so far (probably too far) as to suggest that “Mommsen considered the ‘ethical and political tendencies’ of his historiography to be more important than its scholarship, since he was concerned above all with ‘political pedagogy.’ And so he writes consciously cum ira et studio.” Note also chapter three (41-61) of Wucher 1956 discussing “Politische Padagogik.” 7 6 For an interesting discussion of the crisis of Bildung in the middle of the century, see Grafton 1983. Also Schorske 1998: 60. Grafton sees the crisis as a result of increasing specialization and the creation of sub-disciplines which “only a hero like Mommsen or Wilamowitz could master in their entirety” (183). This is of course true, but I would argue that the German liberals’ loss of self- confidence after the experience of 1848-9 also led to an undermining of humanistic Bildung and to a more overtly political outlook. For the increased political tone of German historians in general see Iggers 1983: 90-123 on the “Prussian School of Historians,” inspired largely by the work of the great historian of Greece, Droysen. This “school” was less interested in individual freedoms, the great preoccupation of liberalism, than with the primacy of the state over individual beliefs. Iggers wants to play down, however, the extent to which the disappointments of 1848-9 changed the political views of the German historians (104). 7 7 Linderski 1995a: 2: when Mommsen wrote the Romische Geschichte, a "united Germany remained his goal, but liberalism had to be tossed aside. Liberal Prussia was a phantom, but not the Prussia of Blut und Eisen." See 1-7 for Mommsen and imperialism. 47 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. real meaning of history. What has been called the subjugation of Italy by the Romans appears rather, when viewed in its true light, as the consolidation into an united state of the whole Italian stock~a stock of which the Romans were doubtless the most powerful branch, but were still a branch only. (1898:1.27)7 8 National unity, then, was in the 1850s seen, more than ever, as the prerequisite for liberal freedom. As Wucher states: “Was bedeute schon, fragt der Historiker in der Romischen Geschichte, die ‘Freiheit ohne Einigkeit und Einheit der Nation”’ (1956: 150-1).7 9 And Mommsen’s work now took up aspects of another German tradition, less associated with pure liberal ideas and more concerned with state power and authority, a tradition represented in both the philosophical and the historical tradition, in Hegel and in Ranke. As Wucher says, “Mommsens Caesar gehort ohne Frage in diese Gattung— und wie!” (1956: 148). But if Mommsen wanted strong leadership to bring about unification, he was not at all unequivocal in supporting the Prussian solution to the German question, despite his position in Berlin. In 1860, the Prussian Landtag was presented with a bill by Wilhelm I, the Prussian King, for an army reform which planned to integrate the semi-civilian reserve force, the Landwehr, more fully into the regular Prussian army. This would have doubled the size of the regular Prussian army and marginalized the Landwehr, which was seen as a force representing the interests of the Prussian citizens and which could be used if necessary against the crown (Hearder 1988: 247). The debates surrounding this Bill led to the foundation of the German Progressive Party, 7 8 The choice to write on Rome, under whose auspices the Italian peninsula was unified, rather than on the disunited Greek city-states which had attracted the attention of most earlier German ancient historians, is significant. On Roman rather than Greek history as a model for Germans earlier in the century, cf. Yavetz 1976. As Demandt says of the Romans: “they had found the mean between liberty and discipline, between individualism and citizenship. Greece was the prototype of cultural development. After Germany had gone to school in Greece and found its national culture, it must now to school in Rome and create a unified state. It was in this spirit that Mommsen wrote his Romische Geschichte" (1990: 288). 4 8 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the Fortschrittspartei in 1861. Mommsen was prominent among those liberals who worked to bring this new party into being. The aim of the Fortschrittspartei was to attempt to bring about a unified Germany with a strongly liberal character and it was a clear challenge to the militaristic approach of the Prussian monarch. As Heuss says of Mommsen’s relationship to the new party, “Hier war nun endlich wieder die ideale Einheit des nationalen und des innerstaatslichen Freiheitsthemas ausgesprochen, auf welcher sein politisches BewuBtsein von Jugend an gegrundet war” (1956: 169). The party achieved great initial success and there were large liberal majorities in subsequent elections to the Prussian parliament. Indeed it took on the characteristics of a popular movement with support from the urban lower-classes and from the peasantry as well as the middle classes. But as Hearder writes: “All the material for revolution seemed present but the leaders of the Progressive Party would not even encourage passive resistance” (1988: 248). Nevertheless, it does show that in this period Mommsen was still not ready to abandon the principles of 1848. However, Mommsen and the Progressive Party were quickly overcome by events. In 1862 the liberal majority again rejected Wilhelm’s army bill, refusing to approve the necessary budgets, and the Prussian King contemplated abdication. However, instead he appointed Bismarck as Minister-President. Bismarck’s famous speech to the Landtag on his appointment that “the great questions of the time would not be decided by speeches and majority resolutions but by blood and iron” must surely have been a jibe at the Prussian liberals. However, Bismarck was willing to placate such liberals by reforms in areas such as press censorship and extension of the franchise (which he made universal, which was more than most liberals wanted but which Bismarck introduced to win German popular support for Prussian rather than 7 9 Quoting 1.713 of the German edition of the Romische Geschichte. 49 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Austrian leadership; cf. Langewiesche 1992: 101). According to Demandt, Mommsen, as a Fortschrittspartei member of the Prussian Abgeordnetenhaus in 1863-6, opposed Prussian annexation as a means of solving the German question, preferring the creation of a German parliament modeled on that proposed in Frankfurt in 1848-9 (1990: 300). However, Mommsen’s arguments became irrelevant as Bismarck won successes in the Schleswig-Holstein War of 1863 and above all in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. After this war, it was clear beyond any doubt how unification would come about, and Mommsen and others accommodated themselves to the Prussian solution and greeted the actual foundation of the Reich a few years later with enthusiasm.8 0 Yet the new state was far from that imagined by the liberals in 1848. As Wolfgang Mommsen writes: “The Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1 created the political conditions that led to the formation under Bismarck’s leadership of the ‘little German’ state— or, as one is also tempted to put it, to a conservative ‘revolution from above’ and the birth of a powerful nation state headed by conservatives in a partial alliance with the liberal movement” (1995: 59). Mommsen was elected to the new Parliament as a National Liberal, and like other liberals in the 1870s he supported Bismarck’s adoption of liberal domestic reforms and the new Chancellor’s Kulturkampf against the Catholic church and what was seen as its reactionary tendencies (Iggers 1983: 122). I want to examine below the effect on German liberalism of the new mass movements, both on the right wing (the Catholic movement) and particularly on the left (socialism and the labor movement). First, however, I want to look at Mommsen’s growing unease with the new Germany. In 1878, in the aftermath of the economic crisis of 1873 which had led to depression, 8 0 According to Demandt 1990: 300, although Mommsen was hesitant about the 1870 war with France that was finally to bring about the creation of the Reich, he was not opposed to the war as 50 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Bismarck abandoned his alliance with the liberals and began the so-called “second Reichsgriindung” with the support of the Conservatives and the Catholic Zentrum, which he had previously attacked (Langewiesche 1992: 111). The “liberal era” of 1871-8 was at a close and Bismarck was able to introduce protective tariffs in 1879 on German trade which the free-market liberals opposed. The 1880s were a decade when liberalism was losing its raison d ’ etre. 8 1 Most liberals were moving to the right out of fear of the emerging socialist movement. As Wolfgang Mommsen says, “fears of democratic mass mle and of the ‘red peril’ were sufficiently powerful to induce the middle-class and conservative elites to draw closer together” (1995: 73). As Langewiesche points out, these liberals now saw (or perhaps wished to see) their vision of a bourgeois society coming into being in the new Germany, and in contrast to the earlier liberal vison they saw social inequality as integral to this society (1992: 104). Treitschke served as their spokesman, stating that: “Millions must till the soil and forge and plane, that a few thousand can research, paint and mle. Socialism tries in vain to eliminate this cruel recognition by empty cries of rage” (Langewiesche 1992: 104).8 2 On the other hand, the more progressive liberals were to become more radicalized, seeking a basis of support among a much broader section of society than before.8 3 Theodor Mommsen was one of the more radical liberals who supported the Secessionist Party, which had broken from the National Liberals, and in 1881 he was reelected to the Reichstag as a member of this party. As Iggers says, the dangers of a political system in which popular representatives could not assert a decisive voice in such but rather feared the destruction of international scholarly cooperation. 8 1 However, cf. W. Mommsen 1995: 70-1 on how liberalism retained some vital force in local cities with an emergent municipal liberalism (a phenomenon that also occurred in England at the same time). Also Langewiesche 2000. 8 2 Cf. Baehr 1998: 126, attributing to Treitschke the view that there is something about the masses as such that makes them virtually imbecilic. 51 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. affairs was by now clear to Mommsen. “The National Liberals, it appeared to him now, had paid too high a price for unification and Bismarck had broken the spine of the nation” (1983: 122). Like Max Weber a generation later, Mommsen was to regret the German condition in which a liberal middle-class could not exert its proper voice in the affairs of a nation where semi-feudal and aristocratic interests were more predominant than in other European industrialized nations.8 4 It is perhaps significant that it was at this time that Mommsen was writing and revising the Staatsrecht in which these kinds of issues were explored in the discussion of the (idealized) Republican Roman constitution with its stress on the undisputed sovereignty {imperium) of elected magistrates, allowing for strong leadership and reflecting the interests of the whole community rather than the interests of privileged groups.8 5 And in theory the community can take action if imperium is abused: “The Principate is an autocracy that is tempered by a legally permanent revolution” (1952: ILL 133, quoted at McGlew 1986: 440). This notion of a “legally permanent revolution” surely reflects Mommsen’s adherence to a liberal belief that the people could resist those who transgressed the constitution (McGlew 1986: 436), monarchs and Prussian first 8 3 See W. Mommsen 1965: 64. 8 4 Cf. Berger 1997: 66: “Germany’s bureaucratic and feudalised capitalism produced peculiar divisions in society, and deepened the gulf between the working classes and the middle classes. The parties and pressure groups in Wilhelmine Germany were more willing to forge an anti-socialist alliance than they were to reform the constitution of Imperial Germany along liberal and democratic lines.” 8 5 Wiedermann 1996: 45-46 notes the stress in the Staatsrecht on the powers of magistrates rather than on the Senate and the popular assemblies, which one might have expected a liberal to have emphasized. Mommsen sees the Senate and assemblies as essentially giving assent and legitimacy to the imperium of magistrates. Cf. Wiedermann 1996: 46: “His own political experiences in 1848 and since had persuaded Mommsen that sovereignty had to be indivisible, that institutions which might reflect conflicts of interest between social classes or geographical regions would result at best in inaction and at worst in disaster. The history of the Roman Republic showed what a state could achieve if its sovereignty was undivided, but exercised by a plurality of magistrates.” Meyer 1922: vii n. 1 suggests that Mommsen’s political beliefs compromised his account of the Senate and the People in the Staatsrecht: “Diese Grundtendenz beherrscht auch Mommsens Romische Staatsrecht und hat 5 2 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ministers included. And this perhaps reminds us of the liberals’ struggle at the start of the 1860s to prevent the Army Bill and to retain the Landwehr as a viable force which could be used to protect the interests of the people against, for example, a royal coup. Mommsen’s attitude in this period can also be seen in his quarrel with Treitschke, the leading figure, as we have seen, among the more conservative liberals, who in 1880 was one of those who signed the “Declaration of the Seventy-Five” demanding that the German Jewish population become more willing to abandon then- separate culture and become integrated within the German culture. Mommsen seems to have seen this as one of the more unpleasant manifestations of German nationalism and took the lead in opposing the Declaration. Mommsen published Auch ein Wort iiber wiser Judenthum, a pamphlet in which he was somewhat critical of Jews as well as Christians, but pleaded that German anti-semitism should cease (Demandt 1990: 302). Also in 1881 Bismarck unsuccessfully launched a law-suit for slander against Mommsen, who had accused him in a speech of a “politics of swindle” (“ein Politik des Schwindels”).8 6 Yet Mommsen’s unease with the new Reich was made more problematic because of the fact that many of the scholarly projects with which he was most closely involved were intimately associated with the state. As a leading figure at the Berlin Academy and as a scholar dependent on governmental resources to pay for the massive scholarly projects in which he was involved, Mommsen was very closely associated with the cultural politics of the new Reich. Demandt tells how by 1900 the Berlin Academy had spent over 400,000 gold marks on Mommsen’s major project, the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum, and Mommsen, as Director of the Deutsches verschuldert, daB der dritte Band, die Darstellung von Volk und Senat, den beiden ersten nicht gleichsteht.” 53 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Archdologisehes Institut, had worked to make the Institute an agency of the Prussian government in order to ensure its financial support. Indeed Demandt tells how the Roman Institute completed its transfer into a government agency on March 2nd 1871, the day after the peace with France was signed, when Bismarck recommended that Wilhelm I approve the takeover (1990: 296). Mommsen felt that governmental support for such scholarship was an essential aspect of bringing about a true German culture. He felt the 1871 Empire was a “wretched patchwork.” As he said, “Our poor fatherland, despite its apparent unification, is so fragmented.. .Our children will have to pay the price” (Demandt 1990: 298). Mommsen felt that German archaeology had a role in creating a common sense of identity for the new Germany. The Romisch- Germanische Kommision was largely a result of Mommsen’s work and was designed to oversee Roman and German antiquities in German lands. And similarly, Mommsen was active on the limes projects, gaining the support of Wilhelm II to make the limes a national monument under the protection of the Reich (Demandt 1990: 297-8). As Demandt says, Mommsen’s dream was “a ministry of culture for the German Empire as a whole, and he placed his talents in scholarly organization, as well as his writing of history, at the service of national political pedagogy” (1990: 298). Yet Mommsen seems to have come to regret the extent to which German scholarly projects were bound up with government. By 1884, Mommsen, sick of the mixture of bureaucracy and archaeology at the DAI, had resigned as a director; and in 1885 Mommsen objected when Bismarck made future financial support of the DAI dependent on future 8 6 Wickert gives Mommsen’s speech and offers a detailed account of the trial (1980: IV.94-122). 54 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. publications being made in the German language, fearing that the DAI had become a “veritable government agency” (Demandt 1990: 197).8 7 Towards the end of his life, Mommsen again found himself trying to stave off government interference in education. In 1900, the minister of Education, Friedrich Althoff, wanted to set up a Catholic Theological Faculty at the University of Strasburg in order to increase German influence on public opinion in the Reichsland (Craig 1980: 200). In order to get the support of the papal Curia, Althoff decided that there should be new Catholic professors of philosophy and history at the university and he appointed Martin Spahn to the Chair of History. Mommsen was angered, feeling that political appointments would lead to German scholarship being jeopardized. And in 1901 he published a public statement against the official enemies of academic freedom: There goes through German university circles a feeling of degradation. Our life impulse is uninhibited inquiry, the kind of inquiry that does not discover what, after weighing objectives and considerations, it should discover or wants to discover or what would serve useful purposes outside the sphere of scholarship, but rather that which logically and historically seems right to the conscientious researcher— in a word, the truth. Upon loyalty to the truth depends our self-respect, our professional honour, and our influence upon youth. Upon it depends German scholarship, which has played its part in creating the greatness and strength of the German people. Who lays his hand on that puts an axe to the mighty tree in whose shade and protection we live and whose fruits benefit the world. (Craig 1980: 203) There is a typical liberal self-deception at work here as Mommsen denies that political values have informed his scholarship, while with the same breath he acknowledges and proclaims the connection between German scholarship and the greatness of Germany. But there is also a certain sadness, as Mommsen perhaps sees some of the unfortunate consequences of the cultural nationalism that he had done so much to make flourish. 8 7 Cf. Marchand 1996: 229: “The principle that Kultur should serve the state and, correspondingly, that the state should promote Kultur, had become the shared conviction of academia and the Reich bureaucracy.” 55 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. This is not the first occasion where we have seen that Mommsen seems to regret where his earlier politics had led. I would suggest that Mommsen’s later regret reflects a recognition of the contradictions within a nineteenth century liberalism that was unable to keep up with changing circumstances and which, by accommodating itself to the forces of a kind of nationalism whose character was incompatible with liberal ideals, was to become almost devoid of meaning. Yet his scholarship itself reflects some of these contradictions and remained as a model to be venerated by scholars who were less scrupulous than Mommsen in terms of their politics and who were to develop Mommsen’s model of scholarship still further in support of an increasingly nationalistic German Empire. 3. Mommsen and “the Masses” So far, I have attempted to locate Mommsen in the context of German liberalism and to show how the constitutionalism of his scholarship reflects liberal preoccupations and anxieties. I have also attempted to show that contradictions within German liberalism became more and more apparent to Mommsen, although he was never able to overcome them. Here, I want to look more specifically at the rise of mass movements and mass politics in nineteenth century Germany and to look at how this affected German liberalism. As has been said, those liberals involved in the 1848 revolutions were concerned to affect such reform that would prevent a more popular revolution; and when the revolution became more radicalized, with more of a social character in 1849, the majority of liberal ‘revolutionaries’ lost faith with the cause. Their attitude is shown with respect to the question of the franchise. According to Langewiesche, most liberals welcomed the elimination of the democratic right to vote after the failure of 56 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1848-9, preferring to advocate a graduated scale of rights which would prevent the likelihood of sudden, irrational change and restrict political influence to men of property and education by creating different grades of voters (1992: 101). And when the universal (male) franchise was introduced in Prussia in 1866, it was thanks to Bismarck’s attempt to win a propoganda war for support in the German states for a Prussian rather than an Austrian solution to the German Question, rather than because of the demands of the liberals, who had a majority in the Prussian parliament. But universal franchise was seen as more dangerous still with the rise of mass political movements, above all socialism. As the liberal historian Hermann Baumgarten, whom Iggers associates closely with Mommsen in terms of his political attitude, wrote to Sybel in 1890: “Only very few seem to suspect that universal suffrage is threatening not only the state but our whole culture, and is bringing about rule by the raw masses in everything” (Iggers 1983: 123). Industrialization was leading to a new kind of urban mass, reliant on wage labor and, as Baehr points out, unconstrained by the collective obligations that full membership of a body politic tended to impose on its propertied citizens (1998: 120). The problem of the urban masses had preoccupied German thought throughout the nineteenth century, which was quite remarkable given that Germany was late to industrialize and consequently late in having to face the social problems that industrialization brought in its wake. In the Philosophy of Right, Hegel’s vision of civil society imagines individuals as members of a particular Estate (Stand), which would offer individuals a mode of life and a sense of self worth. However, excluded from these Estates is the urban poor, a “rabble” (Pdbel), which Hegel refers to as a class and which has no part in the subjective freedom of civil society. Hegel sees this as a problem but fears that nothing could be done except for the state to step 57 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. in to remedy such wrongs as far as is possible.8 8 The liberal solution, by contrast, was to imagine that progress and free markets would spread prosperity and that education would help progress along. But more radical solutions were in the air, voiced most powerfully by Marx and Engels, envisioning the urban poor as a class capable of collective revolutionary action against the existing order. The rise of the “masses” was rapid and was to reshape political philosophies.8 9 As Baehr says: Within such a conceptual framework, political and scientific, the cultivation of ‘virtue’ beloved by classical and other republicans simply could not make sense. Nor could a polity permeated by the ethos of self- governing liberty; a mass, by definition, is not an entity either disposed or able to mle. It is something to be shaped and controlled. For liberals and conservatives alike, the term ‘mass’ tended to emphasize the problem of ‘order’ and ‘stability’ rather than the values of ‘freedom’ and ‘obligation.’” (1998: 121) Of course, the situation became of particular concern to German liberals with the rise of socialism and the German labor movement. Ferdinand Lassalle had set up the General German Workers’ Union (Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeitverein, ADAV) in May 1863; Lassalle looked to Bismarck and the German Junkers to bring about universal franchise and to offer financial aid to the producers’ cooperatives. In June 1863, the League of German Workers’ Clubs was formed, which, unlike the ADAV, vigorously opposed Prussian militarism and feudalism, preferring a Grofideutsch solution to the German question. Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel, the most prominent German socialists of their generation, founded this league and expected that the fall of Prussia would bring about the success of the German revolution. As Gildea points out, the victory over Austria in 1866 made a Prussian Kleindeutsch solution inevitable, but it 8 8 Wood 1993: 422-5. 8 9 Berghahn 1997: 169 gives the following population figures for Berlin: 412,000 in 1850; 826,000 in 1871; 1,122,000 in 1880; and 1,889,000 in 1900. 58 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. also opened the way to class politics in Germany (Gildea 1996: 213). In 1869 the League joined the First International Working Men’s Association, which had been founded five years earlier in 1864, and reformed in 1869 as the Social Democratic Workers’ Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei Deutschland, SDAP). This decade, in which the labor movement in Germany achieved prominence, witnessed what Gustav Mayer described as the crucial “separation of proletarian and bourgeois democracy” (Blackboum and Eley 1984: 267). The SDAP in turn became the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in 1875 and became an increasing force in German politics, remaining essentially revolutionary in nature until the outbreak of the First World War, when, to the fury of many of its most prominent revolutionaries, such as Rosa Luxemburg, its leadership threw its support behind the German war effort.9 0 The Liberals had, of course, been able to achieve such an influence in German constitutional politics because the political process had been open essentially only to the middle classes and above (cf. W. Mommsen 1985: 62). The new left mass movements (and also the conservative Catholic movement) were now seen as a threat, especially as the franchise had been extended.9 1 Greater anxieties would have been 9 0 Note, however, that Marx famously criticized as non-revolutionary the SPD’s founding program drawn up at Gotha in 1875 which called for a free press, free speech, freedom of association and equal elementary education etc as essential prerequisites for more genuinely working-class issues : “But the whole programme, for all its democratic clang, is tainted through and through by the Lassallean sect’s servile belief in the state, or, what is no better, by a democratic belief in miracles, or rather it is a compromise between these two kinds of belief in miracles, both equally remote from socialism” (Marx-Engels 1978: 540). However, Bismarck’s anti-socialist legislation at the end of the decade was to set the SPD back onto an essentially revolutionary path, despite strong reformist tendencies among some of its leadership. And in the eyes of the majority of Germans who may have lacked the rigor of Marx, there must have seemed little doubt about the SPD’s revolutionary nature. 9 1 Engels (Marx-Engels 1978: 565) stresses the importance of the universal franchise and gives figures for the SPD’s popular vote: following the removal of the anti-socialist laws in 1890, the SPD received 1,787,000 votes, over a quarter of the votes cast. This showed a very rapid increase from the 102,000 votes received by the equivalent party in 1871. By 1912, the SPD’s vote increased further to 4.2 million, or 34.8 per cent of the vote, making it the largest party in the Reichstag (Berghahn 1997: 177). See Langewiesche 2000: 126-7 for a table of German electoral results 1871-1912. According to 59 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. produced among the middle-classes following the Paris Commune of 1871, established following France’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. The Commune would have brought the reality of mass revolution home to the bourgeoisie across Europe, and its brutal suppression by the French army, with Prussian support, involved the massacre in one week of 25000 people and the arrests of 4000. As Gildea says, “the repression was a tribute to the fear of the French ruling class and behind it, that of Germany” (1996: 216).9 2 As Wolfgang Mommsen points out, this fear of being dislodged from below was partly behind the liberal support for a strong nation state, which would serve “not only as a means of protecting society from external threats but as an instrument for dealing with internal pressures from groups lower down the social scale” (1985: 63). He also points out how the idea of “the nation” was able to be put to very effective use against the internationalist ideology of the labor movement and its organization, the International. But socialism could be countered more directly than through ideology. In 1878, Bismarck took the opportunity presented by two anarchist attempts to assassinate the Emperor to bring in a law virtually outlawing socialism in Germany. Socialists were described by Bismarck as “an enemy army living in our midst,” and, of course, blamed for the anarchists’ actions. In October, the National Liberals’ support allowed the bill to pass. The law was renewed several times in the Blackboum and Eley, it was precisely because German capitalists were more able than those in other countries in Europe to rein in demands of workers at the point of production that on the political level the SPD received greater prominence and success than socialist parties in other countries (1984: 268). 9 2 It is perhaps woth quoting a passage from Thomas Mann’s great novel of north German nineteenth century bourgeois life, Buddenbrooks, published in 1900, in which the drawing teacher Herr Dragemiiller reveals (in a scene set in the 1870s) what must have been widespread anxieties: “Then he would lecture on Bismarck, and, gesturing in long, emphatic, corkscrew arcs that started at his nose and ended at his shoulder, he would speak of the Social Democrats with hate and fear in his voice. ‘We must stick together,’ he would tell his students, grabbing one of them by the arm. ‘Socialism is at the gates!’ There was something stilted and fussy about him. Exuding the strong odor of spirits, he would sit down beside a student, tap him on the forehead with his signet ring, blurt out a few 60 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1880s, but, following Bismarck’s downfall, it was allowed to lapse in 1890 and the SPD was able, because of universal suffrage, to become a mass party (Hearder 1988: 159). Mommsen had grave doubts about the Socialist Law, declaring in 1881 that “this is another of those cases in which our protectors are more dangerous than our enemies” (Demandt 1990: 305). However, in 1884 he voted for the prolongation of the law and wrote a letter to a newspaper expressing the absolute impossibility of coming to an understanding with the SPD, which he saw as a threat to civilisation: “fiber die Schwere der Gefahr, welcher unserer ganzen Zivilisation in der sozialistischen Bewegung droht, tauscht sich niemand, dem das Vaterland wirklich das Hochste und Letzte ist; mit alien anderen Parteien kann man sich vertragen und unter Umstanden paktieren, mit dieser nicht” (quoted in Kuczynski 1978: 69). And yet in some ways Mommsen ended his life closer to the SPD than to the National Liberals (Berger 1997: 13; Heuss 1956: 212 and 216-7). In 1902 he wrote an article “Was uns noch retten kann” advocating that the liberals and SPD should come together, expressing admiration for the SPD’s leadership and, in stark contrast to his letter of 1884, suggesting that it was, unfortunately, the only political party of any relevance: “aber es ist leider wahr, zur Zeit ist dies die einzige groBe Partei, die Anspruch hat auf politische Achtung.”9 3 But this change of heart seems to have been made as a result of the swing to the right of most of the liberals in the 1880s rather than because of any new sympathy on Mommsen’s part for the ideals of the new mass party.9 4 words - like “perspective!’ “Light and shade!’ ‘Use your lead!’ ‘Socialism!’ “Stick together!’ - and then scurry away” (Mann 1993: 638). 9 3 The East German historian Kuczynski not surprisingly gives more attention to this episode than most other accounts (1978: 69-71). 9 4 See Laclau and Mouffe 1985: 17 for an interesting discussion of the peculiar factors (not least the failure, noted above, of the German bourgeoisie to set itself up as the hegemonic force of a liberal- democratic movement) which made the success of Socialism in Germany in the late nineteenth century 61 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Mommsen does shows an interest in the urban masses in Rome, but they are seen more as a problem than as a political force. In his Imperial history, which has been reconstructed from notes taken at Mommsen’s lectures in the 1880s, the historian condemns the Roman plebs, but points out that under the Empire the people were not a revolutionary force, possibly making a contrast with the potential situation in Europe: The population of Rome at this time was the worst imaginable. Rome was entirely devoid of industry: only a few types of large-scale trade flourished, employing few hands. Communal liberty was completely lacking, Rome was the least free municipality in the Empire. Then there was the disastrous peacetime garrison, which had nothing to do and succumbed to indolence and idleness, as did the great mass of those in receipt of petty state pensions, who continued to regard themselves as the sovereign people. The doors were closed to all laudable endeavour. The plebs had nothing but the passions of the circus and, if these were taken away, rioting. Revolution was not to be feared from this quarter, however; the plebs were too enervated for that” (1996: 103).9 5 Mommsen’s attitude to the circenses also suggests that in his ideal society the people’s energies would be safely channeled by allowing them a part in the electoral process: “Sports competitions had thus now taken the place of electoral campaigning, and it was in the interests of the Emperor to keep the people on this track. People must, after all, be at liberty to get excited about something” (1996: 103). Mommsen suggests here that the only political activity that counts is constitutional political activity, and this is borne out in the account of the reigns of the Emperors where the urban plebs is largely ignored. For instance even in the reign of Nero, where the people’s seem more likely than elsewhere: “Under these conditions, the unity and autonomy of the working class, and the collapse of the capitalist system, virtually appeared as facts of experience.” 9 5 See also the Roman History (1898: V.367-371) for Mommsen’s somewhat indignant description of the condition of the Roman population in the late Republic. Note V.371: “If we try to conceive to ourselves a London with the slave-population of New Orleans, with the police of Constantinople, with the non-industrial character of the modem Rome and agitated by politics after the fashion of the Paris in 1848, we shall acquire an approximate idea of the republican glory, the departure of which Cicero and his associates in their sulky letters deplore.” 62 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. role was clearly important, as a reading of Tacitus makes evident, there is no interest in popular protests or public Opinion, even when Tacitus demonstrates that this affected Nero’s actions. The chapter is dominated by discussion of foreign wars, court politics and the government of the city. When Mommsen tells of, for instance, the divorce of Octavia, the popular protests which surrounded the episode and made life extremely difficult for Nero and Poppaea are ignored as Mommsen prefers to set the episode, in contrast to Tacitus, solely within the context of palace politics: Certainly, however, the death of Burrus brought a total reshuffle in its wake. Seneca immediately relinquished his position and retired to private life; he had been sustained by Burrus. Burrus himself was replaced by Sofonius Tigellinus and Faenius Rufus; the latter became the real driving force behind Nero’s regime. Nero now legally divorced Octavia; on 9 July 62 she was executed in exile on the island of Pandateria without any charge being laid. Twelve days after the divorce Nero married Poppaea. She became Augusta. This fulfilled all her ambitions: she neither had nor sought particular influence over affairs of state. (1996: 177) Moreover, Mommsen sees the best solution to the problem of the urban populace in colonization. For instance, in the History of Rome of the 1850s, there is praise for how “Caesar laboured energetically to diminish the mass of the free proletariate” in the city (1898: V.372-3). He approves of the “tribunals which were instructed to proceed with unrelenting rigour against the rabble” (373) and also of the removal of people from Rome to new colonies: Caesar, convinced like every other man of sense that the only true remedy for the misery of the proletariate consisted in a well-regulated system of colonization, and placed by the condition of the empire in a position to realize it to an unlimited extent, must have had the design of permanently continuing the process, and so opening up a constant means of abating an evil which was constantly reproducing itself. (373)9 6 9 6 Note also Mommsen 1996: 102: “The Republic had disregarded need: each citizen was given something. Distribution had proceeded unchecked and the riff-raff concentrated in Rome. Caesar had eliminated this sentina (dregs) by dispatching them to colonize Carthage and Corinth.” 63 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Mommsen’s famous portrayal of Caesar in the Romische Geschichte, along with the widespread concern about the emergent “masses” leads us to the question of Caesarism, recently discussed exhaustively by Peter Baehr. At the center of Caesarism was the question of how to discipline, mobilize and restrain the newly-emergent “masses.” The term was used above all of the rule of Louis Napoleon, who after the 1851 coup ruled the Second Empire as Napoleon III and combined authoritarianism with populism and some measure of electoral “democracy” (cf. Baehr 1998: 7). As Baehr shows, Caesarism characterized the new German Reich of 1871 and the ascendency of Bismarck, and the notion was later normalized by Max Weber as an important element in his notion of the charismatic authority of leaders in plebiscitary democracies (cf. Baehr 1998: 12 and 168). This notion of Caesarism in which rule from above is seen as dependent on the people below was to bring about an idea of popular government which distanced itself from earlier republican notions of the true participation of citizens in the life of their state (1998: 13). As Baehr says of Machiavelli and later republicans, contrasting their political philosophy with Caesarism: while none of them would have denied the obvious fact that a major part of statecraft is, and always has been, about ruling and violence, or that people can behave like a ‘mass’ under certain conditions, or that leadership is vital to a thriving body politic and involves onerous responsibilities, none would want to have taken the further step and reduce politics more generally to such considerations. (14) According to Baehr, Mommsen, a staunch critic of Bismarck’s authoritarian domestic policy, possessed a “sour judgment” on Caesarism, (1998: 170). Thus while in the Romische Geschichte he was full of admiration for Caesar, he had suspicion of his modem imitators (1998: 171). As Mommsen writes in his history, Caesar was “never 6 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. seized with the giddiness of the tyrant” (V.312)97; he never “resorted to outrages such as that of the eighteenth brumaire” (Y.312); he was a demagogue, not a warlord and embodied “republican ideals” (V.313); as Mommsen says, “his monarchy was so little at variance with democracy, that democracy on the contrary only attained its completion and fulfilment by means of that monarchy” (V.325). According to Baehr: Mommsen’s championship of Caesar had arisen in the aftermath of the defeat of German liberalism in 1848. The corrupt and reactionary senatorial oligarchy of Rome, the subject of Caesar’s attack, were, in Mommsen’s allegory, the ancient analogue of the Prussian squirearchy and state he so detested, and that he saw as the great impediment to the liberalization and modernization of Germany. (1998: 172) Thus, Mommsen’s portrayal of Caesar reflects his feeling that an emergent Germany needed strong leadership, like that of Caesar, to bring about the fall of the reactionary forces that had overthrown the liberal cause in 1848, but Mommsen did not want a new Caesar who would base his rule on the will of the people in the manner of Napoleon III. And, as Baehr points out, at V.325 of the Roman History Mommsen attacks the very concept of Caesarism.9 8 9 7 Baehr is using a different edition of Mommsen’s history from the edition I cite from elsewhere: I have changed the references in his text to match the edition which I am using. 9 8 The text at vol. V.325-6 is worth quoting at length: “At this point however it is proper expressly once for all to claim what the historian everywhere tacitly presumes, and to protest against the custom--common to simplicity and perfidy— of using historical praise and historical censure, dissociated from the given circumstances, as phrases of general application, and in the present case of construing the judgment as to Caesar into a judgment as to what is called Caesarism. It is true that the history of past centuries ought to be the instructress of the present; but not in the vulgar sense, as if one could simply by turning over the leaves discover the conjunctures of the present in the records of the past, and collect from these the symptoms for a political diagnosis and the specifics for a prescription; it is instructive only so far as the observation of older forms of culture reveals the organic conditions of civilization generally— the fundamental forces everywhere alike, and the manner of their combination everywhere different— and leads and encourages men, not to unreflecting imitation, but to independent reproduction. In this sense the history of Caesar and of Roman Imperialism, with all the unsurpassed greatness of the master-worker, with all the historical necessity of the work, is in truth a sharper censure of modem autocracy than could be written by the hand of man. According to the same law of nature in virtue of which the smallest organism infinitely surpasses the most artistic machine, every constitution however defective which gives play to the free self-determination of a majority of citizens infinitely surpasses the most brilliant and humane absolutism; for the former is 65 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. But while it is true that Mommsen had no sympathy for the popular authoritarianism that was going on in France and was later to occur in the New Germany under the label of Caesarism, it is surely also the case that Mommsen’s political philosophy incorporated a different kind of Caesarism. In Mommsen’s Caesarism, the will of the people would underlie not authoritarian rule but constitutional democracy. As well as the Romische Geschichte," it is important to examine the Staatsrecht, which was written during the course of Bismarck’s experiments in Caesarism in the newly-created Reich. In Mommsen’s idealized view of the Roman state, in both the Republic and Empire the power of the magistrates is seen as dependent upon and legitimized by the will of the populus Romanus, which is seen as possessing the ultimate authority to restore the true nature of the state should the magistrates overstep their legal bounds. Of course, in reality this seldom happened and so even the rule of the the most tyrannical emperors is seen as legitimate by Mommsen, even if the historian laments the state of affairs in the Principate.1 0 0 Mommsen’s greatest praise is for the Republican system at its height. And if we can see pre- Caesarian Rome as Caesarist in the sense that the people legitimize the imperium of the city’s leaders, then perhaps we are justified in seeing Mommsen’s Caesarism as capable of development and therefore living, the latter is what it is and therefore dead. This law of nature has verified itself in the Roman absolute military monarchy and verified itself all the more completely, that, under the impulse of its creator’s genius and in the absence of all material complications from without, that monarchy developed itself more purely and freely than any similar state. From Caesar’s time, as the sequel will show and Gibbon has shown long ago, the Roman system had only an external coherence and received only a mechanical extension, while internally it became even with him utterly withered and dead.” 9 9 Baehr seems to restrict his attention to Mommsen’s famous evaluation of Caesar’s character and statesmanship in the first part of chapter 11 of book V of the Romische Geschichte. 1 0 0 Cf. Mommsen 1996: 104: “What, above all, made the principate so nefarious was its utter dreariness, emptiness and poverty of spirit. That is the terrible thing about it. Their brutalization was not caused by the monarchy, however, as Republican propoganda claims: on the contrary, the seeds had been sown more than adequately during the Republic. Gaius (Caligula), Commodus and others simply embodied the plebs on the throne.” 66 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. anticipating the Caesarism of Weber and the kind of democracy in which true popular participation in civic life is seen as impracticable and in which the question of the “masses” is dealt with by allowing them to vote every so often on in an election whose purpose is largely acclamatory (cf. Baehr 1998: 173). 4. Some Consequences The picture that hopefully has emerged above is that of a liberal historiographical tradition that became compromised as a result of the contradictions within nineteenth century German liberalism, contradictions resulting from German liberalism’s association with nationalism and from liberalism’s inability to retain its vitality in the face of Prussian militarism and modernization. Mommsen himself, more so than most other liberals of the era, on the whole remained true to his earlier principles, but such principles became increasingly irrelevant in an era of industrialization and the “rise of the masses.” But most historians and philologists were, unlike Mommsen, to become uncritical admirers of the new Germany and, as Bildung increasingly lost its meaning, the German schools and universities became more and more identified with the German government.1 0 1 Of course, the discipline of Classics itself in many ways, because of its 1 0 1 For the schools, cf. Thomas Mann’s famous chapter (Part 11 chapter 2) towards the end of Buddenbrooks, where he brings out the changing atmosphere in the schools and the militaristic nature of the “institution,” as Hanno and Kai call it. Cf. 620: “Director Wulicke was a terrible man. He was the successor of the jovial and warmhearted old gentleman who had been in charge when Hanno’s father and uncle had been students here, and who had died early in 1871. At the time Dr. Wulicke was called to the position, he had been a professor at a Prussian secondary school. And with his advent a new spirit entered the old school. Where previously classical learning had been considered a joyful end in itself and was pursued with a calm, leisurely, cheerful idealism, now the concepts of authority, duty, power, service, and career were held in the highest honor.. .The school had become the state within the state, where the Prussian notion of rigorous service held such sway that not only the teachers but also the students thought of themselves as civil servants, interested only in advancing their careers and therefore always concerned to be well regarded by those in power.” For the 67 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. exclusive nature guaranteed by the Gymnasium system where the subject predominated, served as a way to differentiate those in the upper- and middle-classes with the cultural capital of a classical education from the newly-politicized masses. And indeed Thomas sees this as a factor that was evident before 1848 in the Philologists’ resistance to ‘materialism’: There were good reasons why this attitude was particularly conspicuous in the case of Thiersch and the Classical Philologists. There was no sphere in which the claims of the bougeoisie to pre-eminence were more marked than in that of ‘culture,’ none in which it was easier to argue that material advance was a secondary consideration since all true values were those of the spirit. Classical humanism in Germany was beginning to serve as a defense of the culture of a property-owning middle class— of ‘Bildung und Besitz’— against the rising tide of socialism. It did so increasingly in the sharpening social struggles later in the century and this is one of the striking features of German education in the Wilhelminian era. (1951: 80)1 0 2 And at the end of the century, the battles over school reform show the classicists determined to defend the position of their discipline in the German school system. As Marchand writes: That the classicists of the 1890s responded to the critique of the ‘relevance’ of their studies with smug self-righteousness, and to the critique of their loyalty to the German nation with oaths and pledges, says a good deal about their social conscience; that most assumed that the answer to Nietzsche’s fundamental question— what was the value of scholarship for modern-day life?— was self- evident indicates their naivete” (1996: 118).1 0 3 Wilamowitz was a vigorous participant in the debates around School Reform, and he was anxious to keep up standards in the schools to ensure that university scholarship universities, cf. Gossman 1983 p31-2: “Just as on the political plane Prussia has set out to dominate all the German lands, on the plane of scholarship - and Bachofen was keenly aware that, particularly in Germany, where classical scholarship had, from the beginning, been interwoven with political ideals, scholarship was ideology - the Prussians had tried to impose their law on all the German-speaking philologists, concentrate all power in Berlin at the Royal Prussian Academy, and through their control of academic appointments, journals, and publishing houses, silence every dissenting voice.” 1 0 2 Gf. Marchand 1996: 25: “In place of birth or social function, neohumanism, the credo of the emergent Bildungsbiirgertum, assessed the individual on the basis of particular capabilities, the acquisition of which proved increasingly difficult for the lower orders to attain.” 68 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. would not be affected. For Wilamowitz, the progress of specialized scholarship meant that a revival of a Schillerian classicisizing aestheticism was impossible; indeed he was concerned about just such a classicist revival, fearing that the Classics might be appropriated by social and cultural revolutionaries and spread amongst the “masses who have no judgment” (Marchand 1996: 139). In this period when school reform was in the air, Wilamowitz was keen to defend the German model of historicist study of antiquity, as opposed to those who looked to anquity in a classicizing manner: “A sort of pessimistic historicism, the philologist felt, provided a strong defense against both materialist optimists (like the school reformers and socialists) and aestheticizing classicizers like his old foe Friedrich Nietzsche” (Marchand 1996: 140).1 0 4 Marchand has shown (1996: 228-262) how during World War One, the German classical professoriate threw itself behind the war effort, stressing cultural nationalism, maintaining that German militarism and German Kultur were inextricably connected, and identifying the achievements of Classical Philology as a rebuttal to Anglo-French charges of German barbarism.1 0 5 Marchand has also shown how German failure in the war led to an even further shift to the right and to the participation 1 0 3 More generally on the debate surrounding German school reform see Marchand 1996: 133-151. 1 0 4 For Classics and school reform in England cf. Stray 1998. For Classics and the English Public Schools cf. Bowen 1989. The best introduction to Nietzsche’s views on historical scholarship is probably his great essay on “The Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life” (Nietzsche 1997). 1 0 5 Marchand 1996: 236 quotes part of the Aufrufan die Kulturwelt (Appeal to the Civilized World) signed on 4 October 1914 by 93 prominent cultural figures, of whom a high proportion were classicists, including Wilamowitz and Eduard Meyer: “It is not true that our war leaders ignored the dictates of international law. They know nothing of wild atrocities. In the east, however, the earth is soaked with the blood of women and children murdered by the Russian hordes, and in the west, dumdum bullets rip apart the chests of our fighters. Least of all do those who ally themselves with Russians and Serbs and offer the world the tasteful spectacle of Mongols and Negroes incited against the white race have the right to pose as the defenders of European civilization.” At 237-8 Marchand quotes a letter of Einstein contrasting the attitude to the war of scientists and philologists: “The natural scientists and mathematicians are as scholars deeply internationally minded and watch carefully that no unfriendly steps be taken against colleagues in enemy countries. The historians and philologists, however, are for the most part chauvinists and hotheads.” 69 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. in nationalistic politics by many philologists. Meyer and Wilamowitz were involved in founding the annexationist Vaterlandspartei in 1917 and later became, along with other prominent philologists, members of the DNVP (German National People’s Party); and university philologists and gymnasium teachers were in general firmly opposed to the Weimar Republic (Marchand 1996: 258-9).1 0 6 Liberalism, which had so early on identified with national aspirations, had by now become thoroughly compromised by nationalism and liberal values had been largely abandoned; oppostion to the status quo from the left now came almost exclusively out of socialism, from which the majority of former liberals recoiled. But the stress on political, constitutional history remained and indeed intensified in the increasingly nationalistic historical profession. This was, of course, the case among modem historians as well as ancient historians. Berger tells how those historians who opposed the dominant mode of historical writing were marginalized by the profession (1997: 13-14). In 1917, for instance, Gustav Mayer’s Habilitation was prevented by a fronde of ultra-nationalists in the University of Berlin Humanities Faculty. Berger tells how Mayer’s growing reputation as a pioneer of labor history did lead to a chair in 1923, but he remained a social outcast within the profession, was sacked in 1933 and subsequently emigrated. According to Berger, “his work on the early labor movement was, in any case, never regarded as ‘proper’ history by the majority of his colleagues” (1997: 13). And in the late 1920s, when Eckart Kehr denounced the nationalism and anti-socialism of German historiography and suggested that true social history was dependent upon overcoming the German attachment to 1 0 6 Marchand 1996 p261-2 cites Wilamowitz’s declaration in the afterword to the second volume of his Platon of 1919 that he would wage “a private war on this un-Prussian age of ‘mob-rule.’” Wilamowitz wrote that “the empire [Reich] of eternal forms, which Plato unlocked, is indestructible, and we will serve it with our scholarship: the miasmas of putrefaction cannot penetrate its pure 70 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. nation-building, he was attacked by Gerhard Ritter as a Communist fellow traveller who should go to the Soviet Union for employment (Berger 1997: 14). Indeed, Berger argues that this attitude within German historiography remained long after World War II: “Up to and including Fritz Fischer and Imanuel Geiss in the 1960s, the threat of marginalization, isolation and worse loomed large over any historian who dared to go against the national orthodoxy prevailing in the guild of German historians” (1997: 14).1 0 7 Within Ancient History, the increasing nationalist attitude is perhaps seen in the shift of attention among German historians from Julius Caesar to Augustus, the consolidator of the Roman Empire.1 0 8 Most notorious, perhaps, was the Berlin professor Wilhelm Weber’s history of Augustus published in 1936 (Princeps: Studien zur Geschichte des Augustus). As Momigliano says, Weber “presented an Augustus with the charismatic features of a Princeps-Fuhrer and transformed the sober prose of the Res Gestae into a manifesto of imperial mysticism. Thus the interpretation of the principate was converted into a reconstruction of an abstract political program and easily gave way to idealization along fascist lines” (1994: 74).1 0 9 Yet German historical writing remained influenced by Mommsen’s constitutionalism. Momigliano identifies two lines of interpretation of first century BC Rome that were followed ether . . .As long as I breathe, I will fight on under the sign of Plato.” 1 0 7 Berger is also concerned about a recent revival of German nationalistic history in the aftermath of German re-unification. 1 0 8 For a similar phenomenon in England, see Turner 1993: 258-9. 1 0 9 In order to illustrate the wide acceptance of German nationalistic historiography even outside of Germany, it is worth noting the very favourable review of Weber’s book by C.F. Store in Classical Review in 1937. Store notes the presentation of Augustus as “a Periclean Ftthrer” but clearly finds this illuminating rather than objectionable and the comparison certainly does not lead the reviewer to think twice about Augustus’ greatness. Such a review makes it clear how much of a step forward was Syme’s Roman Revolution in reacting against such views. For an American book on the urban plebs which at points reflects the emphasis on race, see Heaton 1939. Note e.g. 20: “And in view of their 71 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. between the two world wars. The first he identifies as the “prewar juridical-ideological interpretation” (78 n. 2). Momigliano says that this line of inquiry “perhaps went back to Mommsen,” though he seems to prefer to stress the importance of E. Meyer’s Caesars Monarchic und das Prinzipat des Pompeius. However, the aim of Meyer’s work, not to mention Meyer’s praise of Mommsen (e.g. Meyer 1922: vii), surely leaves no doubt about its antecedents in Mommsen’s Staatsrecht. As Momigliano himself says, Meyer’s aim “was to define the constitutional form of the Augustan regime and its antecedents in the political tradition of the Republic,” and we have noted earlier Mommsen’s similar project in the Staatsrecht. Other historians who Momigliano identifies with this tradition include the French historian Carcopino (his study of Sulla’s “unfulfilled monarchy”), the Italian historians of Augustus, P. de Francisci and M.A. Levi, and W. Weber, mentioned above. The other trend in this period was, of course, the rise of prosopographical history, indebted to Gelzer’s Die Nobilitat der romischen Republik and pioneered in the subsequent work of Miinzer.1 1 0 Momigliano also draws attention to von Premerstein’s Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats, but above all this tradition culminates in Syme’s The Roman Revolution of 1939. According to Momigliano, “There can be no doubt that Syme brought about the victory of the second tendency, the interpretation of Augustan politics not in constitutional or ideological terms but in terms of clienteles and rival aristocratic families .. .there could be no turning back” (1994: 75). But even if the prosopographic school departed from Mommsen’s constitutionalism, nevertheless one might see its historical approach as reflecting racial intermixtures, we may say that it was largely the step-children of Italy who created seditious disturbances and violence such as the old Roman republic had seldom known.” 72 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. similar political tendencies and anxieties to those which had influenced nineteenth- century liberals. If liberal historiography, with its fear of popular revolution, had led to an obsession with the constitution as a way of maintaining justice and Order, the new prosopography, with its exclusive interest in Roman elites, surely reflects the political turmoil of the 1920s and 1930s. In this period, the “masses” were undoubtedly the primary force in European politics. Yet surely somewhat astonishingly, the prosopographical historians in this period chose an approach to historical writing that completely ignored the people as a political force and stressed the unique role of elites in bringing about political change. As Syme famously said in the Roman Revolution, “In all ages, whatever the form and name of government, be it monarchy, republic, or democracy, an oligarchy lurks behind the fa§ade; and Roman history, Republican or Imperial, is the history of the governing class” (1939: 7). It is surely tempting to see this enormous gap between the method of interpretation that the prosopographers were using to study the past and the obvious reality that was going on around them as reflecting some kind of anxiety about the contemporary situation. If it is clear that Syme’s Roman Revolution is preoccupied with the rise of fascist dictators in Europe in the 1930s, its silence on the major alternative to fascism, communism, may perhaps reflect unease about this alternative.1 1 1 In general, then, I would suggest that the prosopographical school led to only a limited emancipation from a Mommsen-inspired constitutionalism. If it was now recognized that political reality, "the real and ultimate 110 Linderrski 1995: 45 nicely distinguishes between the reaction against Mommsen’s legalistic approach to Roman history carried out by Gelzer (a structural interpretation of the Roman oligarchy) and Miinzer (a prosopographical approach). 1 1 1 Cf. Momigliano 1994: 73-4: “And if Mussolini is ever-present in his book, it is more difficult to see in it the Spanish Civil War, which also created deep divisions in Oxford as elsewhere.” MacMullen, writing in 1989, complains that even now ancient historians are often unwilling to look beyond elites for explaining ancient history. He is right, of course, to stress the elite nature of textual evidence as a reason for this, as well as political factors. 73 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. power" (Syme 1939: 406), was often very different from the constitutional situation (dismissed as a fagade), historians were, however, unwilling to look beyond the Roman aristocracy to find explanations for historical phenomena.1 1 2 One scholar who was, however, interested in both non-constitutional history and popular, as opposed to elite, activity was Hermann Usener. I mention here his article on Roman Popular Justice as an example of the kind of inquiry that seems to have been marginalized in ancient studies. First of all, it is important to note that Usener was a philologist, not an historian. We have already seen that in some ways philologists in this period had a broader range of historical interests than historians, and indeed in this piece Usener says that he became interested in Volksjustiz because of “eine Stelle des Plautinischen Pseudolus” (1913: 357). Usener was above all interested in religion and he begins his article by suggesting that in the Strafrecht Mommsen had not paid any attention to the sacred foundations of institutions such as the law: Theodor Mommsen hat in seinem bewundemwerten Gebaude des Romischen Strafrechts dem gesamten Gebiete die ausserordentliche Wohltat einer streng durchgefiihrten juristischen Betrachtung erwiesen. Wer mit mir die Uberzeugung teilt, daB alles halspeinliche Gerichtsverfahren von seinen Anfangen an bis zur Zeit der Franzosischen Revolution auf sakraler Grundlage gemht hat, darf vielleicht die Frage aufwerfen, ob nicht manche Erscheinungen auch des romischen Strafrechts ihren zureichenden Grund erst durch Vergleichung mit den Rechtsbrauchen der verwandten Volker fmden. (1913: 356-7) Usener is keen to emphasize the fact that such popular justice is not just in addition to the law but often at odds with it: 1 1 2 The preface to Syme 1986 makes explicit the great historian’s reaction against the school of Mommsen: "The study of history has been pursued under a long preoccupation with the origins of Rome, laws and institutions, biography and so on. Neglect attended upon an aristocracy unique in duration and predominance; and the better sort in the towns and peoples of Italy conveyed little appeal." Linderski 1995b: 43-4 notes that neither the Staatsrecht nor the Strafrecht feature among the works cited in The Roman Revolution. 7 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Der herkommliche Begriff der Volksjustiz setzt sob on durch die Benennung einen Gegensatz gegen die gesetzlich geordnete Rechtspflege des Staats. Es gibt allezeit Verletzungen der Sitte und des Rechts, denen gegeniiber die Gerichte sich geradeso machtlos erweisen wie die Stimme des Volkes entschieden ist in der Verdammung. (1913: 357) How far Usener’s work influenced other ancient historians is unclear. It is hard to think of any real interest in such topics by a historian until Lintott’s study of Violence in Republican Rome published in 1968. And even within philology, Usener, despite, or perhaps because of, his broad interests and comparative method seems to have become a somewhat marginalized figure quite soon after the end of his career. As Momigliano says, “Usener after all never meant much to Italian scholars, and even in Germany he is no longer a living force. One cannot escape the conclusion that his pupil and rival Wilamowitz rather effectively displaced him” (1994L 224).1 1 3 Indeed Marchand suggests that Wilamowitz’s vast influence was able to undermine and sideline any moves among classicists in an anthropological direction and so maintained the dominance of his historicist approach (1996: 140). She points out that Wilamowitz was attacking German philologists with anthropological leanings at the very time that Jane Harrison, James Frazer, Fustel de Coulanges and Lewis Henry Morgan were carrying out their investigations in England, France and the United States. As she says, “if Wilamowitz’s historicism did shore up, at least in the eyes of the all-important cultural bureaucracy, the universal importance of Greek culture, this did not occur without significant consequences for German scholarly thought” (1996: 140). Consideration of Usener has raised the issue of scholarly exclusion. What kinds of works were sidelined by the ancient historians’ stress on constitutional 1 1 3 Cf. Momigliano 1994: 253-4 for Wilamowitz’s hostility to Usener; Momigliano suggests that the hostility was one-sided. Cf. Bremmer 1990: 473: “During his lifetime, his originality, astonishing productivity, loyal and imposing personality, and total dedication to teaching established him as a 75 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. history? And what kinds of works did the historicist method of the philologists make impossible? I have just mentioned how anthropological approaches were excluded from Classics; so too were sociological approaches. Perhaps the most famous nineteeth century classicist who made use of both anthropological and sociological method was Fustel de Coulanges, the French scholar whose The Ancient City was published in 1864. There is still a tendency to dismiss Fustel’s work as historically sloppy and this is not the place to attempt to defend him against such charges. However, it is worth pointing out the vast influence Fustel had on scholars who came to work outside of Classics. In particular, Fustel was the teacher of Emile Durkheim and was an important influence in the rise of French sociology. Indeed Durkheim’s thesis on Montesquieu was dedicated to Fustel (Momigliano 1994: 174).1 1 4 And as Momigliano says, “the new social history of the ancient world was bom in France through the reconsideration of Fustel, converting his theories into sociological categories (Durkheim), extending his analysis to other civilizations (Egypt, China) and above all keeping religion at the center of socio-economic life” (1994: 174). Fustel was convinced of the need for sociology and history to be associated: “La sociologie, c’est la veritable histoire” (quoted at Hartog 1988: 145). But it was perhaps not until Claude Nicolet and Paul Veyne’s work in the 1960s and 1970s that a merging of ancient history and sociology really began to occur again.1 1 5 In the meantime a rich field of work became separated from the discipline of Classics. This is not to say that sociological work on the ancient world was not carried out; but such work was not part of mainstream Ancient History. For instance, Max Weber’s sociological writings are leading classical scholar of his time. Yet after his death, he was soon replaced by Wilamowitz as the model for the new generation.” 1 1 4 See Momigliano 1994: 174-6 for a discussion of the similarities and differences between Fustel and Durkheim. 76 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. full of references to the ancient world and indeed the ancient world is fundamental to many of his interpretative categories of analysis. Indeed his Promotionsschrift of 1891 was the Romische Agrargeschichte. Weber had been taught by Mommsen and, according to Momigliano, Mommsen was “pleased that the study of Roman agrarian problems was passing from the hands of philologists into those of economists and lawyers” (1994: 249). It is interesting, however, that such issues were not deemed by Mommsen as appropriate to an ancient historian. It is tme to say that Fustel was as hostile to Mommsen’s work as Mommsen surely was to Fustel’s. Their hostility may have been fueled in part by a political quarrel between the scholars over the French or German character of Alsace (Momigliano 1994: 165). But Fustel’s main objection to Mommsen was that even though his enormous learning had almost made him an ancient (“il s’est fait ancien par F erudition”), ultimately his work fails because he still approaches the past with a modern frame of mind (“malheureusement il est reste tout modeme par la maniere de penser et par ses sentiments”; Hartog 1988: 3441 1 6 ). Fustel points out that Mommsen’s liberalism and nationalism have made him miss the essence of the Roman experience: II pretend decrire le passe, et c’est le present qui manifestement 1 ’occupe. H raconte les anciennes revolutions, les yeux fixes sur nos querelles presentes. II parle de Rome, c’est a l’Allemagne qu’il pense, et trop souvent a la France. Dans chacune de ses lignes vous sentez ou une opinion ou une haine de l’epoque actuelle. Qu’est-il arrive? C’est que, dans ce vaste ouvrage ou presque tous les details sont d’une exactitude incontestable, 1 ’ensemble est profondement inexact.. .Un sentiment trop personnel a 1 ’auteur, une idee preconque, 1 ’habitude trop forte de songer au present, une opinion politique dominante, une sorte d’impuissance a s’affranchir de ses preferences et de son patriotisme meme, voila ce qui a trouble cette erudition si complete et cette sagacite si penetrante. (Hartog 1988: 344) 1 1 5 The work in England of Keith Hopkins should also be mentioned. 1 1 6 Hartog is quoting from Fustel’s L ’ histoire, science pure of 1875. 77 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Within Germany, Fustel’s criticisms of Mommsen were echoed by Johann Jacob Bachofen, who, like Fustel, had broad interdisciplinary and sociological interests. According to Lionel Gossman, Bachofen saw antiquity as being “remodeled to conform with the pettiness and the fragmentariness of contemporary Berlin, and with the narrow interests, the egotism and the unbridled lust for power of modem societies” (1983: 21). Bachofen wrote that “Mommsen can copy inscriptions or muddy chronicles; but his hands are not worthy to hold the stylus of the historian” (quoted at Gossman 28); and he felt that Mommsen’s approach to the past was one of violent domination (31) and, like Nietzsche, of whom Bachofen was a colleague at Basel,1 1 7 he felt that the “mindless industrial enterprise” (21) of Altertumswissenschaft was removing the real beauty and significance of Greece and Rome. Like Fustel, Bachofen believed that examining comparative evidence from different societies might offer a more sensitive approach than Mommsen’s historicism, which was dependent on a hermeneutic method in which the interpreter was bound to be influenced by his own preoccupations and politics.1 1 8 1 1 7 However, Bachofen worked in Basel as a private scholar, having resigned his professorship there. See Schorske 1998: 62-3. Schorske describes the importance of the Swiss city of Basel in this period as a bastion in the struggle against the increasing abandonment of Bildung. 1 1 8 It is worth noting that Mommsen is probably unique among ancient historians in having the distinction of having been attacked by both Marx and Nietzsche for imposing the present upon the past. For the reference in Capital see above. Nietzsche’s attack appeared in the 1873 Bayreuther Horizont-betrachtungen: “The author who seeks to make Roman history come alive by loathsome references and the paltry views of modem political parties and their ephemeral configuration commits a yet greater sin against the past than does the mere scholar who leaves everything dead and mummified (eg an historian much talked of at present, Mommsen)” (quoted at Demandt 1990: 294). Of course, neither Marx nor Nietzsche would have had any problems in using the past for present purposes. Indeed this is precisely the period of Nietzsche’s Uses and Disadvantages o f History for Life. But clearly neither liked an approach which saw the past in the light of the present but made no attempt to use history to radically change modem life. 78 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. But, of course, comparative method by no means offers scholarly objectivity, and Fustel’s own history is far from free from personal political influences.1 1 9 His famous thesis that ancient family worship of the dead was the origin of private property had obvious contemporary significance and doubtless reflects Fustel’s political fears.1 2 0 And Momigliano points out that even Fustel’s famous emphasis in the introduction to the Ancient City on how distant and different the ancients are from us, an emphasis which Fustel surely made to distance himself from historians such as Mommsen, was in itself a result of Fustel’s political and social anxieties. “Fearful of the revolutionary intoxication which had identified the ancient heroes with the protagonists of the Terror, Fustel deepened the gulf which separates our conflicts from the ancient ones and made it virtually unbridgeable” (Momigliano 1994: 169). But Fustel’s comparative approach, while no more objective than the dominant historicist approach, was a powerful alternative to the writings of the German Historical School. And as has been said, his true influence was channeled into the emergent discipline of sociology, where questions regarding social order and cohesion were examined with an eye to more than just the nature and stability of a constitution.1 2 1 Fustel was also a contributor to the great French Dictionary of Antiquities compiled by Daremberg and Saglio. The full title of this work suggests something of its range: Dictionnaire des Antiquites Grecques et Romaines, d ’apres les textes et les monuments— contenant Vexplication des termes qui se rapportent aux moeurs, aux institutions, a la religion, aux arts, aux sciences, au costume, au mobilier, a la 1 1 9 See Schorske 1998 for the political agenda of the Basel scholars Bachofen and Burckhardt. 1 2 0 See Momigliano 1994: 225-251 on how the question of the ownership of the Roman ager publicus preoccupied nineteenth-century scholars. He points out that Mommsen had accepted a kind of primitive collective ownership of the public land for early Rome (237). 1 2 1 Fustel’s examination of the relationship between economic structure and religious beliefs in the Ancient City was particularly influential here (Momigliano 1994: 165). 79 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. guerre, a la marine, aux metiers, aux monnaies, poids et mesures . . . et en general d la vie publique et privee des anciens. And this broad approach is continued in the introduction where there is a welcome lack of any kind of nationalism: “nous eussions aime donner place aux antiquites de certains peuples de la Grece ou de l’ltalie, moins connus que ne le sont Rome et Athenes, et des voisins qu’elles appelaient barbares et qu’ont contribue cependant pour quelque chose a les faire ce qu’elles ont ete” (1877: vii). But this broad range of interests was a victim of the victory of German political history, and Pauly and Wissowa’s encyclopaedia, not Daremberg and Saglio’s, was to reflect the state of the discipline and to set the agenda for research.1 2 2 Of course, much was gained by a move from antiquarianism to history, but the consequent restriction of the range of topics investigated does seem to have been a loss.1 2 3 Since so much of this chapter has been concerned with the kind of history writing produced by those who were highly anxious about the emerging mass political movements and were keen to defend middle-class privileges, it seems worthwhile here to look at several works written from an explicitly pro-labor or socialist perspective. 1 2 2 It is perhaps worth mentioning that Wissowa was a pupil of Mommsen’s (Momigliano 1994: 319). Note also Momigliano’s comment here on Wissowa’s Religion und Kultus der Romer. “The analysis of Roman republican religion, as given by Wissowa, leaves out any emotional element, any reference to personal religion, and therefore tends to avoid questions about the penetration of foreign cults into Rome when they are not officially registered by public documents .. .In his introduction he could in fact claim with some truth that by avoiding questions of beliefs and sticking to sacred law he had proved himself a worthy pupil of Mommsen. No doubt, he had extended to Roman religion the juridical approach which Mommsen had used in his exposition of Roman public law” (1994: 319- 320). 1 2 3 Note the lively treatments of the subject of the next chapter, circuli and circulatores, in Daremberg- Saglio. Pauly-Wissowa has no reference to circuli but does comment briefly on circulatores with an article by August Mau. Mau’s attitude to popular culture can perhaps be gauged from a passage in his Pompeii: its Life and Art, first published in 1899: “Taken as a whole, the graffiti are less fertile for our knowledge of Pompeian life than might have been expected. The people with whom we should most eagerly desire to come into direct contact, the cultivated men and women of the ancient city, were not accustomed to scratch their names upon stucco or to confide their reflections and experiences to the surface of a wall” (1982: 497-8). Note that in der neue Pauly even the reference to the circulator has been omitted. 8 0 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Here I will be looking at works produced in England and the United States rather than Germany. Such works are often rather idiosyncratic, but, especially in the case of E.S Beesly, sometimes extremely acute and offering a revealing alternative to the dominant historiographical tradition. Edward Spencer Beesly, 1831-1915, was a professor of history at University College, London and is occasionally remembered by ancient historians for his discussions of Catiline, Clodius and Tiberius which have been published as a volume.1 2 4 These discussions were based on lectures to working-class audiences1 2 5 and were first published in The Fortnightly Review between 1865 and 1868. This periodical seems to have been generally of a progressive character and its first editor was George Henry Lewes. The first volume (covering the journal’s first three months) is indicative of its typically Victorian wide range of content, including, as well as Beesly’s “Catiline as a Party Leader,” articles on “the Iron Masters’ Trade Union” by F. Harrison, on “Our Rural Poor” by John Dennis, and on “the influence of rationalism” by George Eliot, who was, of course, Lewes’ lifelong partner. It also contains the first installments of Trollope’s novel The Belton Estate. Under its second editor, John Morley, who took over in 1867, the Fortnightly Review appears to have become more radical still. What is particularly interesting about this Review is the presence of serious articles on classical subjects side by side with articles on very different themes.1 2 6 One unhappy consequence of the eventual triumph of German 1 2 4 For instance cf. de Ste Croix’s recommendation and discussion of Beesly at 1981: 621-2 n. 5. Cf. Vance 1997: 55. On Beesly see above all Wiseman’s recent discussion (1998), which concentrates on Beesly’s lectures on Catiline and Clodius rather than his discussion of Tiberius. 1 2 5 De Ste Croix 1981: 621 says that all the lectures were delivered at St. Pancras’ Working Men’s College, but it seems that the Tiberius lecture was delivered in Bradford. 1 2 6 As well as the Roman history discussions of Beesly, we find articles on, for instance, Apollonius of Tyana by W.M.W. Call and on “Mr Grote’s Plato” by Lewes (both in volume 2). For a similar, though, it seems, less progressive periodical, cf. MacMillan’ s Magazine, which had a similarly wide range of features, including serious discussion of Rome. For instance in 1869 there was a series of 81 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. scholarly methods in England was surely the removal of serious discussion of Rome and Greece to a specialized, scholarly audience. Also significant is the fact that Beesly wrote for the same magazine on modem issues as well as ancient. For instance, in 1867 he wrote on “The Amalgamated Society of Carpenters” and “The Trade Union Commission”; in 1869 on “The Social Future of the Working Classes”; and in 1870 on “The International Working Men’s Association.” It is striking how Beesly brings out themes in these writings similar to those that he raises in his articles on Rome. For instance his comment in the article on the Carpenters’ Union that the bad image of trade unions is due to “the gross and systematic misrepresentations propagated by a press devoted to middle-class interests” (.Fortnightly Review January 1 - June 1, 1867 p319) is reminiscent of his recovery of the reputation of Tiberius from the account of Tacitus which he shows is contaminated with class interest and prejudice. In the same article on the Carpenter’ Union, he ends with a denunciation of the inadequacy of contemporary notions of freedom: “For my part, I am not sorry that they should learn what that liberty amounts to under a Parliament chosen by the upper and middle classes” (Fortnightly Review Jan. 1- June 1, 1867: 334). This reminds a reader of his fierce denunciation of the Roman Republic in the lectures on Tiberius, where he tells his audience: Now I must first ask you to dismiss from your minds all those prepossessions in favour of the Republican Government which are derived from its name. It was no Republic. It was that worst of all government, the monopoly of power by a privileged class. You know what that means. A single man mling with despotic power must take some thought for the well-being of his subjects, or his reign will not last long. But a privileged class with immense landed property, with a degraded agricultural population crawling below its feet at an immeasurable depth, snarled at and worshipped by the moneyed men who hope one day to enter its ranks, wielding its power through the agency of a deliberative assembly articles by Prof. Seeley on “Roman Imperialism” (volume XX, May-October 1869: 185-197; 281- 291; and 473-484). 82 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. consisting mainly of noblemen and their nominees— such a class, I say, can perform with security feats of injustice and oppression from which a despot would recoil with dismay. Wrapping up its arbitrary action in solemn constitutional jargon, evading responsibility by dividing it, arrogating a popular origin by the farce of popular election, it has not one, but a thousand greedy maws to be filled at the public expense, a thousand idle hands ready for any mischief, and (let us add) in the day of retribution a thousand necks where the despot has but one. Such a class was the Roman aristocracy. Such a deliberative assembly was the Roman senate. (Beesly 1924: 86-7)1 2 7 Not least among Beesly’s gifts was a facility in coining remarkably acute analogies. As he says of the principate: “The English peerage submits without soreness to the solitary dignity of our present royal family. But if a revolution were to place Lord Russell on the throne, we can understand how a Stanley or a Cavendish would feel towards him. That was how a Piso or Aemilius felt towards Tiberius” (1924: 119- 120). Here, then, was a kind of history writing that Marx could approve of: unlike Mommsen, who was applying modem categories to ancient Rome in order to justify and promote contemporary liberalism, Beesly was attempting to draw lessons from the past to justify radical change in the present. Whether the two historians’ approaches are essentially different is questionable, but Marx was, of course, more sympathetic to Beesly’s politics than to Mommsen’s liberalism.1 2 8 Yet Beesly was not a socialist. He was a devoted Comtean positivist. As Harrison says, “Beesly, following Comte, saw the solution of the social and intellectual problems of the age in the creation of an organised and all-powerful opinion which would be guided and directed by teachers who had a thorough understanding of the 1 2 7 Cf. his essay on Catiline: “There was a cold pitiless barbarity about a Roman noble unknown in modem times, except perhaps among the slaveowners in America” (1924: 6). 1 2 8 For Marx’s friendly relations and correspondence with Beesly cf. Ste Croix 1981, Harrison 1959 and 1960, and Wiseman 1998: 124. According to Wiseman, Marx wrote to Engels that he admired Beesly’s discussion of Catiline but felt it to be “allerlei unkritisches,” as one would expect from an Englishman. Beesly explicitly knowedges his debt to Marx in his article on the First International {Fortnightly Review, July 1-December 1, 1870: 529-30). 83 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. impersonal forces that shaped society” (1960: 209). Harrison suggests that in the 1860s there was much support within the labor movement for the positivist mission of moralizing capitalism, with a spiritual power resting on the Positivists who would be sustained in authority by the support of the proletariat (1960: 210). Yet in his writings and practical suggestions for action, Beesly seems to be basically in accord with the practical suggestions for working-class action advocated by socialists, even if he distances himself from socialism and communism.1 2 9 For instance he ends his article on “the Social Future of the Working Classes” in a manner reminiscent of the Communist Manifesto: Let us school ourselves into a readiness not merely to storm the breach, but to lie down in the trench, that others may pass over our bodies as over a bridge to victory. It is a spirit which has never been found wanting whenever there has been a great cause to call it forth; and a greater cause than that of the workmen of Europe advancing to their final emancipation, this world is not likely to see again. (Fortnightly Review, January 1-June 1,1868: 363) However, the image here suggests that it is not the proletariat itself but the intellectual movers of the new movement who will need to summon up strength for the fight.1 3 0 1 2 9 For an explicit rejection of socialism and communism, see the article on “the Social Future of the Working Classes” {Fortnightly Review, January 1-June 1, 1868: 349). For hints at his ideal of a positivist society, note his comment in his Clodius: “ . . .the proletarian class has naturally a breadth of view which education, unless positive in its spirit, only tends to impair” (Beesly 1924: 83). Also see his article on “the Trade Union Commission”: “A single rash or ignorant step on the part of our rulers may bring it [a violent convulsion of society] about, and it will then be seen how deceitful is the calm of a society which has ceased to possess the bond of a common body of convictions, moral and religious, and in which no spiritual authority retains general respect. The best that can be hoped for is that the middle class will be sensible; that they will comprehend that they are living in a changed world, and not push matters to extremities. Any existing order, however defective, is a precious possession to a nation, and in England at present there is no organic principle sufficiently accepted to give shape to the anarchy which revolution would certainly inaugurate. When this want is supplied, we shall be prepared for any event” {Fortnightly Review, July 1-December 1, 1867: 18). 1 3 0 For Beesly’s sympathies, cf. his essay on Clodius, 1924: 41: “Only, in reviewing the past, as in ordering the present, it is too often forgotten that masses of men have a claim to justice no less well- founded than individuals; and that tirades against the corrupt mob, and sneers at a fickle populace, are, if ill-founded, none the less reprehensible and offensive because the humble individuals who composed those aggregates sleep in forgotten graves” It is to be noted that Harrison, in his two long articles on 84 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. But while Beesly was clearly a splendid rhetorician, he was also, as Wiseman has shown, a serious historian of the late Roman Republic.1 3 1 For instance Wiseman praises Beesly’s observation in the essay on Catiline that one can glimpse from the sources a suggestion that the senators may have been contemplating the assassination of Catiline throughout the year: “That sort of insight, achieved by reading the sources against the grain, seems to me the mark of a serious historian” (1998: 128). I would add to this the importance of Beesly’s insistence in the same essay on how it was the aristocratic rather than the popular party that had consistently violated the constitution and turned to non-constitutional action to murder its opponents in the century following Tiberius Gracchus’ tribunate. This stress on non-constitutional action is a marked contrast to the German scholarship influenced by Mommsen which was looking to explain everything in constitutional terms, and in some ways anticipates Syme’s determination to look at the realities of politics rather than the constitutional fatjade. Wiseman’s overall opinion of Beesly is that his political beliefs proved obfuscating as well as illuminating: .. .his trilogy of essays on the Roman revolution is a document of some importance. From one point of view, it illustrates the dangers to a historian of having an a priori pattern to substantiate. What but the Comtean dogma could have brought this enthusiastic republican to praise ‘the splendid calm of two centuries, unparalleled hitherto in the history of the world, which followed the battle of Actium’? On the other hand, his experience of the reality and the dangers of radical politics enabled him to read the Ciceronian evidence with a sensitivity to popularis thinking unparalleled in any historian before or since. (1998: 134) Beesly, has little interest in Beesly’s writings in the Fortnightly Review and no interest at all in Beesly’s lectures on Roman history. 1 3 1 See Wiseman 1998: 121-134. But Beesly’s historical judgments are often made all the more powerful precisely because of his highly rhetorical style. Note for instance his comments on the statue of Agrippina in the Capitoline Museum: “Noone can look at her statue in the Museum of the Capitol without being satisfied that Germanicus was henpecked. The one virtue she is recorded to have possessed is her ‘pudicitia impenetrabilis.’ Surely not such a rare merit in a widow with nine children” (1924: 133 n. 1). 85 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Yet in some ways, I feel his essay on Tiberius, which Wiseman seems less interested in, is more impressive still than his Ciceronian studies. In particular there is something quite bold about Beesly’s willingness to emancipate himself from the account of Tacitus, appealing to common sense to do so (e.g. 1924: 91-2), and his insistence on using other sources is admirable: Of all the readers of this paper, who will pooh-pooh Velleius as a notorious toady of Tiberius, how many can honestly say that they ever read a chapter of his book? Our wretched classical education does not even introduce its victims to more than a small fraction of the scanty, but precious, remains of ancient history. How do they know that Velleius is a toady? Because they are told so by the literary men, who can just see that either he or Tacitus must be utterly wrong about Tiberius, and, of course, decide for the finest writer. (105-6 n. 2) Commenting on Beesly’s political activities and writings rather than his scholarly activity, Harrison remarks: “In the labour movement of the eighteen-sixties and seventies, Marx and Beesly stood out together as exponents of theory and principle in the midst of boundless empiricism. In an age of compromise they distinguished themselves by their fanaticism” (1959: 238). However, Beesly was not free from attempts to marginalize him from academia and his radical politics made his position at University College, London at times difficult. For instance, he nearly lost his professorship for speaking in 1867 on behalf of the Sheffield unionist Broadhead, who had organized what turned out to be a fatal assault on non-union workers. According to UCL minutes, he had shown himself to be “unfit to be entrusted with the instruction of young men in history” (Harrison 1960: 227). But Beesly survived this attack. It 1 3 2 Cf. 1924: 112-3: “At this point commences the narrative of Tacitus, and we have henceforth to deal with a tissue of systematic detraction, sly insinuation, and open invective unparalleled in political biography.” Note also his comment at 129-130: “History has always been written (except perhaps in the middle ages, when there was a church) by the rich and their friends. Rulers who have displeased that class have suffered accordingly. But how would contemporary history look if recorded by an Irish peasant or a Spitalfields weaver? Would he see it en beau?” (129-130). Cf. also his comment on Catiline and Cicero: “It is not good to make a literary man your enemy” (35). 86 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. seems that Beesly published nothing else on Roman history except for the lectures on Catiline, Clodius and Tiberius. However, he continued to teach and lecture, concentrating instead on contemporary issues. Nevertheless, his three Roman essays do cast much light on the late Republic and early Empire and are a very refreshing alternative to what was becoming the dominant model in Germany, and later in England.1 3 3 If I have dwelt on Beesly at some length, it is because his work seems the best example of the kind of Roman History that was being written by political radicals in this period. But Rome was used in an even more explicit political manner in the period of the Chartist movement which peaked in the great London demonstration of 1848 but continued for several years afterwards. In the early 1850s, Ernest Jones published his paper Notes to the People, a paper reflecting the great influence of the socialist movement on Chartism in this period (cf. Vance 1997: 43). A feature of the paper was a series of “Lessons from History,” including an ongoing account of “the Plebeians of Rome,” concentrating on the Gracchi. As one might expect, this account is essentially political and the modem audience is meant to learn from the Roman plebeians’ mistakes. Yet it is not without a certain historical insight. For instance, the author has no inclination to take seriously the claim that the plebeians’ political rights equated to democracy: But the people, while preserving political equality, had neglected to preserve social equality, or anything approaching to it. They had allowed a few families so to monopolise lucrative offices, the government of conquered provinces, and so to regulate commercial and political treaties with foreign countries, as to amass enormous fortunes, while the Plebeians themselves remained in poverty. The consequence of this vast difference of means, this great social distance between rich and poor, was, 1 3 3 Though there are certain similarities between Mommsen and Beesly’s interpretation of the late Republic, most notably in their view of Caesar as bringing an end to a bankrupt Republic and of the Empire as being based on popular support. 87 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. practically, a political distance also; for the poor became dependent on the rich for the means of subsistence, for work and wage, and the result of this dependence was, that the Plebeians with all their right of public meeting, their primary assemblies, and their forms of democracy, became nothing more than the mouthpiece, by which the rich proclaimed whatever laws they chose. Here is another proof, that political equality is a mere farce, where great social inequality exists, and that democratic power, once obtained, will have no continuance, unless the public use it for the recognised and well defined purpose of making the rich poorer, and the poor rich. (1967: 198).1 3 4 One further example of an appropriation of Rome (and Greece) for radical ends is Cyrenus Osborne Ward’s somewhat ambitious two volume study of The Ancient Lowly: a History of the Ancient Working People from the Earliest Known Period to the Adoption o f Christianity by Constantine. Ward was a New York socialist and his history was first published in 1888.1 3 5 It is certainly an idiosyncratic work and clearly exaggerates the great strikes and uprisings of antiquity, the knowledge of which, it claims, has been suppressed by ancient and modems alike. Typical is Ward’s praise of the long-neglected Spartacus: “Yet Spartacus was one of the great generals of history; fully equal to Hannibal and Napoleon, while his cause was much more just and noble, his life a model of the beautiful and virtuous, his death an episode of surpassing grandeur” (1907: vi). And yet his exaggeration of certain episodes does serve the function of reminding a reader that enormous scholarly silencing of certain issues has occurred. More questionable, perhaps, are chapters on subjects such as “the Old Red 1 3 4 Along with Chartism, the other major popular radical movement in mid-century Victorian England was the Anti-Corn Law League. Vance 1997: 39-40 points out that both supporters and opponents of the League had a serious ancient historian that they could draw on to point out how the example of the Gracchi and the Roman Corn Laws supported their position on the modem Com Laws. Cooke Taylor showed how disastrous had been the Roman policy of keeping the price of com at an artificially high level, while George Comewall Lewis, who was in fact also hostile to the modem Com Laws, was keen to suggest that the social and political context in Rome was so different that it could not be used as an example for modem action. 1 3 5 We read in the publisher’s note in the fourth edition that the book was at first published privately because “no capitalist publishing house would take the responsibility for so revolutionary a book, and 88 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Flag,” where he argues that the historical study of the red flag shows its associations with peace rather than war and blood, and “the Old International.” The contemporary purpose of the book is never less than obvious and is often made explicit. For instance, Ward writes: Whether the laboring classes of modem times are willing to leam wisdom by this recital of long occult facts remains a momentous question. We know that the same hatred of them exists. Monarch, president, capitalist still views with fear all attempts of labor to organize on a political basis. ‘Avoid politics’ has been their constant cry. Appius Claudius, 400 years before our era said to them: ‘don’t go into politics.’ (1907: 73) Another, even more idiosyncratic, work of Ward’s is worth mentioning. In 1877 he published his A Labor Catechism of Political Economy: A Study for the People, an odd collection of imaginary dialogues concerning the question of state control of industry. This book on a very contemporary subject occasionally draws on Roman history for examples and support. A particularly striking instance is his argument that the lesson of the Roman ager publicus, where state ownership meant that working Romans lost their homes, warns against a premature nationalization of land. The speaker, described as a Socialist, says: And what was Rome? Nothing but the lords, blooded grandees, millionaire politicians, braggarts of boasted family and their toadies and speculating fortune-hunters all maintained by the military, the armed force and repressive laws of which you so grandly speak. These were the statesmen. They constituted all that was recognized of Rome except her enormous wealth robbed and plundered from labor.. .No! No! We shall profit by the lesson taught by that old republic; and beware the premature nationalization of land. (1899: 264-5) no socialist publishing house existed” (1907: iii). The note also makes clear the great success that the book had received. 1 3 6 It is hard to resist quoting Ward’s tirade against Cicero in the same section of the book: “Lawyer Cicero whose most eloquent bursts rang against the working people whom he twitted of being without an immortal soul, because too poor and lowly to possess a family name, drove to his squatter country seat, on the high road to Capua regaling the ladies who shared his chariot, on views of the six thousand revolted mechanics, enslaved farmers and gladiators, whose crucified bodies for long months dangled on ghastly giblets because they dared to strike against their bondage” (1899: 265-6). 89 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. But it was by no means only radicals who were interested in spreading lessons from Rome among the general public. The famous Penny Magazine, published by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, ran occasional pieces on ancient themes, most often to do with archaeological sites such as Pompeii or with the collections of the British Museum.1 3 7 The magazine began in 1832, before Victoria’s accession, and was avowedly apolitical. As the preface to the first volume, looking back on the first year of sales, proclaimed in the somewhat self-satisfied manner typical of the magazine: In this work there has never been a single sentence that could inflame a vicious appetite; and not a paragraph that could minister to prejudices and superstitions which a few years since were common. There have been no excitements for the lovers of the marvellous— no tattle or abuse for the gratification of a diseased taste for personality— and above all, no party politics. (1832 volume one: iii). But despite these claims, the magazine was in fact highly political and its intention was surely similar to that of the early nineteenth century liberals throughout Europe, to bring about an educated public which would contribute to an expanded middle class or at any rate to provide the people with certain information which might make them less dangerous. In either case, the aim, in a period that was marked by social unrest, was surely to ward off the dangers of a revolution.1 3 8 Indeed this unspoken goal can be observed in some of the articles in the magazine. One particularly funny example from 1 3 7 Articles on the ancient world in the first four years of the magazine cover topics such as Pompeii, Thebes, the Colosseum, the Elgin Marbles, a description of the Shield of Achilles (a translation of the passage from Homer), the Barberini Vase, Tivoli, the Temples of Paestum, the Laocoon, the Apollo Belvedere, Aeschines, Trajan’s Column and the Roman Forum. 1 3 8 Note the first article in the first magazine (March 31, 1832), “Reading for all,” which states: “what the stage-coach has become to the middle classes, we hope our Penny Magazine will be to all classes— an universal convenience and enjoyment”; it continues by telling of the Society’s belief that everybody needs to be acquainted with the world and current affairs etc. The preface to the first volume says that the magazine’s sales have reached 200000 and estimates its readership (surely optimistically) as one million. The preface continues by stating that the magazine’s high circulation “furnishes the 9 0 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the second magazine of April 7,1832 is an article “On the Choice of a Labouring Man’s Dwelling,” extolling the beauties of a small cottage over the inconveniences that the rich have to face because of their large houses, and pointing out that “however small may be a man’s income, there is one very certain way of increasing it— that of frugality” (16). And in the following week’s edition, there is an article on “How to Endure Poverty,” recommending “a mind full of piety and knowledge.” The article on “Coffee” on June 14, 1834 provided an opportunity for moralizing that was too good to miss: If our artisans and labourers, who feel a natural craving for some stimulus after their day of toil and exhaustion, could be content to gratify this craving by the use of the sober berry, which ‘cheers but not inebriates,’ what a vast increase to the happiness of their families might be experienced— what improvement to their own health, both physical and moral. The same moral tone is present in articles in Rome. In the July 14, 1832 edition, rather than informing the English population about Bastille Day, there is an article on the Roman Colosseum, attacking Roman sensuality, which is “ignorance under another name,” and telling how in Rome “the public morality was sacrificed upon the same shrine as its wealth” (147). The article on the Roman Forum in the October 24,1835 edition is similar (412-415): We do not eulogize the factious spirit, the love of war and conquest, which were the immediate cause of their ruin, but we need scarcely remind any of our readers that the old Roman republican had many private and public virtues— that they were sober, honest, chaste and hospitable— and that they loved their country with an unbounded passion. All these disappeared under an execrable despotism; and the Romans experienced, what all nations will feel, that in forging chains for others they make rivets for their own necks - that those who enslave today are on the road to be enslaved tomorrow, that the spoils of unjust aggression, and the gains wrung from a vanquished but once free people, are like clothes stolen from the back of a most convincing answer to the few (if any there now remain) who assert that General Education is an evil. The people will not abuse the power they have to read, and therefore to think” (iii). 91 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. man that has died of the plague, which carry a curse and death to the fool who puts them on.1 3 9 None of this, of course, is to make any claim for such pieces as scholarship. But the comfort with which Roman history was used as an educative tool is interesting and was not to survive the later professionalization of the discipline. Also interesting is the political nature of this use of Rome. What is of particular note is how such competing accounts of Rome, with very different political purposes, came to be sidelined as the interpretation of the prevailing mode of German historiography became dominant. And yet this interpretation itself, as we have seen, was highly political and increasingly reactionary. 5. Conclusion The aim of this chapter has been to suggest that Mommsen’s influential model of ancient history, with its stress on institutions and constitutions, was a result of his liberal politics; this focus on a very narrow kind of political history reflects the contradictions inherent within nineteenth-century German liberalism and is a result of an attitude to the emerging “masses” in which their function as an electorate in a constitutional democracy was seen as a means to prevent disorder and as the maximum political role that they should be allowed to play. As has been seen, the next major development in Roman History was in some ways an intensification of this process, dispensing with even the people’s constitutional role. As mass political movements became more and more powerful in the 1920s and 1930s, Roman historians began to 1 3 9 But it must not be thought that the Society viewed the British Empire in a negative light; cf. the article in the very first magazine on Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania): “A new evil, however, began to assail the colony, we mean the hostility of the natives. After various attempts had been made in vain to tame them, or to deter them from continuing outrages against the settlers, the Governor, at last, in 92 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. reject the people as any kind of serious political force, restricting historical interpretation to the role of elite groupings and to prosopography. None of this is to denounce Mommsen. His achievements in both academia and politics are very great,1 4 0 and, if his politics were overtaken by changing circumstances, he nonetheless admirably stuck to his principles more than the majority of the Achtundvierziger. But, as this dissertation deals with popular politics, in its broadest sense, in ancient Rome and argues that ancient writers’ prejudices and silences reflect anxieties about the various activities of the plebs urbana, it seems useful to bear in mind how scholars and some of the most influential historical paradigms have been influenced by fears similar to those found in the ancient writers whose works they study. September 1830, deemed it necessary to resort to the extreme measure of endeavouring to drive them into the comer of the island, with the intention of inclosing them for the future” (2). 1 4 0 See the tribute of Toynbee 1965:1.v:“One famous name appears only occasionally in my footnotes because it is latent in every page of this book and of the works of other scholars that I have consulted. Theodor Mommsen dealt with all the problems of Roman history that I have discussed; and everything that he touched has borne, ever since, the enduring marks of his masterly handling. Mommsen had the gift of setting thoughts in motion; his work was bahnbrechend; and one measure of its, and his, greatness is the speed with which it has been carried farther under the stimulus that he has given to all later workers in the same field. On almost any point in Roman history that one takes up, one may agree with Mommsen or one may differ from him at one's peril; but in either case his work will be the foundation of one's own; the point will be one that was first perceived and formulated by him; and one will be aware that, if Mommsen had not been first in the field, the question at issue might still today have been beyond one's own horizon.” 9 3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Going Round in Circles: Popular Speech in Ancient Rome 1. Introduction Just before dining with Trimalchio, Encolpius and his friends are at the Baths, where according to Petronius, they go around in little groups, described as circuli, exchanging jokes (Sat. 27). This study of popular speech and popular sociability begins by examining in some detail these seemingly insignificant circuli, groups of people which met, in the city or elsewhere, to talk about matters of interest or to pass the time in some way. Associated with circuli was the figure of the circulator, often portrayed as a showman, such as the snakecharmers accused by Celsus of drugging their animals or the sword-swallowers described by Apuleius at the start of his novel.1 4 1 This chapter will argue that these circuli and circulatores were an important aspect of what was a more general popular culture of sociability at Rome. And if circuli and circulatores are often treated in our sources as an insignificant aspect of a debased non-elite culture, this, I suggest, tells us more about the strategies developed by the Roman ruling classes to represent popular activity than about the nature of the gatherings themselves and the wider culture associated with them. Indeed a nexus of anxieties will be seen to surround the mention of circuli and circulatores in ancient texts, reflecting a concern among members of the Roman elite about the unauthorized nature of these gatherings and those associated with them.1 4 2 1 4 1 Celsus de Med. 5.27.3c; Apul. Met. 1.4. Cf. Digest 47.11.11 for more snakecharmers described as circulatores. 1 4 2 Because of the scattered references to circuli in our sources, this chapter inevitably ranges across a broad chronological period. My aim here is to examine the marked nature of the circulus and the circulator, such a study offers insight into the contested character of ancient sociability and serves as background to the subsequent chapters which focus more closely on the Late Republic and early Empire. 94 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The circulus raises the question of how the city population was represented by the elite. It was in the interest of this elite to consider the plebs as an undifferentiated body, whose primary function in politics was to legitimate elite rale. However, the notion of an undifferentiated vulgus was in practice unsustainable, since at times unauthorized and possibly dangerous combinations of the plebs demanded attention. Labeling groups of Romans as circuli was one possible representational strategy, allowing potentially troublesome groups to be refigured into a hierarchical scheme of culture, in which the circuli were associated with a culture that could be dismissed as trivial by contrast with elite culture.1 4 3 Indeed this denial of the political aspects of non-elite culture and the representation of the plebs as subpolitical was a powerful strategy in the maintenance of the political hegemony of the Roman upper classes. In one sense, then, this chapter is a study of social discipline and helps to illuminate how those associated with the ruling classes at Rome excluded a wide range of popular practices from their definition of what counted as politically and culturally important. However, while focusing necessarily on the representational strategies of the Roman elite, I hope also to suggest that circuli offer an insight into an important aspect of plebeian culture, which deserves to be viewed by the historian more sympathetically than it was by Roman writers. The circulus was not just a rhetorical possibility for those who wanted to depict groups of socializing Romans. It was also a real social institution and a real political entity. The representation of unauthorized political and cultural activity, then, offers insight into the maintenance of elite political hegemony. For the Roman ruling class to maintain its position, it was important for the definition of what counted as the political 1 4 3 See the chapter on compita for a plebeian culture that was that literally trivialis, that is performed at crossroads. 95 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. sphere to be narrowed sufficiently so that it served its interests. As we have seen, scholars, reacting against Fergus Millar’s revisionist approach to the Middle and Late Republic, have suggested that the popular participation that Millar stresses in fact served primarily as a means to legitimate an essentially aristocratic government and to reinforce Senatorial authority.1 4 4 Here, I hope to broaden the discussion by focusing not so much on the aristocratic manipulation of a popularist ideology as on the discrediting of political and cultural interaction that was not very clearly under elite surveillance and control, with the consequence that alternative kinds of politics were rendered illegitimate. I will also suggest that, not least because the Romans lacked many aspects of a modem society’s means of surveillance and social discipline, this project could never be wholly effective.1 4 5 As a result, we can observe evidence of a persistent anxiety about activity that occurred outside the narrowly defined “official” political space of the city. 2. Going Round in Circles: Circuli in Livy The circulus, unlike for instance a contio or the corona at a iudicium, was a group of people marked by its informal, unofficial character; nevertheless it does seem to have been an accepted part of Roman life, a recognized social phenomenon to which contemporaries attached significance. Quintilian (Inst. 12.10.74) offers two typical locations for circuli: the various fora and the agger of Servius Tullius (. . .neque aliunde illi per fora atque aggerem circuli). The demonstrative pronoun here perhaps 1 4 4 See the introduction for the views of e.g. Burckhardt 1990, Harris 1990: 288-295, Gruen 1991: 254 and Holkeskamp 1993. See especially Jehne 1995, a collection of essays by various scholars responding to Millar; note especially Jehne’s introductory remarks. 1 4 5 See Nippel 1984 and 1995 for the “policing” of Rome. 96 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. suggests that circuli were a recognized feature of Roman society and signified more than simply groups of people talking.1 4 6 Evidence for circuli is scattered throughout a wide variety of authors and across a long chronological period. While this helps to show the longlasting importance of circuli in Roman life, it also makes it difficult to be certain about what each author understands by the term. Only Livy allows such a discussion, and I begin with an analysis of circuli in his narrative. This will then serve as background for an examination of circuli in other sources. Livy’s use of the term helps to bring out some of the rich symbolic associations of circuli and also helps us to consider their broader sociological function. Moreover, Livy’s attention to internal strife helps make clear their predominantly popular character.1 4 7 In Book Three of his history, Livy describes the internal dissension between plebeians and patricians following the tribune Terentilius’ demand for a codification of the laws in the late 460s. An already serious crisis is worsened when the Sabine Appius Herdonius seizes the Capitol. Livy tells how the tribunes call the people away from their military duties in order to take advantage of the crisis, provoked by Herdonius’ presence, to get Terentilius’ measure through. The consul Valerius Publicola attempts in vain to persuade the assembled people to put aside their grievances and to enlist, and Livy tells us that civil war was imminent. During the night, after the public meeting has 1 4 6 Cf. the Loeb translation by H.E. Butler: “indeed this is the sole cause of thost familiar gatherings in the Forum or on the Old Wall” (my italics). Horace confirms Quintilian’s picture, telling how the agger was a suitable place to take a stroll on a sunny day (nunc licet Esquiliis habitare salubribus atque / aggere in aprico spatiari, Sat. 1.8.14-15). 1 4 7 The relevant examples of circulus used in this sense in Livy are: 3.17; 7.12; 28.25; 32.30; 34.37; 34.61; and 44.22. Of course there are other uses of the word in Livy; for instance it is used of the famous circle that Popilius Laenas draws around Antiochus IV at 45.12. E. Dutoit, in an article on “le vocabulaire de la vie politique chez Tite-Live,” makes a passing reference to circuli, associating them with the comites of politicians and sees them as on the margin of the political factions in Rome, a view I would take issue with: “A 1 ’interieur ou en marge des partis se forment des coitiones, des ligues (2.35.4; 3.65.8: coitiones potentiorum), et des circuli, des groupes, des coteries . . .” (Dutoit 1960: 333). 97 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ended and the tribunes have departed, the people continue to discuss matters in circuli. The patricians, whose appeal to the people in the Assembly has failed, now take the unusual step of infiltrating at night these circuli and urge the people who are discussing the matter in these groups to put the national security ahead of their struggle to pass the contested law (patres circumire plebem inserentesque se in circulos sermones tempori aptos serere; admonere ut viderent in quod discrimen rem publicam adducerent. . . 3.17). On the next day, Publicola is able to prepare an army.1 4 8 This, like other such episodes, might be seen as a somewhat quaint historical instance illustrating how the initiative of the senators saved the Republic at a time of danger and dissent. However, the episode also offers sociological insight into the dynamics of popular politics, communication and opinion formation in Rome. There is a clear contrast here between the official speech of the consul, which has resoundingly failed, and the unauthorized circuli with which the Senate now has to deal. Moreover, the circuli that the senators decide to infiltrate take place at night. The paranoia which nightly meetings provoked in the minds of Roman senators is well known. Such meetings seem to have been banned in the Twelve Tables, and Cicero’s expression in the de lege agraria (2.44), taetris tenebris, or foul darkness, captures nicely the attitude in senators’ minds towards nightly meetings and potential conspiracies.1 4 9 In Livy’s 1 4 8 On this episode see Cornell 1995: 428 n. 77 pointing out that the story was already told by Cato in his Origines. Ogilvie, commenting on Livy 3.15-18, brings out the contemporary resonances of Livy’s account: “In recent memory the lower classes had been stirred into insurrection by Catiline. Livy, therefore, introduced Catilinarian overtones to remind the reader of the historical possibility of such insurrections.” 1 4 9 For the Twelve Tables’ ban, see VM.14-15 in the edition of Crawford (Roman Statutes vol. 2) with comments at 694-5. Note one of the sources for this statute, the Declamatio in Catilinam 65: primum xii tabulis cautum esse cognoscimus, ne quis in urbe coetus noctumos agitaret, deinde lege Gabinia promulgatum fuisse, qui coitiones ullas clandestinas in urbe conflavisset, more maiorum capitali supplicio mulctaretur. For a convenient discussion of Roman suspicions of nightly meetings, see Nippel 1995: 27-30, esp. 27. Also Nippel 1984: 20-29 esp. 24-5. Note also Habinek 1998a: 71- 2 on the Catilinarians. 98 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. passage, the senators are forced to infiltrate the circuli to try to reassert control of the situation. Associating with such circuli is something the senators would not normally do. It would be considered to be beneath their dignity, as Porphyrio states explicitly, commenting on Horace’s description of himself passing time with the fortune tellers in the Forum that “men higher in dignitas would almost blush to stand in these circuli of the vulgus” (Porphyrio on Sat. 1.6.114).1 5 0 But the Senators, by taking this unusual step, are able to recover their lost authority. There seems nothing in Livy’s account to suggest that the senators infiltrated the circuli in secret; their identities were presumably known to the people and this enabled their authority to be reasserted.1 5 1 The metaphor of “sowing” (sero) conversations (sermones) in this passage suggests perhaps that the senators were able to use their authority to drop the seed of a doubt in the people’s minds about their actions and then allow this doubt to undermine their resolve.1 5 2 Senatorial anxiety about the kind of talk that occurred in circuli is explicitly brought out in the speech of Aemilius Paullus at 44.22 at the time of the Third Macedonian War against Perseus. Livy tells here how in 168 Paullus was allotted Macedonia as his province. After the senatorial resolutions were completed, Paullus makes a speech before the people. After thanking the people for its support, he warns them, in a tone of some disgust, not to believe rumors “with no authority” {quorum auctor nemo extabit) but to trust only reports that he sends back from Macedonia to 1 5 0 Porphyrio on Hor. Sat. 1.6.114: porro autem altiores dignitatis homines erubescunt fere in his vulgi circulis stare, quod tamen sibi licere facere Horatius dicit per vitae libertatem, in qua non esset si in senatoria dignitate constitutus esset. 1 5 1 Note also Plut. Luc 37.12 where the Tribune Memmius is opposing Lucullus’ Triumph; Plutarch tells how the leading and most powerful citizens mingled with the tribes and by much entreaty managed to persuade the people to grant Lucullus his Triumph, (oi Trpcoxoi kcu Suvaxcoxaxoi Kaxap^avxES eauxoOs xaTs cpuAous ttoAAt) SefiaEi kcu aTTOu8fj poAij Eneiaav xov Sfjpov.) 1 5 2 Note Cincinnatus’ speech rebuking the tribunes who had encouraged the people to take no action after Herdonius seized the Capitol; Cincinnatus describes the tribunes as sowers of seeds of discord (semina discordiarum, Livy 3.19.5). On this speech, see Vasaly 1999: 520. 99 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the Senate and the people.1 5 3 He complains of idle talk undermining morale and of people who, gathered “in circles and even at banquets,” think they are doing the fighting themselves, leading troops into Macedonia (in omnibus circulis atque etiam, si dis placet, in conviviis sunt qui exercitus in Macedoniam ducant). Paullus tells the people that there are plenty of other things in the city to talk about and that they should confine themselves to these topics (sermonum satis ipsa praebet urbs; iis loquacitatem suam contineaf).1 5 4 This concern over unofficial, unauthorized gatherings is also brought out in Livy’s account of the dissent in Rome that arose because of the question of debt. At 2.27-28, Livy graphically describes a period of turmoil at Rome in which senatorial authority is at a breaking point. The people attack the creditors, they ignore the consuls and they refuse to enlist for war against the invading Sabines. Amid a general 153 It is perhaps worth comparing the speech of Otho to his soldiers at Tacitus Histories 1.83: imus ad bellum. Num. omnis nuntios palam audiri, omnia consilia cunctis praesentibus tractari ratio rerum aut occasionum velocitas patitur? Tam nescire quaedam milites quam scire oportet: ita se ducum auctoritas, sic rigor disciplinae habet, ut multa etiam centuriones tribunosque tantum iuberi expediat. Also note Suet. JC 66 where there is panic in Caesar’s army because of a rumor of the great size of the enemy numbers. Here Caesar did not deny the danger but rather exaggerated it. He tells the soldiers not to ask further questions or make more surmises, but to believe him or else leave: proinde desinant quidam quaerere ultra aut opinari mihique, qui compertum habeo, credant; aut quidem vetutissima nave impositos quocumque vento in quascumque terras iubebo avehi. 1 5 4 See below for further discussion of this passage. Taylor 1962 illustrates how there was an intermittent interest among tribunes in the conduct of overseas generals after 151; but this episode suggests a public discussion on military competency before this date. Livy is clearly reliant on Polybius at this point in his narrative. Polybius’ account (29.1) deserves to be quoted in full as it brings out clearly anxieties about everyday conversation (napa t c c s e v xoT$ TTEpiTraxois opiAi'as) and, to use Paton’s translation, “prating” (EuprjoiAoyi'as) and “chatter” (AaAi&s): £ < p r] yap auxou$ pi'av exeiu Staxpt(3f|v teat Ttapa xds auvouatas xal Trapa Taj ev xois TTEpitrdxois oqiAi'ag S io ik e T v a u T o i / g e v 'Pcopq K a O q p E v o u s xov e v MatcsSovi'a i t o A e p o v , t t o t e p e v Ernxipcbvxas xoR u t t o xebv axpaxTiycbv TtpaxxopEvois, t t o x e 8e xa irapaAEiTropEva SiE^iovxas- e£ cbv ovqaiv hev o u B e t t o x e y(vEa0ai xoTg k o i v o R Trpaypaai, (3A cc(3tiv 8e x o u j apxovxag HEyctAa pAorrTXEa0ai 8ia xa$ dxaipous EupriaiAoyiag- Trdaris yap 8ta(3oAfjs Exouans o^u xi K at KivqxiKov, oxav 7 TpoKaxaAri90i3 xo TtAfi0o5 e k xfjs o u v e x o u s AaAiaj, EUKaxa9 povf|xous y(vEO0ai xoR EX0p°iS- For AaAiaj in Polybius cf. 3.20.5. Polybius’ text here suggests that already in the mid-second century there was a concern on the part of senators that 1 0 0 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. atmosphere of violence, there is looting and, according to Livy, secession and secret conversations, which, he says, were “much more dangerous” than the violence (quod multo pemiciosius erat, secessione occultisque conloquiis, 2.27). The people are described as holding nightly meetings to discuss policy on the Aventine and Esquiline, traditionally plebeian hills,1 5 3 and, when the Senate finds out about these meetings, the response is uproar and indignation. The senators accuse the consuls of lacking authority to deal with the situation, and they lament that the Assembly of the People, over which the Senate could maintain some authority and keep an eye on proceedings, no longer sufficed as the vehicle for popular expression but that instead the state was split into countless groupings: “if there were truly magistrates in the State, there would be no council in Rome except for the Council of the People; but now the state has been scattered and dispersed into a thousand senates and contiones” (2.28).1 5 6 Here the expression circuli is not found, but it seems likely, from Livy’s use of the term elsewhere, that it is precisely such gatherings that Livy has the Senators refer to sarcastically as curiae contionesque.1 5 1 The constitutional language {curias contionesque) used to describe these problematic, unofficial gatherings suggests, perhaps, an anxiety that traditional constitutional mechanisms of debate, over which senators could exercise some control through the presence of a presiding magistrate, the people listen to them and give no authority to other discourse; it is thus not a case of Livy simply retrojecting contemporary preoccupations onto an earlier period. 1 5 5 For the Aventine’s popular associations, see the classic article of Syme 1979, esp. 308. 1 5 6 Livy 2.28: profecto si essent in re publica magistratus, nullum futurum fuisse Romae nisi publicum concilium; nunc in mille curias contionesque dispersam et dissipatam esse rem publicam. 1 5 7 It is interesting to note that J.S. Reid, troubled by the expression mille curias, suggested emending curias to circulos (see Ogilvie ad loc.). The emendation is probably unnecessary, detracting from Livy's ironic language and the Senate's indignation that non-constituitional activity has taken the place of constitutional politics. Ogilvie comments on the passage: “ mille curias must mean ‘a thousand senate-houses’, each secret conclave throughout the city being disparagingly contrasted with the Curia Hostilia.” 101 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. were being replaced by extra-constitutional bodies over which authority could not so easily be secured.1 5 8 Livy also brings out the anger and emotion that could be expressed in circuli. He twice uses the verb fremere, to roar, of the talk of the circuli. At 7.12 Livy, describing discontent in the dictator Sulpicius’ army, tells how the centurions mingled together with the soldiers and that the men roared in circuli (immiscerique militibus centuriones nec in circulis modo fremere . . .). And at 34.37, the same word, fremere, is used to describe the anger, expressed in circuli, of the Spartans at the harsh peace terms imposed upon Nabis by Flamininus in 195 B.C.1 5 9 This example also brings out the danger, from the point of view of the Roman elite, that talk in circuli has the potential to lead to direct action. Livy describes how property owners, ex-slaves and mercenaries— people of a wide social background— gathered in circuli to criticize the treaty. At first these groups discussed their grievances among themselves (per se) in their circuli, but this discussion is said to have led to a sudden rush to arms, which encouraged a more-than-willing Nabis to continue the war.1 6 0 The expression per se here perhaps emphasizes that the anger was spontaneous, arising among the Spartans themselves in the circuli, and not stirred up by Nabis or anyone else.1 6 1 The association of circuli with anger and emotion is also suggested by the use of the term in the context of military mutiny. At 28.25 the circuli mentioned are groups of mutinous soldiers in New Carthage in 206. In this instance, the military 1 5 8 For a more detailed discussion of the nexi episode in Livy book two, see the chapter on the Forum. 1 5 9 See Fordyce on Aen. 7.89 for Vergil’s use of fremere, a ‘confused and inarticulate sound.’ 1 6 0 Livy 34.37: haec inter se primo circulos serentes fremere; deinde subito ad arma discurrerunt. quo tumultu cum per se satis inritatam multitudinem cemeret tyrannus, contionem advocari iussit? 1 6 1 See Livy 32.20 for another association of circuli (and convivia) with the formation of anger. Livy here makes the Achaean Aristaenus open his speech to the Achaean Council with a complaint about its silence concerning the matter of its policy towards Rome, pointing out that normally the mere 102 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. tribunes, like the senators at 3.17, go round the circuli talking to the mutinous soldiers about their grievances and attempt to appease their feelings rather than rebuking them: “first they went round the tents, and then in the headquarters and at the general’s tent, where they had seen circuli of men making conversation with each other, they would address them, inquiring what was the cause of their anger and sudden consternation rather than accusing them for what they had done.”1 6 2 Also in a military context, the example describing discontent in Sulpicius’ army, mentioned above, shows the potential for circuli to act as a venue for resistance to authority and for discussion in circuli to lead to direct action. Livy tells here how the dictator C. Sulpicius is given the task of defending the city from the Gauls who have reached Praeneste (7.12). Sulpicius advocates waiting for the right moment before attacking which leads to unrest in the army. At first this unrest is voiced in conversations in circuli but later the centurions get involved too and there is open dissent before the headquarters and general’s tent.1 6 3 Again, there is here an association of circuli with non-elites, in this case soldiers and centurions. They are venues for venting anger (as we saw, the verb fremere is used) and we see a potential for action to arise out of the sermo held in circuli', the crowd grows to the size of an assembly and the decision is made to go to the dictator at once (extemplo). Livy then tells how that most obedient of soldiers (oboedientissimum militem, 7.13.2), Sextus Tullius, recognizing the seriousness of the situation, makes a speech to the dictator telling him that the army wants to fight. Later, mention at convivia or circuli of Rome or Philip V is enough almost to cause fights to break out: quibus in conviviis et circulis, cum de Philippo et Romanis mentio incidit, vix manibus temperatis 1 6 2 Livy 3.17: circumeuntes enim tentoriaprimo, deinde in principiispraetorioque ubi sermones inter se serentium circulos vidissent adloquebantur, percontantes magis quae causa irae constemationisque subitaeforet quam factum accusantes. 1 6 3 Livy 7.12: immiscerique militibus centuriones nec in circulis modo fremere sed iam in principiis ac praetorio in unum sermones confundi atque in contionis magnitudinem crescere turba et vociferari ex omnibus locis ut extemplo ad dictatorem iretur. 103 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. in private, Tullius tells Sulpicius that he spoke up because a multitudo that is stirred up is like its leader, and he preferred to lead it rather than let it choose someone itself (7.14.2-3). Here we see, then, spontaneous action arising (and we also hear of the soldiers skirmishing with the enemy against their dictator’s commands, 7.14.4-5) without any formal debate in which authority had a chance to be heard.1 6 4 Finally, Livy at 7.38 tells of occultis coniurationibus in the army, with the soldiers planning to take Capua for themselves. This turns into an extremely serious situation, with a conspiracy being suspected and soldiers being dismissed from duty (7.39). Livy tells how in the camp some "sow" (serunt) secret conversations {occultis sermonibus), which lead to a near mutiny which forces major patrician concessions at Rome. Here the term circuli is not used, but the situation described is the kind of activity that I have been stressing throughout this section. The above instances in Livy’s account bring out some of the various resonances which accompany accounts of circuli. They might occur at night, often at moments of great crisis; they might involve great emotion and anger; they tend to be associated with non-elites; they can lead to popular action taking place; and they may bring pressure on members of the ruling class to take unusual action. They are in general extremely political. It is true that this political nature is a result of Livy’s highly political narrative and, in particular, his description of the Struggle of the Orders. But I suggest that this politicized presentation of circuli reflects the ever-present potential of such unauthorized gatherings to cause problems for a Roman elite 1 6 4 A very similar scene occurs in Caesar’s Bellum Civile 1.64. Caesar, like Sulpicius in Livy, is delaying his advance, fearing to make a river crossing, and all over the camp the troops form circuli and lament (totis vero castris milites circulari et dolere) that the enemy was being allowed to get away and that the war was being protracted unnecessarily. The troops urge the military tribunes and centurions to act as spokesmen and to tell Caesar their feelings, whereupon Caesar, stirred by their enthusiam {quorum studio et vocibus excitatus), orders the army to cross the river and advance. 104 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. concerned, like Aemilius Paullus, to retain authority over the political discourse of the city. This potential should be borne in mind as we see how circuli are represented in other accounts. 3. The Politics of Circuli Before examining the political nature of circuli, it will be helpful to glance at the politics of the circus, to which the word circulus is related as the diminutive form.1 6 5 The circus was, of course, primarily popular in character, even if, like the circulus, it was by no means solely attended by non-elites. The circus along with the theater was, at least in the Empire, the most important venue at which the people met and was increasingly the venue for expressions of popular opinion. As Yavetz says of the theater and circus: “No one can comprehend the prevailing opinion in ancient Rome without a knowledge of the reactions of the masses who gathered in them on 65 days of the year. It was precisely there, according to Tacitus, that the masses gave vent to their insolence . . . In the circus therefore the people expressed their uninhibited opinion without sparing the feelings even of the emperors themselves” (1988: 18),1 6 6 From the point of view of the senators and, in the Principate, the Emperor, the circus and the theater were always potentially troubling, offering a venue for dissent to be expressed. But such venues could also function as a kind of safety valve whereby the people could discharge its anger and emotions in a relatively controlled manner. The much studied carnival of the 1 6 5 As Servius in fact points out in a note on Georgies 3.166: CIRCLOS ‘circus’ estprincipale, unde fit ‘ circulus ’ et per synaeresin ‘ circlus. ’ Also Nonius Marcellus p30 Lindsay: CIRCUS dicitur omnis ambitus vel goerus: cuius diminutivum est circulus. 1 6 6 For the games and theater, see Friedlander 191011.293-694, Dodge 1999 and Toner 1995: 34-52. See Yavetz 1988: 18-24 for a general discussion of the importance of crowd reactions at the circus and theatre. Cf. also Cameron 1976: 157-192. 105 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. European tradition is perhaps helpful here. The arena’s function as an emotional safety valve might recall the “licensed release” of the carnival which was permitted by the authorities, who “removed the stopper to stop the bottle being smashed altogether.”1 6 7 Moreover, just as the topsy-turvy carnival itself, in which the festive people chose and crowned Kings and Queens, in some ways functioned to confirm the status quo,1 6 8 so too the potentially disruptive nature of the arena was perhaps more than balanced by its ideological function of reproducing values and hierarchies essential to the social order.1 6 9 Unlike the circus and arena, however, circuli were without a defined space, without governing rituals, and less subject to control. Although circuli and similar unofficial gatherings may not have offered the spectacular opportunities of the arena for group expression, their unlicensed, unofficial, unorganized and spontaneous nature, largely beyond control or monitoring, seems to have made them a source of anxiety to an elite concerned to know everything that was 170 occurring. 1 6 7 Roger Sales quoted at Stallybrass and White 1986: 13. 1 6 8 Stallybrass and White 1986: 13. 1 5 9 For instance, in a study of the ideology of the arena, Gunderson 1996: 134 points to the role of the editor of a show, often the Emperor himself, who has the right to decide on the death of the defeated gladiator and either to carry out or thwart the will of the audience: “The principle of legitimating mediation at once interferes with any conception of a direct enactment of the ‘will of the people’ or a simple notion of survival of the fittest. Thus the ideologically fictive populus and the constructed space of otherness cannot interpenetrate without the personal intervention of a Roman nobilis. Only within such a configuration can the populus be granted a voice. Thus here as well we have a reproduction of an essentialized location for the Roman nobility through whom alone the body politic can legitimately act.” 170 Butler, in a note on Quintilian Inst. 12.10.74 comments on the circuli in this passage that the “nearest modern parallel may be found in the ‘Hyde Park orator’” (429 n. 1); this perhaps gives a good idea of the frequently political nature of speech made in circuli, although in other ways the parallel is less close. Speaker’s Corner is an officially recognized space which the authorities set aside for dissent to be expressed; speech in circuli, which might occur anywhere in the city, is by comparison unauthorized. Speaker’s Comer is also, unlike the circulus, a venue for an essentially unidirectional address to a crowd. 1 0 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Miriam Griffin has suggested that in the early Principate there was no real threat to the authorities posed by the people. She argues that riots could be controlled by force and that “lampoons and grumbling at street comers, or rather in the large and convenient gathering places in which the poorer inhabitants of a Mediterranean city spent most of their time, were hardly a serious threat.”1 7 1 Without wishing to overstate its importance, I would suggest that such “grumbling” should not be so easily dismissed. After all, grumbling at street-comers might well contribute to more formal action by the people which could be extremely unsettling and even threatening. For instance, the popular protests over Nero’s plans to divorce Octavia (Tac. Ann. 14.59- 61) offer an instance where support for Octavia and criticism of Nero and Poppaea must have been voiced among informal groups throughout the city, probably for an extended period of time, before the people demonstrated (extremely effectively).1 7 2 From slightly earlier in Nero’s reign, Tacitus tells at Annals 14.22 how popular opinion interpreted the appearance of a comet and other portents as suggesting a change of rule, and he says that Rubellius Plautus was mmored by the people to be the favorite candidate for the Principate. Nero, feeling threatened by this rumor, responded by telling Plautus to leave for Asia in order to get away from the gossipmongers (prava diffamantibus). We know from elsewhere that fortune tellers and astrologers were said to find an audience in... vulgi circulis, and so only a slight leap of imagination is needed to see the culture of circuli as contributing to the kind of extremely dangerous rumors that Tacitus here describes.1 7 3 1 7 1 Griffin 1991: 40-1. 1 7 2 See below on the compita and vici for possible venues for such informal opinion formation. For the political importance of Octavia’s death, see Habinek 2000: 295-6. 1 7 3 Porphyrio on Horace Sat. 1.6.114 for fortune tellers and circuli. Also see the scholion on Juvenal Satire 6.582. For another example, see Apocolocyntosis 3, where Seneca has Mercury tell one of the Fates that she should let Claudius die and allow the astrologers to be correct for once; for ever since he 107 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. If a leap of the imagination is needed to connect these Tacitean rumors with circuli, elsewhere the historian is more explicit about activity in circuli and its connection with the formation of dangerous rumors. At Agricola 43, after the death of Agricola, Tacitus tells how the vulgus formed circuli to express its feelings on this politically sensitive issue, expressing its grief in the Forum and in circuli (per fora et circulos illocuti sunt). Tacitus then goes on to comment on a constans rumor that Agricola had been poisoned, the kind of damaging rumor, from Domitian’s point of view, that we can surely envision being spread through circuit1 1 * From a later period, the Historia Augusta’ s Life of Probus illustrates vividly the potential for sermo in circuli to lead to political action of the most important kind. Whatever the historicity of this episode may be, it shows the importance of circuli in Roman thought. The life at chapter 10 describes how the army in the east determined to choose the next Princeps rather than allowing the Senate to do so. We hear first of all of sermo among the soldiers as to who should be made emperor; the tribuni militum suggest to the individual maniples that it should be Probus. We are told that “this was spoken, as is accustomed to happen, among the circuli” (idqueper multos circulos, ut fieri adsolet, diceretur); the very casualness of the expression ut fieri adsolet here shows the importance of such groups in Roman popular political discussion. Next we learn that “everywhere, as it were with a divine nod” Probus was acclaimed Emperor by all (quasi divino nuto undique ab omnibus adclamatum est, “ Probe Auguste, di te servent!”). The men run together, build a tribunal from turf and salute Probus, despite his objections, as emperor and deck him with a purple robe. The comparision of the became emperor, the astrologers had been burying him off every month of every year. Again, such rumors and predictions might find an audience in circuli. 1 7 4 Cf. how the foreigners (possibly referring to the multi-ethnic liberti) in Rome had expressed their grief after Caesar’s death: multitudo circulatim suo quaeque more lamentata est (Suet. Julius 84). 108 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. power of circuli here to the “divine nod” is perhaps indicative of how such popular action was seen as extremely alien from official politics. It was viewed as a potentially irrational force, which it was desirable to exclude from the rational body politic.1 7 5 In these instances as well as in the discussion of Livy, we see the political character of circuli. Their public and unauthorized character is also apparent. Circuli are associated at times with other aspects of Roman sociability. For instance, Quintilian (Inst. 6.3.105), citing Domitius Marsus’ treaty on urbanitas, which he says was based on the opinion of Cato, speaks of circuli alongside other venues for speech, such as convivia and contiones: “Urbanity is the characteristic of a man who has produced many good sayings and replies, and who, whether in conversation, in circuli, convivia, in contiones, or under any other circumstances (qui in sermonibus, circulis, conviviis, item in contionibus, omni denique loco), will speak with humor and appropriateness.”1 7 6 The association of circuli here with contiones and convivia merits attention. How did these terms, describing various aspects of Roman life, relate to each other? In a later chapter, discussing the Forum, I will discuss more fully the politics of the contio. The contio was an official assembly, called by a magistrate, in which popular feeling could be expressed by the crowd's reaction but where usually the authority of the 1 7 5 Also from the Principate, circuli are seen in the context of elite politics in Pliny’s association of them with confusion and disorder in his description of chaos at an election at Ep. 3.20.4: magni undique dissonique clamores, procurrebant omnes cum suis candidatis, multa agmina in medio multique circuli et indecora confusio; adeo descriveramus a consuetudine parentum apud quos omnia disposita moderata tranquilla maiestatem loci pudoremque retinebant. Here Pliny is explicitly comparing, unfavorably, this chaotic senatorial election, with its open ballot, to the typical license of the contiones (excesseramus sane manifestis illis apertisque suffragiis licentiam contionum) and the term circuli, used to describe the senators’ indecora confusio, perhaps carries its derogatory, popular connotations as Pliny condemns the senators for behaving worse than the plebs. 1 7 6 Butler’s translation, adapted. 109 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Roman mling class was respected.1 7 7 The crowd at a contio was, in this respect, like the crowd which encircled the orator at a indicium— not a mere circulus, but rather a corona, whose more splendid name doubtless reflected what was seen as the more dignified nature of the occasion.1 7 8 From the Senate’s point of view, it was desirable that all meetings of the people should be, like contiones and indicia, presided over by someone with official authority. This was brought out in Aemilius Paullus’ speech in Livy. It is made even more explicit through the words of the consul Postumius during the Bacchanalian “conspiracy,” where, at a contio before the assembled people, Postumius attacks the Bacchanalian gatherings as against Roman tradition: Your ancestors did not wish that you should assemble fortuitously and rashly, without good reason: they did not wish you to assemble except when the standard was set up on the citadel and when the army was called out for an election, or when the tribunes had proclaimed a council of the plebs, or one of the magistrates had summoned you to a contio; and they held that, whenever a large number collected, there should also be a legitimate director of it.” (39.15)1 7 9 The lack of such a legitimus rector is one aspect which would have set the circulus apart from the contio or the corona at a iudicium. The presiding magistrate was the person who determined who spoke at an official asssembly, and a gathering without such a figure allowed anyone to have a voice. Moreover, this “legitimate director” was responsible for maintaining order, as Cicero makes clear in the de legibus, where the presiding magistrate is to be held accountable for any disturbance at an assembly on the grounds that he could have dismissed the assembly at the first sign of trouble (leg. 3.11). The Bacchanalian cells which Postumius expresses anxiety over were not, it is 1 7 7 See Forum chapter. 1 7 8 Though circuli might form on the fringes of a corona. See below. 1 7 9 Livy 39.15: Maiores vestri ne vos quidem, nisi cum aut vexillo in arce posito comitiorum causa exercitus eductus esset, aut plebi concilium tribuni edixissent, aut aliquis ex magistratibus ad contionem vocasset, forte temere coire voluerunt; et ubicumque multitudo esset, ibi et legitimum rectorem multitudinis censebant esse debere. See introduction. 110 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. true, of the same nature as the groups described as circuli that I study in this section. They would probably have been held indoors and would have included a ritual element and organization which was surely alarming to the Roman Senators. But the general point that Postumius makes does pertain to circuit Roman authority felt threatened by associations unless a legitimus rector presided, and, in the case of the Bacchanalians, the Senate insisted that in future all cells receive official permission from the Praetor Urbanus.1 8 0 I would suggest that the unofficial nature of circuli crucially distinguishes them from contiones and made them problematic for the Roman elite. But Domitius Marsus associates circuli not only with contiones but also with convivia. Indeed, over and over again, circuli and convivia are associated together by Roman writers.1 8 1 Cicero at de Officiis 1.132 associates the sermo of convivia and circuli, and distinguishes this sermo from the more vigorous speech (contentio) which he associates with contiones and other political speeches (disceptationibus . . . iudiciorum contionum senatus). Thus convivia and circuli are seen as belonging in the same category, with both being distinguished from the kind of speech that is associated with official political life of Rome. But despite their frequent association, convivia and circuli are, in one respect, crucially different. The convivium is a locus for private interaction, interaction that 1 8 0 ILS 18 (lines 16.17) for the Praetor Urbanus. Postumius in Livy refers to a multitudo and it might be contended that the groups forming circuli would not in general have been large enough to be so considered. However, circuli could include a large number of people; by their very nature, their size varied. Moreover, it seems certain that they were often larger in size than many of the cells that Postumius and his colleagues were so worried about. See the inscription of the Senatus Consultum (line 19) for the number of practitioners allowed after 186 being restricted to five people. Presumably they were more sizeable before, but, given their secret nature, possibly not that much more so. On the Bacchanalian episode, see especially Gruen 1990 and North 1977. See also the bibliography at Wiseman 1998: 184 n. 49. 1 8 1 For circuli associated with convivia, see also Cic. Balb. 57, de Off. 1.132, ad Att. 2.18.21, Liv. 32.20, 34.61, 44.22, Tac. Ann. 3.54, Nepos Epam. 3.3, Mart. 2.86.11. Briscoe in his commentary on Livy notes the association and lists some examples without commenting on its significance. Ill R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. generally obeys a set of rules and follows ritualized practices. By contrast, the circulus is a space for public, more spontaneous interaction. In later sections, we will note an important contrast between the public sphere, associated with the populus, and the private sphere, associated with aristocrats. This contrast is seen, for instance, in the opposition between Forum andDomus, and Taberna and Domus.]S 2 So while speech at contiones has connotations of official, political speech, I would suggest that “convivial” speech is thought of as private, generally upper-class speech, while circuli speech marks public, generally non-elite speech.1 8 3 Not surprisingly, perhaps, the Roman upper classes regarded speech in convivia as on the whole less dangerous than speech in circuli. For instance, Aemilius Paullus, in the contio discussed earlier, complains to his audience of idle talk undermining morale and of people who, gathered “in circles and even at banquets” (in omnibus circulis atque etiam, si dis placet, in conviviis, Livy 44.22), think they are doing the fighting themselves. The interjection of si dis placet here suggests that usually convivia, with their in general more upper-class participants, were seen as more reliable by the Senate. But Aemilius Paullus’ speech shows that while convivia may have been seen as a less frequent venue for unauthorized speech or dissent than circuli, they could still be the venue for troubling speech. Indeed dissent at convivia could, because of their private nature, be particularly alarming; such alarm may account for part of the force behind Paullus’ si dis placet. Certainly, convivia were seen as an arena for conspiracy and dangerous speech in the Empire, when the public political 1 8 2 In terms of the political life of the city, this division is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that all aspects of constitutional politics, over which the populus Romanus was theoretically sovereign, met in the open; only the Senate met in private, in the enclosed curia. 1 8 3 Note Seneca Ep. 52.8 where people are urged not to get advice in choosing friends from those who act like circulatores in private: ex his autem, qui sunt, eligamus non eos, qui verba magna celeritate 112 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. culture had changed. For instance, Tacitus’ account of Britannicus’ song at the dinner party at Annals 13.35 shows expression at convivia getting out of hand, at least from Nero’s point of view, and indeed this episode is presented as precipitating Britannicus’ murder.1 8 4 At other times, circuli and convivia are seen as equally problematic for Roman rulers. At Annals 3.54, convivia and circuli are both described as venues for criticism of Tiberius to be expresed. In this passage Tiberius writes to the Senate about the proposals to legislate against luxus, saying that he is well aware that this is an issue attacked at convivia and in circuli (nec ignoro in conviviis et circulis incusari ista et modum posci). Circuli and convivia are also associated as a venue for political speech by Cicero. In a letter to Atticus of 59, the ex-consul tells how, in this time of oppression, there are some signs of freedom in “conversations in circuli at least, and at banquets” (hie tamen in oppressions sermo in circulis dumtaxat et in conviviis est liberior quamfuit, Att. 2.18). In this instance the more unrestrained talk of the circuli, which is usually a matter of anxiety, is seen, along with talk at convivia, as a sign of hope by Cicero and is approved of as beneficial to an increasingly tyrannized Republic.1 8 5 This frequent association of circuli with convivia, private dinner parties, suggests that they were, like such dinners, a recognized aspect of Roman society. Of course, it is not surprising that people in Rome got together in groups and talked. But praecipitant et communos locos volvunt et in privato circulantur, sed eos .. . However, in privato here may in fact reinforce the view that circulatores were usually associated with the public realm. 1 8 4 For another Tacitean example, see Annals 14.48 where Antistius Sosianus reads out verses satirizing Nero at convivia: vulgavitque celebri convivio dum apud Ostorium Scapulam epulatur. 1 8 5 The dumtaxat perhaps shows again that free talk in circuli was more usual than in more formalized convivia. For the contrast between convivia, small private banquets, and epulae or cenae rectae, more formal and, more importantly for this discussion, public banquets, cf. D’Arms 1991: 171. Cf. Phil. 113 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. that such groups seem to have been marked as a distinct element of the Roman social system is striking. In general, circuli were, as we might expect from the part they played in a public culture, associated with the plebs. But any group of people could be labelled a circulus. For instance, we find circuli used of a group of intellectuals or philosophers. So Nepos, in his life of the great Theban general Epaminondas, tells how “whenever he entered into a circulus (cum in circulum venisset) in which there was a dispute about the State or where a discussion (sermo) about philosophy was being conducted, he never left until the conversation reached its end” (Epaminondas 3). Similarly, Aulus Gellius (4.1.1) tells of a large number of men of various orders paying respect to Caesar in the vestibule of the Palace. The crowd includes a “circulus of learned men” (atque ibi in circulo doctorum hominum) amongst whom is the philosopher Favorinus airing schoolroom trifles (scholica quaedam nugalia).1 * 6 The term circulus is also used to describe a group of spectators in a law court, an audience that would have been made up of people from a variety of ordines, including senators. For instance, in a letter to Quintus, Cicero (ad Quintum fratrem 3.4.1) tells of Gabinius’ acquittal in 54 BC. After the vote was announced, Cato is said to have left the audience (de circulo subduxit) and to have gone to Pompey to tell him the news. Presumably, the crowd here would be the remnants of the corona that had watched the case, and the circulus may have been formed of audience members who stayed behind to discuss the outcome.1 8 7 And at Brutus 200, we see that if an orator failed to keep his 2.64 for how, at the auction of Pompey’s property, Cicero and his friends were enslaved by terror but gemitus tamen populi Romani liber fuit. 1 8 6 Cf. Gellius 15.9.2 for a circulo. . . iuvenum eruditiorum; also Gellius 16.10.2-3. Seneca Ep. 88.40 tells how the famous grammaticus Apion went around (circulatus est) Greece, spreading the kind of knowledge about Homer that was necessary for a liberal education. 1 8 7 Although circulus might here simply describe the ring of spectators, as is probably the case at Pliny Ep. 6.33.3: .. . ingens utrimque advocatio et numerosa subsellia, praeterea densa circumstantium corona latissimum iudicium multiplici circulo ambibat. 114 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. audience’s attention, one result might be that the judges would form groups (circulantem), presumably alongside the main corona. In this example, the presence of circuli seems to indicate a failure of the predominantly unidirectional orator-corona model, as Cicero sees such circuli as a way of judging an oratorical performance. However, Cicero’s use of nonnumquam etiam here suggests that this failure to maintain authority and attention was somewhat unusual.1 8 8 One further example of elite circuli occurs at Cicero pro Balbo, where Cicero says of those who attack the defendant that “they gnaw in the convivia, they pluck in the circuli, they carp with a cursing tooth” (in conviviis rodunt, in circulis vellicant, maledico dente carpunt, Balb. 57). 4. Circulatores and Circuli: Politics and the Street In the previous sections, I have suggested that circuli at times possessed a political nature. Here I argue that circulatores too were not without their own political role. Circulatores were essentially those who made some kind of a living going around among the people, presumably gathered in circuli, providing some kind of entertainment or selling some kind of service. They have attracted some attention recently in the work of Wiseman and Horsfall. Wiseman sees them as story-tellers, representatives of the “culture of the unprivileged,” while for Horsfall they are entertainers but also contribute towards a basic popular education. According to Booth, a circulator is anyone who attracts a street crowd, and he points to Dio Chrysostom Orat. 20.9ff for a vivid description of street life in an ancient city with its crowds and 1 8 8 Cicero tells how a critic can easily tell what an orator is like by observing the situation: videt oscitantem iudicem, loquentem cum altero, non numquam etiam circulantem, mittentem ad horas, 115 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. education taking place in the streets. But any kind of political role they may have had is usually not emphasized.1 8 9 Circulatores were surely closely related to the circuli This is suggested most explicitly in a note of Porphyrio on Horace Sat. 1.6.114. Here Porphyrio describes the fortune tellers Horace stood by in the Forum as circulatores and describes the groups around them as circuli {in his vulgi circulis). We have already seen how these circuli of fortune tellers were not without political significance and, in general, I would suggest that the entertainment role of the circulatores cannot wholly be divorced from a political aspect and that, like the circuli, they were a potential cause of alarm to Roman elites.1 9 1 A political role is brought out most clearly by the scholion on the end of Persius’ first satire (1.134), where circulatores are described as disseminating political news, such as imperial and consular edicts, to the people in the morning before entertaining them with light poems in the afternoon ( . . .circulatores, qui mane quaesitorem ut dimittat rogantem. For the active role of the plebs in oratorical performances (and other public situations), see Aldrete 1999, especially chapter four. Also Millar 1998 passim. 1 8 9 Booth 1980: 166-169 at 166; cf. Wiseman 1987e for Roman street life. Cf. Wiseman 1989: 135: “The circulator in foro (Pliny Ep. iv.7.6) was an itinerant, travelling from village to village and town to town like Autolycus in the Winter’ s Tale.” See also Wiseman 1987e on the triviales ex circo ludios of Suet. Aug. 74: “. . .the sort of ‘strolling players’ who might perform at a street-comer, among the beggars, parasites and gossiping loungers.” See Horsfall 1996: 27 and also 1989: 84: “A circulus is a group of spectators and a circulator an entertainer who gathers such a group round him by various means.” Such entertainments include animal shows (cf. Petronius 47), snake-charming (Digest 47.2.2: circulatores.. .serpentes circumferunt etproponunf, cf. Celsus 5.77.3 on circulatores drugging snakes before putting their fingers in their mouths) and sword-swallowing (Apuleius Met. 1.4). Horsfall continues: “. . .but he can also read a book, recite an imperial edict or even levia carmina\ at this point he seems to shade into the fabulator.” Cf. also Daremberg-Saglio 1.1186 (a-c): "Circulator: ’OxAccycoyog dydprriS- Charlatan, jongleur, faiseur de tours, qui va de pays en pays et d'assemble en assemble, amassant la foule autour de lui." Cf. Pauly-Wissowa 3.2.2570: “Ein Marktschreier, der umherziehend dem Volke allerlei Kiinste . . . vormacht, Schlangen bandigt. . . Degen verschluckt.. v. dgl., auch wohl Vortrage oder Vorlesungen h a lt. . .” Also A.N. Sherwin-White on Pliny Ep. 4.7 ad loc.: “A circulator is a showman.” 1 9 0 Cf. Horsfall 1996: 27: “II circulator e l’intrattenitore che attrae un circulus, pure in foro.” 1 9 1 For the Emperors’ attitudes to astrologers (including frequent expulsions) and prophetic writings, see, for example, MacMullen 1992: 128-162; Yavetz 1988: 134-5; Parke 1988 esp. 136-151 and 190- 215. 116 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. edictum consulis vel imperatoris populo recitant, meridie levia carmina dicunt).1 9 2 Indeed Booth, discussing this passage, associates circulatores with praecones or apparitores: “If these apparitores may not be cast in a double role as street-reciters, the circulatores may have acted as an unofficial promulgator of edicts, a private but enterprising town-crier, carrying news to— and doubtless taking a collection from— early morning crowds throughout the city” (167).1 9 3 However, I would suggest that this minimizes the crucial distinction between the official speech of the praecones and the unofficial speech of the circulator. The circulator, then, may have been involved in the dissemination of unauthorized, unofficial information and, as such, may well have attracted elite suspicions. Comparison with better documented societies suggests that circulatores might well have provoked political concern at Rome for such reasons. Adam Fox, for instance, has recently demonstrated the concern of the authorities in 15th and 16th Century London with wandering vagrants and beggars, who were seen as a political threat due to a feeling that they were associated with the spreading of rumors and gossip.1 9 4 But it is the role of circulatores in popular entertainments and popular culture that is usually stressed by our sources, not their role in activity that we might like to describe as political. Circuli too are often seen as a venue for such entertainers and entertainments. These entertainments are often portrayed as a despised aspect of a 1 9 2 The scholion is commenting on Persius’ line: his mane edictum, post prandia Calliroen do (1.134). Booth brings out Persius’ disdain here for the implied circulus: “the ultimate degradation and final dismissal of the public. It is a tasteless circulus attracted by any ruckus from the bellowing of edicts to the chanting of doggerel” (1980: 168). 1 9 3 For an interesting discussion of the apparitores, see Purcell 1983: 125-173; see 147-8 on praecones. For the publishing of official news at Rome, see Peter White’s article (1997) on Julius Caesar’s alleged publication of the acta. See also Bucher 1987 for notice boards and Corbier 1987 for the posting of information in the city. 1 9 4 Fox 1997 esp. 603. 117 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. popular culture which the elite, with its own highly developed and highly exclusive culture, is able to scorn. Doubtless Rome was full of these kinds of street entertainments. But implicating groups of Romans in what is seen as a debased culture was also a powerful representational strategy, enabling the Roman aristocracy not to recognize such popular spaces as a legitimate area for political discussion and communication. Of course it may also reflect a profound anxiety about these gatherings of the plebs, with no legitimus rector to direct what went on. It was, after all, more comforting to think that the person at the center of a circulus was a snakecharmer than a breeder of sedition. As a result of this association of circuli with popular entertainments, circuli are placed at the bottom of the cultural hierarchy. Not only is their potential political function ignored, but the kind of culture that they represent is scorned. For instance Martial attacks the circuli for being an unsophisticated audience, in a poem attacking verses that had appeared under his name: “let Palaemon write poems for circuli', I prefer to please uncommon ears” (scribat carmina circulis Palaemon / me raris iuvat auribus placere, 2.86-7). And Petronius gives us a glimpse of the prejudice held towards these groups, when Encolpius compares Trimalchio’s acrobats and pigs to the entertainment of the circuli (ego putabam petauristarios intrasse et porcas, sicut in circulis mos est, portenta aliquafacturos, Sat. 47.9). It is interesting that, from the later Empire, Ammianus Marcellinus, in his account of the faults of the “lazy and indolent” Roman plebs (nunc ad otiosam plebem veniamus et desidem, 28.4.28), gives the circuli a prominent place among popular recreations: Hi omne quod vivunt vino et tesseris impendunt et lustris, et voluptatibus et spectaculis: eisque templum et habitaculum et contio et cupitorum spes omnis Circus est maximus: et videre licet per fora et compita et plateas et 118 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. conventicula, circulos multos collectos in se controversis iurgiis ferri, aliis aliud (ut fit) defendentibus. (Amm. 28.4.29) These people spend their lives in wine, dice games and bordellos, in pleasures and shows: for them, their temple and dwelling place, their contio and every hope of their desires is the Circus Maximus. In the fora, at the cross-roads, in the streets and at meeting-places, you can see many circuli gathered together engaged with one another in quarrelsome strife, some defending one thing, as is the case, others another. (28.4.29)1 9 5 In a manner not unlike earlier writers, Ammianus goes on to reduce the content of the discussions in circuli to arguments about the Games: Inter quos hi qui ad satietatem vixerunt, potiores auctoritate longaeva, per canos et rugas clamitant saepe, rem publicam stare non posse, si futura concertatione, quem quisque vindicat, carceribus non exsiluerit Princeps, et inominalibus equis, parum cohaerentem circumflexerit metam. (Amm. 28.4.30) Among them (the circuit), those who have lived long enough, who are more influential through authority that comes with long age, repeatedly shout, swearing by their white hair and wrinkles, that the State cannot stand if, in the upcoming contest, the charioteer to whom each lays claim does not jump out of the gates first and round the turning-point clinging close to it, with his ill-omened horses. By focusing on their involvement in a despised popular culture, it becomes easier for the Roman ruling classes to denigrate circuli. This denigration is extremely pervasive; indeed the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, at the beginning of the entry for circulus used in the sense discussed in this chapter, points out that it is used usually with a note of censure, defining it as a coetus vel congregatio hominum, saepius cum nota vituperationis (vol. iii cols. 1111 line 69-1112 line 20). My focus so far has been primarily on the social and political. But, of course, disgust and denigration are often theorized on psychological grounds. For instance, commenting on the anti-semitism that he sees in Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen, Theodor Adorno, hinting at 1 9 5 The parallelism here suggests that circuli were associated with the circus, with both seen as being important elements of non-elite culture. For the Forum and compita see below. 1 1 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Wagner’s fears of his possible Jewish paternity, observes: “...this idiosyncratic hatred is of the type that Benjamin had in mind when he defined disgust as the fear of being thought to be the same as that which is found disgusting” (24). Similarly, Stallybrass and White suggest that carnival “encoded all that which the proper bourgeois must strive not to be in order to preserve a stable and ‘correct’ sense of self’ (187). They see this self-formation of the individual as involving the repression of desires which are revealed by the intensity of the attacks on carnival to be central to the bourgeois imaginary: the bourgeois subject continuously defined and re-defined itself through the exclusion of what it marked out as ‘low’--as dirty, repulsive, noisy, contaminating. Yet that very act of exclusion was constitutive of its identity. The low was internalized under the sign of negation and disgust. But disgust always bears the imprint of desire” (191) In these instances the psychological is paramount, but in both cases this is clearly connected to the political. At Rome too the political need of the Roman elite to differentiate itself from the rest of the population of the city through a rigorous cultural self-disciplining was surely bound up with a concern that it was not in fact that different from the rest of the population. The disgust shown for the world of the circulus may well reflect an anxiety that this culture, with its entertainments, recitations and stage performances, was in many ways not that distinct from aristocratic culture.1 9 7 Barton has shown how the Roman collective psychology was complex, with a kind of 1 9 6 Cf. Klaus Theweleit, in his ground-breaking and wide-ranging study of the para-military, proto fascist German Freikorps, showing how their writings are full of anxieties about issues ranging from female sexuality to communism. Theweleit argues that images concerning, for instance, flowing and floods reflect a fear of bodily desires which have been repressed in the course of the creation of the bourgeois individual. See Miller 1998 for Roman Satire and its attempt to contain fluids and leaking bodies. 1 9 7 Cf. Edwards 1993: 118-9 on the elite’s anxiety concerning actors, whose levitas often uncomfortably resembled the gravitas of a Senator. She adds: “Their manifest dissimulation suggested 120 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. terrible fascination for marginalized figures in part compensating for a formal emphasis on control and order. Doubtless the Roman elite’s cultural self-discipline made its psyche more complex still; and it is not only through the figure of the Satirist that we see hints of a fascination and perhaps an attraction to aspects of the popular culture from which the upper classes have largely excluded themselves.1 9 8 The figure of the circulator is subject to attacks which suggest a greater degree of disgust than even those shown towards circuli', and once more the Roman elite hold up these agents of popular culture to comparison with their own culture and, necessarily, find them lacking. For instance, circulatores are attacked in our sources for lacking philosophy. Seneca at Epistle 29.7 tells how Marcellinus will “throw in his face” certain kinds of philosophers less interested in philosophy than money and whom he describes as circulatores (hos mihi circulatores, qui philosophiam honestius neglexissent quam vendunt, infaciem ingeret). Circulatores are also accused of peddling illusion under a pretense of truth {circulatores qui animos hominum, sensusque quadam specie veritatis illudunt).1 9 9 They are also associated with what are seen to be the lowest elements in Roman society. Priapeia 19 tells of Telethusa circulatrix. Richlin translates circulatrix as “the street dancer” which well brings out others, too, might not be what they seemed. Roman Senators considered with some nervousness the similarities between their own profession and that of the actor.” 1 9 8 See above for Cicero’s letter to Atticus and Livy’s account of the Senators infiltrating circuli, both indicating a degree of fascination with circuli', see below on the “knack” of the popular speaker in Quintilian. Also some of the more vivid descriptions of circulatores would reward a psychological reading. Emperors, of course, were expected by the plebs to share in its entertainments, and a figure, like Tiberius, who shared the cultural sympathies of his fellow aristocrats, would suffer politically if he failed to show sufficient enthusiasm for plebeian cultural practices. Likewise an Emperor like Nero, who embraced fully popular culture, suffered politically at the hands of the upper classes. See Edwards 1993: 120-1 for the differing tastes of elites and non-elites, citing Horace Ep. 2.1.182ff as showing how the tastes of the equestrian rows at the theater differed from the rest of the audience. 1 9 9 Victor Afer, quoted in Daremberg-Saglio. 121 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the associations implicit in circulatores.2 0 0 Of course a circulator does not by itself mean a dancer. Telethusa certainly is a dancer (nottfluctuante lumbo in line 4), but it is interesting for the social implications of circulatores that a dancer can be described as such.2 0 1 Porphyrio on Satire 1.2 confirms this picture. Horace’s satire begins by telling how a variey of the lowest types of people, including musicians, quacks, beggars and jesters, were lamenting the singer Tigellius’ death. The inflated language used serves to ridicule any social pretensions these people might have, such as membership in collegia: ambubaiarum collegia, pharmacopolae, / mendici, mimae, balatrones, hoc genus omne / maestum ac sollicitum est cantoris morte Tigelli (1.2.1-3). Commenting on this passage, Porphyrio tells us that Tigellius, who was linked to Caesar, Cleopatra and Augustus, was generous and made gifts to musicians and circulatores, who were thus sad at his death (erat autem largitior adeo, ut omnibus musicis et circulatoribus multa donaret; et ideo morte eius tristes illos aitfactos esse). Presumably these people who moum Tigellius’ death at the start of Horace’s poem are the circulatores whom Porphyrio speaks of and again this shows the low class of people who came to be denoted by the term. Petronius (Sat. 68) offers another example of the type of person who might be described as a circulator. Habinnas says of a singing slave, who has just performed a composite of Vergil and Atellan farce, that he had had no formal training but rather had been sent to the “pedlars on street corners.”2 0 2 As a result, the slave has no equal, whether he wishes to imitate mule- drivers or circulatores ( ‘ et numquam ’ inquit ‘ didicit, sed ego ad circulatores eum mittendo erudibam. itaque parem non habet, sive muliones volet, sive circulatores 2 0 0 Richlin 1992: 54. 2 0 1 For another circulatrix, see Martial 10.3.2: vemaculorum dicta, sordidum dentem, / etfoeda linguae probra circulatricis etc. 2 0 2 Sullivan’s translation. 122 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. imitari’ ). Here Habinnas’ use of the verb erudio in connection with the education that the circulatores provided his slave perhaps plays ironically with the more usual comparison between the speech of the circulus and the speech of the eruditus orator, which we will witness later. I mentioned earlier Porphyrio’s comment on Horace Satire 1.6.114 where the divini sortilegi are described as circulatores and are surrounded by circuli. This passage is reminiscent of the scholion on Juvenal Satire 6.582. Juvenal here is describing the activity of non-elite {mediocris) women and how they walk in the Circus, have their fortunes read and give in return a smack of their lips (si mediocris erit, spatium lustrabit utrimque /metarum et sortes ducetfrontemque manumque / praebebit vati crebrum poppsyma roganti). The scholion identifies these fortune-tellers as circulatores (quia circulatores... hoc consueverint adhibere. ..). Once more, the disgust of the satirist for circulatores and those associated with them is apparent. Another area, in addition to that of culture, in which the boni attempted to distinguish themselves from the rest of the city, was that of work and leisure, and here too circuli are implicated in Roman elite discourse. The Roman upper classes were, of course, hostile to paid labor, which was seen as dehumanizing. As Veyne says, “no notable or noble was ever defined by what he did. A poor man, on the other hand, was a cobbler or a laborer” (1987: 129).2 0 4 Yet despite this scom for paid work, those who spend time in circuli are attacked precisely for laziness, for not devoting all their energies to a job. For instance, in his description of the idle man at de Finibus 5.56 Cicero tells how such men, endowed with singular indolence, frequent circuli, and he 2 0 3 However, cf. Cic. Fam. 10.32.3, where Pollio has some sympathy for a circulatorem quemdam auctionum notissimum hominem Hispali, who has been thrown to the animals by Balbus because of his deformity (quia deformis erat). 123 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. associates these circuli with sessiunculas, a word which he sarcastically coins to ridicule such groups of idlers.2 0 5 Again it might be possible to identify in the violence of the language here (inertissimos homines, nescioqua singulari nequitia praeditos) an anxiety about the fact that these groups of idlers, passing the time in their own way, were not that different from aristocrats at leisure, enjoying a conversation with friends. Hence Cicero needs to stress that these circuli lack the “noble delights of learning” that distinguishes aristocratic idling from that of other Romans (cumque non habeant ingenuas ex doctrina oblectationes). Seneca makes a similar remark at de Providentia 1.5.4, making it clear that circuli are not attended by the boni and that they are very much the province of otium. He explicitly contrasts the circulus here, frequented by all the most worthless idlers (vilissimus quisque), to the activity of the Senate, where the boni labor the whole day long for the good of the Republic.2 0 6 To speak in terms of a Hegelian master-slave dialectic, it seems that there was an anxiety on the part of those Romans who did not need to work about their dependency on those who did have to work; in order to remain convinced of their superiority, the Roman leisured classes would attack people both for working and, when they were not working, for idleness. And there were doubtless also more practical worries about the otium which circuli implied. In his discussion of discontent in Rome in 211BC, when public business was on hold until an absent consul arrived in the city to deal with charges against his colleague Marcellus, Livy tells how this leisure stirred up the rumors of the people: 2 0 4 For attitudes to labor, the locus classicus is Cicero de Off. 1.150-2. Cf. Seneca Ep. 88.21-2. 2 0 5 Defin. 5.56: quin etiam inertissimos homines, nescioqua singulari nequitia praeditos, videmus tamen et corpore et animo moveri semper et, cum re nulla impediantur necessaria, aut alveolum poscere aut quaerere quempiam ludum aut sermonem aliquem requirere cumque non habeant ingenuas ex doctrina oblectationes circulos aliquos et sessiunculas consectari. 2 0 6 Sen. de Prov. 1.5.4: labor optimos citat: senatus per totum diem saepe consulitur, cum illo tempore vilissimus quisque aut in campo otium suum oblectet aut in popina lateat aut tempus in aliquo circulo ter at. Idem in hac magna re publicafuit: boni viri laborant. . . 124 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. otium, ut solet, excitavit plebis rumores (26.26.10). The connection between otium and circuli, then, was potentially alarming. It was better to have people working than idle and interfering in the running of the City and Empire. 5. Inferior Speech It is perhaps impossible to gauge the reality of the threat posed by non-elite communication in circuli and elsewhere. Moreover, the political self-consciousness of participants in circuli can only be a matter of speculation. However, the extremely negative representation of circuli and circulatores is in itself telling and indicates that the Roman political class took popular speech and expression more seriously than is sometimes acknowledged. This seriousness was manifested not only in the constant denigration of circuli and circulatores noted above; it also seems to have led to the development of a sustained attack on the speech, sermo, associated with them.2 0 7 By attacking the nature, quality and style of the kind of speech that was thought to take place at circuli, the boni define themselves and their speech as distinct from and as more authoritative than competing forms. This attack on the speech of the circulus and circulator formed part of a wider Roman concern with language. Palmer, writing of the late Republic, associates this concern with social changes at Rome: Doubtless the rapid growth of the urban proletariat, with immigrants speaking dialect or broken Latin, stimulated the disdain and class- consciousness of the ruling aristocracy... The Roman intelligentsia, 2 0 7 For sermo associated with circuli see Cic. De Off. 1.132 and also several of the examples from Livy. 125 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. standing in conscious superiority over the teeming life of the capital, began a process of linguistic £evr)Aaata: the expulsion of the rustic, the provincial, and the foreign. (123-4)2 0 8 Palmer is interested here in mainly a literary phenomenon, which reflects the snobbishness of the elite. However, more overt political factors were surely involved as this elite, in pursuit of a correct form of speech, attempted to exclude from political discourse those who were not in a position to master the discourse now deemed appropriate for serious discussion. Indeed it is striking that Cicero speaks of a plebeius sermo appropriate to writing a letter to a friend but not for speeches in iudicia and contiones (Fam. 9.21). The political aspect to the Roman concern for language has been emphasized by Martin Bloomer: “a linguistic politics developed at Rome which had its own role to play in the evolution of Roman literature, in the developing ideologies of what it was to be a Roman, and in the social and civil strife between Romans of different classes and statuses" (1997: 4); he adds that "sneers and slurs about the language of a political opponent, an underclass, or the opposite gender attempt to reinforce structures of social oppression as natural distinctions of that allegedly transparent and legible expression of identity— language itself (1997: 5). Bloomer shows how this can be seen clearly in late Republican debates concerning Latinitas. While not aimed against popular speech as such but rather elite speech that had become bastardized, the call for a purity of diction was clearly important in the attempt to denigrate those who did not speak in a proper, aristocratic manner.2 0 9 Such linguistic exclusion continued into the Empire. Aulus Gellius at 13.17 has a striking 2 0 8 Cf. Cicero de Oratore 3.44: Quare cum sit quaedam certa vox Romani generis urbisque propria, in qua nihil offendi, nihil displicere, nihil animadverti possit, nihil sonare aut olere peregrinum, hanc sequamur, neque solum rusticam asperitatem sed etiam peregrinam insolentiam fugere discamus. 2 0 9 Cf. Brutus 258 where Cicero has Atticus complain of foreign influences on the Latin language and call for methodical rules to be applied to sermo rather than leaving it to the hazards of everyday usage: 126 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. discussion on the meaning of humanitas. Those who know Latin well (probe), he says, know that the meaning that the vulgus attaches to the word is incorrect; it does not mean, as they think, an indiscriminating readiness and benevolence to everybody (dexteritatem quandam benivolentiamque erga omnis homines promiscam). Rather it means erudition and learning in the “high arts” (eruditionem institutionemque in bonas artes). Only those who desire and seek out such artes sincerely (quas qui sinceriter percupiunt adpetuntque) can be considered maxime humanissimi. Here then we see once more that an important element of cultural capital, humanitas, can be acquired only through education and training in the artes of the boni; merely acting in a kindly and friendly manner to all people alike is not enough and is dismissed as benevolentiam promiscam.2 1 0 Theodor Adomo, in a discussion of what he sees as the Jewish stereotyping of Mime and Alberich in the music and language of the Ring, quotes a passage from Wagner’s notorious treatise Judaism in Music: The first thing that strikes our ear as quite outlandish and unpleasant, in the Jew’s production of the voice-sounds, is a creaking, squeaking, buzzing snuffle: add thereto an employment of words in a sense quite foreign to our nation’s tongue, and an arbitrary twisting of the structure of our phrases— and this mode of speaking acquires at once the character of an intolerable mumbo-jumbo; so that when we hear this Jewish talk, our attention dwells involuntarily on its repulsive how, rather than on any meaning of its intrinsic what. (Quoted in Adorno 1981: 24) Adorno’s terse comment is: “Jewish speech is thereby dismissed” (1981: 24). Here I want to examine the repeated dismissal of the speech associated with the circuli and quo magis expurgandus est sermo et adhibenda tamquam obrussa ratio, quae mutari non potest, nec utendum pravissima consuetudinis regula. 2 1 0 Note also Fitzgerald 1995: 87-113 for urbanitas and the notion of social style as a means of inclusion in or exclusion from the social group. 127 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. circulatores. By attacking, rather crudely, the speech of the circulus and the circulator in general rather than its particular content, the how rather than the what, the ruling elite attempts to render this whole area of popular speech illegitimate, while preserving its own right to speak authoritatively. In particular, we see in our sources a repeated comparison of the speech of the circuli and the circulatores with the speech of the trained orator. This comparison is part of a larger elite strategy of formalizing the rules of political speech. Maurice Bloch has shown how such formalization of political discourse can serve as a powerful means of social control (1975: 1-29); as he says of the Merina, a Madagascan tribe: “The reason why there is such stress on the manner in which things are said rather than on what is said, seems to be that by defining and regulating the manner the content is also, albeit indirectly, restricted. This type of restriction is, as we shall see, much more powerful than a direct attack on content, since it goes right through the whole range of possible responses” (5). The “manner” of circuli speech is criticized by Seneca at Ep. 40.3, where he compares the kind of speech that is appropriate for serious and great subjects with the kind of speech found in the circuli: “So consider thus, that that rapid and overflowing force of speaking is more appropriate to someone going around circuli than someone discussing and teaching a great and serious topic.”2 1 1 This contrast of the speech of the circulus with official, elite speech is also made by Quintilian. At Inst. 2.12.10 he speaks disparagingly of the circulus in a passage comparing the untrained, gesticulating orator with the learned speaker. By smacking his hands, stamping on the ground and slapping his thighs, breast and brow, such an amateur speaker appeals to 2 1 1 Sen. Ep. 40.3: sic itaque habe, istam vim dicendi rapidam atque abundantem aptiorem esse circulanti quam agenti rem magnam ac seriam docentique. Habinek 1998b argues that dico is used of authoritative speech, by contrast with loquor. 128 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the pullatum circulum, marked by the black clothes associated with poorer Romans.2 1 2 And at 12.10.74, in a passage already referred to, Quintilian again associates the speech of the circuli with faulty speech, speech that is not appropriate for the orator. Quintilian tells how any kind of speech, even the faulty and corrupt kind (vitiosum et corruptum dicendi genus), pleases many, offering a natural pleasure to the mind, and “there exist for no other reason those circuli in the fora and on the Old Wall.”2 1 3 Just as the sermo of the circulus is condemned by comparison with the serious speech of senators, so too we find the speech of the circulatores denigrated and used as a benchmark against which elite oratory can be defined and favorably compared. For instance, we see Quintilian, at Inst. 2.4.15, contrasting a correct type of oratory which is carefully composed with the rash and improvised speech and lack of careful thought associated with circulatores.2 1 * And at 10.1.8 Quintilian, discussing the stock of words available to choose from, makes a similar contrast between careful, well-judged oratory with its careful supply of words and the rashness and volubility of the speech of a circulator.2 1 5 Quintilian 10.7.11-13 is also of interest in this respect, although the passage does not talk specifically about circulatores. The rhetorical expert discusses here the dcAoyov rpi(3r]V, described as a usus quidam irrationalis, which allows those who possess it to perform certain feats that others cannot do. He gives as an example the tricks of the ventilatores and of the pilarii. But this dexterity, without reflection, is, 2 1 2 Quint. Inst. 2.12.10: icon collidere manus, terrae pedem incutere, femur, pectus, frontem caedere, mire ad pullatum circulum facit; cum ille eruditus.. . For the association between dark clothing and lower-class Romans, see Richlin forthcoming. 2 1 3 Quint. Inst. 12.10.74: quod quidem placere multis nec infitior nec miror. Est enim iucunda auribus ac favorabilis qualiscumque eloquentia et ducit animos naturali voluptate vox omnis, neque aliunde illi per fora atque aggerem circuli. 2 1 4 Quint. Inst. 2.4.15: ita cum iamformam rectae atque emendatae orationis accipient, extemporalis garrulitas nec exspectata cogitatio et vix surgendi mora circulatoriae vere iactationis est. 2 1 5 Quint. Inst. 10.1.8: nobis autem copia cum iudicio paranda est, vim orandi non circulatoriam volubilitatem spectantibus. 129 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Quintilian says, of no use to the orator; ars must precede this dexterity else it will lead to nothing but bombast and noise {Inst. 10.7.12).2 1 6 Here Quintilian dismisses a natural genius for speech (or other skills) which does not involve ars, and it seems plausible to perceive here an anxiety over the skills of those like the circulatores who have a “knack” for stirring up a crowd as well as a trained orator. By insisting on the need for ars, Quintilian wants only those privileged enough to go through the kind of rhetorical education that he provides to be able to speak with authority. This anxiety about people’s natural eloquence, which might challenge male elite, acquired eloquence, continues in the next sentence where Quintilian refuses to admire the fortuitous sermo which women are said to produce in abundance in the course of quarrels (nec fortuiti sermonis contextum mirabor unquam, quem iurgantibus etiam mulierculis superfluere video, 10.7.13). The younger Pliny, at Ep. 4.7, describes how Regulus had become notorious for reading aloud his memoir for his dead son. Pliny suggests that Regulus has been using his force (vim) for bad ends, and in addition attacks his stammer and the difficulty he has in finding the correct word. However, his impudentia and his furor have won him the reputation of an orator: imbecillum latus, os confusum, haesitans lingua, tardissima inventio, memoria nulla, nihil denique praeter ingenium insanum et tamen eo impudentia ipsoque illo furore pervenit ut orator habeatur (“He has weak lungs, indistinct articulation, and a stammer, he is slow at finding the right word and has no memory, nothing in fact but a perverted ingenuity, and yet his crazy effrontery has 2 1 6 Quint. Inst. 10.7.12: sed hie usus ita proderit, si ea de qua locuti sumus ars antecesserit, ut ipsum illud, quod in se rationem non habet, in rationes versetur. Nam mihi ne dicere quidem videtur nisi qui disposite, ornate, copiose dicit, sed tumulari. 130 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. won him the popular reputation of being an orator,” Ep. 4.72 1 7 ). This reputation, Pliny says, was attacked by Herennius Senecio, who, in a parody of Cato’s description of the orator, described Regulus as a malus vir dicendi imperitus. In this letter in which correct and improper rhetoric and oratory are compared,2 1 8 Pliny ends by asking his addressee if he or anyone else that Pliny knows in his town has read out Regulus’ miserable book ut circulator inforo. Once more speech that goes against rhetorical norms is likened to and ridiculed as the speech of a circulator. In addition to this denigration of the speech of the circulus and circulatores, we also find suggestions of an awareness of the desirability of controlling the kind of sermo associated with circuli. At de Officiis 1.132, a passage referred to above, Cicero tells how speech has power in two areas: contentio and sermo. Contentio, that is oratory or vigorous speech, belongs to the debates of judges, contiones and the Senate (disceptationibus... iudiciorum contionum senatus) whereas sermo “occurs in circuli, in disputes, in meetings of friends and accompanies even banquets” ( in circulis, disputationibus, congressionibus familiarum versetur, sequatur etiam convivia). Cicero goes on to complain that there are no teachers of sermo in the way that there are rhetoricians for oratory. As with oratory, there is perhaps a wish to make sermo a skill, an ars, that only the elite will be able to master and we see here an anxiety over unregulated private conversation, the kind of conversation found in circuli. Cicero continues his discussion by giving quite restrictive guidelines for sermo. It should be gentle, unthreatening and witty (sit ergo hie sermo... lenis minimeque pertinax, insit in eo lepos, 1.134); and, perhaps most relevant given what has been said 2171 use here Radice’s Loeb translation. 2 1 8 Note, in the description of Regulus quoted in the main text, Pliny’s use of the rhetorical categories of inventio and memoria. 131 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. above of the circuli, he emphasizes that anger and sudden emotions should not be aroused. He goes on to say that a speaker should not monopolize conversation and should have a true regard for the subject at hand (1.134). A conversation should not drift from the matter being discussed (1.135); and, once more, Cicero stresses that sudden anger should be avoided (1.136). Cicero goes on to recommend only mild criticism, combined with seriousness, so that the speaker can show severity but not abuse (1.137). Cicero's audience consists here of members of his own class, not the man in the street, and his project is largely an effort to contribute to the self presentation of the senatorial class. Cicero’s project can be usefully compared to the remarks of Thomas Habinek on the sociological function of literature at Rome: “At Rome literature participates in the ‘formation’ of the aristocracy in both senses of the word, that is, by defining, preserving, and transmitting the standards of behavior to which the individual aristocrat must aspire and by valorizing aristocratic ideals and aristocratic authority within the broader cultural context” (1998: 45). In the case of sermo, I would suggest that the broader cultural context includes a widespread popular culture of discussion, and that it was important for the Roman aristocracy to define its own sermo as distinct from and superior to other competing forms of speech. It is to be noted that Cicero’s writings on sermo were taken seriously, even in the very different world of the Principate, where we find Quintilian stating explicitly that Cicero should be heeded when he says that sermo should never be careless (10.7.28).2 1 9 219 Quint. Inst. 10.7.28: ne id quidem tacendum, quod eidem Ciceroni placet, nullum nostrum usquam negligentem esse sermonem; quidquid loquemur ubicumque, sit pro sua scilicet portione perfectum. Cf. Cic. pro Caelio 46 on what is needed to be a great speaker: obterendae sunt omnes voluptates, relinquenda studia delectationis, ludus, iocus, convivium, sermo paene estfamiliarum deserendus. 132 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6. Conclusion In this chapter I have attempted to see circuli and circulatores as part of a popular culture of sociability at Rome which was at times political in nature and which at other times had a potential for political action and discussion. I would suggest that such activity merits more consideration by historians than it has received. It was noted in the introduction how recent discussion of popular politics in Rome has focused on issues such as the nature of the “democratic” element in the Roman constitution. Other studies have looked at the ideology and politics of munificence, of panem et circenses; some scholars have been interested in large-scale popular protests and “street politics”; and of late there has been interest in how consensus was expressed among the various constituencies of the Empire, including the Roman urban plebs.2 2 0 What is often lacking in the study of plebeian culture and politics at Rome is an approach that brings out the politics of everyday practices, showing how these were accommodated within, served to legitimate, or produced tensions in the broader political system. As we have seen, this was not the kind of politics that the Roman elite in general approved of. Part of the Roman governing class’ success in achieving and maintaining political hegemony for so long lay in its ability to maintain an ideology that stressed the theoretical power of the populus Romanus while allowing the people only a restricted role in constitutional politics. But the maintenance of this political hegemony also involved rendering illegitimate, in ways that we have been observing, all other spheres of popular political activity, including activity that was closely bound up with popular culture and everyday life. 2 2 0 As we have seen, Fergus Millar is the historian most responsible for emphasizing the democratic element of the Roman constitution and the popular nature of much political activity. On the ideology of munificence, see Veyne 1990; also Griffin 1991. For excellent political studies of the relationship 133 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The Compita and the Viet Rome at the Crossroads 1. Introduction In the previous chapter, I discussed circuli as one aspect of a broader culture of sociability in ancient Rome. In the passage of Ammianus Marcellinus referred to earlier, circuli were said to have formed in the fora, at cross-roads, in the streets and at gathering places (per fora et compita et plateas et conventicula, circulos multos collectos, 28.4.29). This chapter focuses its attention on these compita or crossroads and the culture associated with them. Circuli, as we saw, were often associated with plebeian culture, although their spontaneous and unorganized character meant that they could consist of people from any social group. Here I suggest that the culture of the compita was more unambiguously associated with plebeian Rome. Compita lay at the heart of local life, and essential to this chapter are not only the crossroads but also the Roman local neighborhoods, the vici. Examination of compita and vici will demonstrate a close connection between plebeian culture and social and political life; indeed I will suggest that this culture might be seen as potentially democratic. And like representations of circuli, representations of compita can be seen to reflect an unease about activity at compita among a Roman elite which was continually anxious about popular communication that occurred outside authorized political institutions. of ruled and ruler, see Yavetz 1988 and Cameron 1976. For mass politics in the Late Republic, see Vanderbroeck 1987. On consensus, see e.g. Rowe 1997: 93-111; also Ando 2000 chapter five. 134 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2. The Compita and the Compitalia It was characteristic of Roman religion to accord a supernatural power to aspects of life which seemed particularly significant to the life of the city. This was clearly the case with the compita,2 2 1 where, according to antiquarian tradition as related by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Servius Tullius had ordered that shrines be built qpcooi TrpovcoTnois, Dionysius’ expression for the for the Lares Familiares, which came to be worshipped as Lares Compitales {Ant. Rom. 4.14.3).2 2 2 It seems that the Romans imagined what was originally a household cult developing into a community cult, with the compita chosen as the site of worship perhaps because it was the place where one family’s property would have bordered upon that of another.2 2 3 The continuing importance of the compita in Roman life can be gauged by the fact that this cult remained strong throughout the Republic and into the Empire, with a major festival, the Compitalia, being held every year, at the end of December or the start of January.2 2 4 2 2 1 2 2 1 For the etymology cf. Schol. Persius 4.28: ad quae plura itinera competunf, also Varro LL 6.2: ubi viae competunt turn in competis sacrificatur. Cf. Porphyrio on Horace 2.3.25: item compita sunt loca, in quae multae viae competunt. This etymological derivation was, however, contested. The scholion on Persius also suggests an (implausible) association with drinking: aut compita proprie a compotando, id est simul bibendo . . . See below for derogatory associations of compita with drunkenness. 2 2 2 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.14.3: ETTEixa k c c tc c T r a v x a s e k e A e u o e x o u $ o x e v c o t t o u s E y K C tx a a K E u a a S f iv a i K a A i a B a s u t t o x c b v y E ix o v c o v f j p c o a i tr p o v c o T r i'o is kcci G u c n a s a u x o T s e v o h o G e x tio e v E T nxE A sT aG ai kccG’ e v ic c u x o v tte A c c v o u 5 E ia c p E p o u a ris E K a a x r is o k i ' a j . 2 2 3 See Harmon 1978b: 1594. 2 2 4 Cf. Varro LL 6.25: Compitalia dies attributus Laribus vialibus. . . The Compitalia was an annual festival, but its date was not fixed. It was one of the feriae conceptivae, whose date was proclaimed each year by a magistrate. Below I discuss the festival's contentious nature in the late Republic, and it is likely that the lack of a fixed date increased its potential to be exploited for political ends. For the Compitalia as one of the feriae conceptivae, see Varro LL 6.25 {quotannis is dies concipiturf also Gellius 10.24.3, giving the words of the magistrate announcing the festival: Dienoni populo Romano Quiritibus Compitalia erunt; quando concepta fuerint, nefas\ and Macrobius Sat. 1.16.6 (in a useful discussion of types offeriae). The unfixed date for the festival can also be inferred from Cic. Pis 8 (see below). Cf. also Ovid Fasti 1.660 where the Muse asks quid a fastis non stata sacra petis? Herbert-Brown 1994: 222 points out that the poet here is explaining his decision not to include the Compitalia and Feriae Latinae in January on the grounds that they are moveable festivals. On the Compitalia in general, see especially the excellent note at Michels 1967: 205 n. 8; also Scullard 135 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The Compitalia lasted three days, with one day of sacra and, probably, two days of Ludi Compitales (or Ludi Compitalicii).2 2 5 Its popular character is well known; indeed, as we will see, this festival played an important role in the revolutionary politics of the late Republic. Dionysius, in his discussion of compital cult, tells how Servius Tullius ordered that those who carried out the sacrifices as part of this cult should be slaves; and as Dionysius himself points out, the Compitalia was still celebrated in his own day (eti k c x ! k c c 0’ f|pa<;). The festival was usually held a few days after the Saturnalia, where slaves were allowed to play at being free, and Dionysius explicitly comments on how their role in the cult of the Lares Compitales reinforced servitude by making the slaves less aware of the severity of their condition {Ant. Rom. 4.14.4).2 2 6 Indeed, at the Compitalia the magistri vici (in general liberti, not slaves) were even allowed to wear the toga praetexta (Asconius p7 Clark).2 2 7 Originally, the Compitalia was an agricultural festival, marking the end of the year.2 2 8 1981: 58-60; Taylor 1960: 75-77; Flambard 1977: 140-2; Meuli 1955 especially 218-226; RE 4.79 Iff (Wissowa); Wissowa 1971: 167ff; Warde Fowler 1916: 279ff; Treggiari 1969: 198. Latte 1960: 90-2 is useful on the religious and cultic aspects of the compita, but less helpful on wider social questions. 2 2 5 Note Festus 304 and 306L: quod scilicet errant tam hercule, quam qui triduo Saturnalia, et totidem diebus Compitalia; nam omnibus his singulis diebusfiunt sacra. See Michels 1967: 205 n. 8. But see Wiseman 1985a: 46 stating that in the late Republic ludi Compitalicii, held simultaneously at crossroad stages throughout the city, lasted only one day. 2 2 6 For role and status reversal at the Compitalia and Matronalia (March 1st), as well as at the Saturnalia, see Versnel 1994: 158 (and more generally on the Saturnalia 136-228). See Bradley 1984: 40-44 on "holidays for slaves" as an element of social control. Bradley 44 cites Solinus 1.35: .. .ut honore promptius obsequium provocarent.. .quasi gratiam repensarentperfecti laboris; Note the extremely similar Macrob. Sat. 1.12.7: u t. . .ad promptum obsequium honore servos invitarent . . .quasi gratiam perfecti operis exsolverent, cf. Cic. de leg. 2.19, 29. 2 2 7 Cf. Livy 34.7.2 where in 195 L. Valerius, the tribune proposing the repeal of the Lex Oppia, speaks scornfully of the magistri vicorum: hie Romae infimo generi, magistris vicorum, togae habendae ius permittemus. He goes on to tell how they also have the right to be buried in this toga. 2 2 8 See Pers. 4.28 for yokes dedicated at compita and note the scholion ad loc.: finita agricultura rustici celebrabant. Warde Fowler 1916: 279-280 compares Ovid Fasti 1.665 (the plough is dedicated at the Paganalia) and Tibullus 2.1.5. 136 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. And this agricultural element doubtless remained in rural communities, as the elder Cato suggests when he allows the vilicus to perform no religious rites except at the Compitalia and at his hearth (rem divinam nisi Compitalibus in compito aut infoco ne faciat, RR 5.3). However, it is apparent that as Rome grew, the Compitalia became also a city festival, albeit retaining the non-elite character of the country festival, as is made clear by the tradition that Servius Tullius put the cult of the Lares in the charge of slaves. Indeed Beard, North and Price compare the popular associations of the cult of the Lares Compitales with that of Ceres, and they suggest that the cult of the Lares at the vici was the center of Roman religious and social life, especially for the poor and for slaves (1998: 139).2 2 9 This popular character is shown by the fact that Cato’s slaves get a double ration of wine at the Compitalia, as well as at the Saturnalia (RR 5.3). And Cicero tells Atticus (Att. 7.9.3) that during the Compitalia he is not going to his estate as he doesn’t want to bother his household (ne molestus simfamiliae). Elsewhere Cicero (Att 2.3.4) refers to his and Atticus’ "compitalician strolls," suggesting that the Compitalia was a time of leisure and peace for upper-class Romans and that they had nothing to do with the festivities in the vici, whether in the city or countryside.2 3 0 Finally we know from Paulus’ excerpt from Festus that laneae 229 Cf. Dar.-Sag. 1.2.1429 on this festival belonging "particulierement aux ouvriers les plus humbles des champs et de la ville." Cf. Flambard 1977: 133: "Les collegia, construits territorialement, etaient des organisations de masse de la plebe pauvre, regroupant indifferement des egentes de naissance libre, des affranchis, des esclaves. Les Compitalia, fete mobile inscrite au calandrier officiel etaient une occasion de rassembler ces elements dans tous les quartiers de la ville;" cf. Flambard 1981: 157. Also Tatum 1999: 117; Accame 1942: 21-2 and Meuli 1955: 219. Also Weinstock 1971: 215: the compital cult of the Lares was "exclusively a cult of freedmen and slaves." See Thommen 1995: 369 on the Compitalia as a lower class festival with “une signification exceptionnelle.” 2 3 0 Cic. Att. 2.3.4: sed haec ambulationibus Compitaliciis reservemus. 2 3 1 Festus 273L: pilae et effiigies viriles et muliebres ex lana Compitalibus suspenduntur in compitis, quod hunc diemfestum esse deorum inferorum, quos vocant Lares, putarent quibus tot pilae, quot capita servorum; tot effigies, quot essent liberi, ponebantur, ut vivis parcerent et essent his pilis et 137 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. effigies, woolen effigies, and pilae, woolen balls, were presented at night at the Compitalia at the crossroads to ward off from themselves the Lares, who were thought to be the souls of men which had been raised to the Gods.2 3 1 As the passage makes clear, pilae and effigies symbolized slaves and freedmen respectively, and so this passage, ultimately deriving from Verrius Flaccus’ late first century B.C. dictionary, shows how the Compitalia was in every respect closely bound up with slaves and ex- slaves. It also offers a rare glimpse into a popular religious mentality and a more general mentality, which seems to have sensed the precariousness of life.2 3 2 3. The Vici The compita and their annual festival were closely associated with the Roman local neighborhoods, or vici. These vici have provided a tantalizing and largely elusive field of investigation for historians.2 3 3 Vici were, like the montes and pagi, subdivisions of the city of Rome. At the center of each vicus was a compitum.2 3 4 Vici were, by the simulacris contenti. Cf. Festus 108L: Laneae effigies Compitalibus noctu dabantur in compita, quod lares, quorum is erat dies festus, animae putabantur esse hominum reactae in numerum deorum. 2 3 2 Harmon 1978b: 1595 is sceptical of the superstitiousness implied by Festus’ entry and suggests that the effigies and pilae may originally have been displayed for census reasons. He also believes that effigies would have been displayed for each free person, not just liberti. Also Taylor 1960: 77. 2 3 3 Note Linderski 1995c: 174: “Die Frage der Einteilung des republikanischen Italiens in pagi, vici, fora, conciliabula und compita, ihres Verhaltnisse zueinander, ihrer inneren Organisation und ihres rechtlichen Status, gehort iibrigens zu den schwierigsten Problemen bei der Erforschung der Verfassungsgeschichte der Republik.” Cf. Millar 1998: 34: "It would be of great help if we had a clearer grasp of habitation patterns within the city, of the social character of the different vici, and of the shrines and localized festivals that were to be found there." 2 3 4 For vici at Rome, see the useful Appendix A of MacMullen 1974. 2 3 5 Comm. Pet. 30: deinde habeto rationem urbis totius, collegiorum, montium, pagorum, vicinitatum. Note here, however, that montium is Mommsen’s emendation for the manuscript’s omnium. Note that the hills of the Septimontium were very different from the seven hills of later Rome. See Harmon 1978a: 1459-60. 138 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Late Republic, clearly the most important of the ancient divisions of the city, more important than the montes and the pagi. In the Late Republic, montes and pagi still had their own festivals of the Septimontium and the Paganalia (honoring the Lares Praestites) and the author of the Commentariolum Petitionis could include them among the constituencies that Cicero should not neglect in his canvassing {Comm. Pet. 30).2 3 5 But neither are presented in our sources as having the same kind of continuing importance in Roman life as the vici or the festival associated with them, the Compitalia. The connection between the vici, montes and pagi is largely beyond the scope of this chapter.2 3 6 What is essential for my argument is simply the association between the vicus and the compitum that was its cultural and social heart. Indeed, as Boyance says in another context, "vicatim et 'aux carrefours' sont des expressions absolument equivalentes" (1950: 67).2 3 7 This identity has not always been agreed upon. For instance, Mommsen believed that the vicus was a subdivision of a compitumP* Most scholars, however, follow Waltzing’s identification of the vici and the compita, citing the fact that Suetonius and Pliny, in describing the local units established by Augustus’s reform of the city’s administrative structure, refer to these same areas as vici and compita Larum respectively.2 3 9 And that this identification was not an Augustan innovation is suggested by a republican inscription from Pompeii 2 3 6 The montes, as their festival the Septimontium suggests (see Varro LL 6.24), represent the original seven hills of Rome. The pagi seem to have been districts that were formerly outside of the city, perhaps adjacent to these hills. For the pagi and vici, see, with caution, Accame 1942: 22-5 and Lintott 1967: 160. Note that compita and pagi are several times associated together, usually in countryside contexts, reflecting their rustic origins and their continuing use to refer to a "village": e.g. Hor. Ep. 1.149; Verg. Georg. 2.383; Calp. Sic. 4.125ff. 2 3 7 See also Waltzing 1968:1.100. 2 3 8 Mommsen 1843: 75-6. See on this issue Linderski 1995c: 175, Flambard 1977: 138 n. 96 and Flambard 1981: 152. See Laurence 1995: 41 suggesting that in Pompeii it is more likely that compita marked the boundary between vici. 2 3 9 Waltzing 1968: 1.98-102. Suetonius Aug. 30; Pliny NH 3.66. 139 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. listing local officials for 47 and 46BC as mag(istri)vici et compiti.240 Finally, a Hadrianic inscription, listing the magistri of the various vici, mentions several vici named after a compitum or with a title indicative of compital cult: for instance, the vicus compiti pastoris in regio xii, the vicus trium viarum in regio xiii, and the vicus Larum ruralium in regio xiiii.2 4 1 Festus (502L) reports that vici were originally rural villages with their own right of jurisdiction (ius dicitur) and their own magistrates.2 4 2 As the city expanded from the septimontium and adjacent pagi, these vici would have become incorporated in the city structure, with the vici eventually replacing the other subdivisions of the city in importance.2 4 3 The rural origin of the vici helps explain the originally rural character of the Compitalia, while their incorporation into the city meant that their annual festival came to be increasingly central to the urban plebs. Pliny tells us that in 7B.C. Augustus reorganized the city into 14 regiones (an increase from Servius Tullius’ original four) and 265 vici (NH 3.66). Flambard, relying on these figures as well as inscriptions and population estimates, has calculated that each vicus would have consisted of around 3000 inhabitants, the population of each ranging from 1000- 10000; he estimates that the territory of the vici averaged 5.5 hectares (or 235 square meters), but again with a range from 0.75-14.2 hectares.2 4 4 Whatever the accuracy of such figures, they at least give an idea of the compact and crowded nature of the vici. 2 4 0 CIL 4.66; see here Linderski 1995c: 177. 241ILS 6073. Inscriptions such as this also show the non-elite character of the vici organizations in the city as the various magistri vici named tend to be liberti. Cf. ILS 6076-8. See e.g. Treggiari 1969: 199. 2 4 2 Festus 502L: . . .qui ibi villas non habent, ut Marsi aut Peligni. Sed ex vic[t]is partim habent rempublicam et ius dicitur, partim nihil eorum et tamen ibi nundinae aguntur negoti gerendi causa, et magistri vici, item magistri pagi quotannis fiunt. 2 4 3 Flambard 1981: 143 and 149. 2 4 4 Flambard 1981: 147. His calculation is primarily based on the Hadrianic inscription mentioned above (ILS 6073), which lists vici according to the regio in which they are found. 140 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4. The Vici and the Organization of Violence in the Late Republic I want first to draw attention to the centrality that the Compitalia and the vici played in the non-constitutional, indeed revolutionary, political action of the late Republic. This will serve as a background to my subsequent discussion of the compita themselves and of the representation of the activity that took place in them. In 64 BC, a senatus consultum was issued prohibiting certain collegia, which had the effect of ending the celebration of the Compitalia.2 4 5 As Asconius writes, commenting on Cicero’s In Pisonem S: solebant autem magistri collegiorum ludosfacere, sicut magistri vicorum faciebant compitalicios praetextati, qui ludi sublatis collegiis discussi sunt (Asc. p7 Clark).2 4 6 In order to make sense of how a decree against collegia could cause the abolition of the Compitalia, Mommsen inferred that the collegia banned were collegia compitalicia, collegia which Mommsen thought must have been in charge of the festival. However, this belief reflected in part Mommsen’s incorrect view that each compitum contained within it several vici, and indeed subsequent scholars have doubted the very existence of these collegia}*1 The solution to the problem as to how a ban on 2 4 5 For the date, see Accame 1942: 13-15; also Flambard 1977: 118 n. 13 and Marshall 1985: 94-5. Taylor 1960: 77, however, gives the date as 65 BC. As Michels points out, it is likely that the sacra for the Lares Compitales were still held; it would have been the (probably) two days of ludi Compitalicii which would have been affected by the ban on collegia, since, as we will see, these were organized by the magistri vici and the collegia. For bibliography on collegia, Yavetz 1983: 241 n. 12 is a useful starting point. Also Flambard 1977: 117 n. 12 and Tatum 1999: 258 n. 126. Given that Mommsen wrote that "[t]here is no aspect of the life of the Roman people respecting which our information is so scanty as that of the Roman trades" {History o f Rome 1.193), an extremely substantial bibliography has been generated, starting in earnest with Mommsen's own de Collegiis et Sodaliciis Romanorum of 1843. 2 4 6 See Linderski 1995c: 172 for the problem of the punctuation here. Also Treggiari 1969: 170 n. 8 and 198-9. 2 4 7 Mommsen 1843: 57 and 74-6. Contra, e.g. Waltzing 1968, especially 1.98-111. Waltzing argued that collegia compitalicia in this period did not exist. The only attestation of the term collegia compitalicia is from a third century AD inscription from Faesulae (CIL XI. 1550) which is too late to be of much relevance for the late Republic (as Accame 1942: 17 points out, the Delian KOUTTETaAiaoTai are not comparable to the situation at Rome). Waltzing felt that the Compitalia was carried out by the magistri vicorum and the magistrates of various artisan colleges. Linderski 141 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. collegia resulted in the abolition of the Compitalia may lie in the fact that certain collegia were territorial, not just religious or trade-based. Flambard (1981: 150-1) argues that Quintus’ ratio urbis totius, in his advice to Cicero in the Commentariolum Petitionis to canvass in all the city’s constituencies, reflects a rigorous categorization of the collegia, mentioning first the professional collegia and then the territorial ones: the pagi and vici.2 4 8 If there were collegia consisting of residents of the particular vici, this would help explain why disbanding the collegia in 64 would have made it impossible for neighborhood collegia to elect magistri vici to organize the Compitalia. Certainty is impossible.2 4 9 However, it is surely equally important, regardless of the technicalities, to remember that at Rome the professions, which certainly met in collegia, often tended to congregate in particular neighborhoods.2 5 0 Thus the collegia 1995c: 172ff in general follows Waltzing, believing that the magistri vicorum held the games, helped by the collegia opificum and suggesting a role for the cultores Larum also. See also Flambard 1977: 132 and 133ff. Yavetz 1983: 88 seems to have no doubt as to their existence, however; likewise Vanderbroeck 1987: 99. 2 4 8 Comm. Pet. 30: deinde habeto rationem urbis totius, collegiorum, montium, pagorum, vicinitatum (see the earlier note for this passage). Cf. Flambard 1981: 149: “II nous faut maintenant considerer que toutes ces circonscriptions, montes, pagi, vici, ont servi de support a des entites associatives, ce qui est d’une importance extreme pour comprendre les structures de la plebe romaine et ses rapports avec 1 ’armature civique.” See Flambard 1981: 153, passing judgments on his predecessors: “Mommsen se trompait en voulant ignorer, contre toute logique, le caractere professionnel de certains colleges dissous en 64, et Waltzing en niant que des organisations territoriales aient pu exister.” Cf. Linderski 1995c: 174 for the Compitalian cult having “einen territorialen Charakter,” reflecting the fact that the compitum is not just a crossroads but also an area. Cf. Tatum 1999: 25 for the montes, pagi and vici all organized along the lines of collegia opificum, with the vici being especially important: “These associations cannot always be easily distinguished from collegia.” Note Tatum 1999: 19, commenting on Comm. Pet. 30: "If a man could have influence within a tribe or neighborhood, this implies that these associations possessed some self- awareness, some identity." 2 4 9 Treggiari 1969: 170-1 suggests that Mommsen may have been correct to imagine that collegia elected the magistri vici but points out that we do not know what their name was. Also 198. Cf. Waltzing 1968 who felt that the inhabitants of vici did not form collegia but elected the magistrates without them. As Tatum 1999: 117-8 points out, there is no consensus on the relation between vici and occupational and religious collegia. 2 5 0 See MacMullen 1974: 69, and 68 for how at Rome the various neighborhoods tended to specialize in particular economic activities, as is indicated by the naming of areas after trades; see apppendix A for the vici. Also Lintott 1967: 161, Yavetz 1983: 87 and Linderski 1995c: 190 and 132 n. 114. 142 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. opificum would certainly have had a strongly local character and local loyalties and it is easy to imagine that particular collegia would have taken pride in organizing and taking a prominent part in the local festivities organized by the vicus in which they lived and worked at the annual Compitalia.2 5 1 An attack on the collegia would be, then, de facto an attack on the Compitalia. 2 5 2 Whatever the solution to this historical crux, Asconius makes it clear that collegia were in some way involved in celebrating the Compitalia and it is likely that the magistri of professional colleges joined the magistri vici, whether elected by territorial collegia or not, in organizing the Festival. But perhaps the most important point here for my purposes is that these collegia would have been predominantly collegia tenuiorum, consisting of liberti and slaves.2 5 3 Associations such as collegia would by their nature have made the Roman aristocracy uncomfortable; and we have seen earlier explicit testimony in our sources of 2 5 1 Note Waltzing 1968:1.106: "On congoit que tous les colleges recruites parmi les classes inferieures de la population et souvent compose de gens du meme quartier, aient participe a ces jeux populaires et locaux." One might compare participation of Medieval guilds in various festivals, of which Act Three of Wagner’s Die Meistersinger, with the procession of the various trade guilds for the festival of Johannistag, provides a vivid example. For regional loyalties in Rome cf. Festus 190L describing the conflict for the October equus, fought over by two neighborhoods: de cuius capite non levis contentio solebat esse inter Suburaneses, et Sacravienses. Cf. Purcell 1995: 328, also pointing out that Pompeius Strabo's funeral in 87 was disturbed not by people in general but by the populus Suburanus (Gran. Lie. 22). 2 5 2 In the passage Asconius is commenting on, Cicero (Pis. 8) says that the Compitalia in 58 was celebrated contra auctoritatem huius ordinis. Linderski 1995c: 172 feels that this makes it clear that the Senate deliberately planned the abolition of the Compitalia in 64 and that this was not merely a by-product of the prohibition of collegia. Clearly the Senate was aware that suppressing the collegia would put a stop to the games even if they did not explicitly call for the Compitalia to be banned. It may be significant here to note that Cicero in this passage of the in Pisonem describes the games of 58 as contra auctoritatem huius ordinis, not contra consultum. However, in the next sentence Cicero speaks of a certain Tribune who in 61 had ordered the games contrary to a senatus consultum: suo auxilio magistros ludos contra senatus consultum facere iussisset. 2 5 3 Cf. Flambard 1981: 156; Tatum 1999: 118. See Treggiari 1969: 169ff on the history of collegia in the 60s and 50s, arguing for their predominantly libertine character and commenting on their involvement in electoral corruption and intimidation. Note 169 describing corruption at elections carried out by "trade and religious guilds, especially the organizations in the vici in the fifties, and political clubs, sodalicia or sodalitates, catering for the rich. The influence of freedmen will have been 143 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the importance of having an official magistrate with auctoritas present at all meetings of the people. Perhaps the locus classicus for Roman concern about collegia is from the Empire, when Trajan refuses the request by Pliny for the establishment of a collegium of firefighters in Nicomedia on the grounds that "men who have gathered together for the same purpose will become a political association before long" (... qui in idem contracti fuerint hetaeriae aeque brevifient, 10.34).2 5 4 This unease felt towards collegia may have been exacerbated by the fact that a culture of solidarity rather than competition seems to have existed among ancient workers. As MacMullen says, “a great deal suggests that a friendly, gossipy atmosphere prevailed among people who saw each other every day, worked at the same job in the same neighborhood, and shared all the same ups and downs. Trade associations were the result” (1974: 72-3). But surely more than a long-standing unease is needed to explain the seemingly dramatic action of abolishing the collegia in 64 and so suppressing the Compitalia.2 5 5 As private associations, collegia would have caused suspicion among elites, especially in times of upheaval. But in many ways collegia confined almost entirely to the collegia, the lower-class bodies." See the chapter on shops for the political role of shopkeepers and artisans during this period. 2 5 4 Cf. also Pliny Ep. 10.92-3. 2 5 5 The ban on associations was strikingly unusual, recalling perhaps the famous senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus of 186. See Flambard 1977: 131. See Scheid 1985: 20 on how the city always had "la haute main sur la religion" thanks to the link between cult and social situations, in this case the collegia. Linderski 1995c: 169-70 points out that the 12 Tables allowed collegia which did not break public law: his (sodalibus) potestatem facit lex (XII Tab.) pactionem quam velint sibiferre, dum ne quid ex publica lege corrumpant. He argues that the S.C. of 64 was based on this law, as was the S.C. concerning the Bacchanals in 186. Cf. Flambard 1981: 161: collegia were given space by the Senate unless they crossed the threshold whereby they upset public power; this provoked a rapid and brutal response. Also 162: “II faut bien admettre que le regime normal en matiere associative fut, jusqu’au dernier siecle de la Republique, celui de la liberte totale.” Unlike Linderski, Flambard sees the suppression of the Bacchanals as an episode of religious rather than political history. Dionysius of Halicarnassus 4.43.2 makes Tarquin the Proud intervene for the first time in the right of association; this may be anachronistic but it shows a concern in the first century to legitimate intervention in collegia through a rewriting of the past. For the attribution of collegia to Numa and its connection with the turmoil of the late Republic, see Gabba 1984. 144 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. were not necessarily sub versi ve at a! i. While it is true that membership in collegia might empower individual Romans,2 5 6 in other respects these institutions tended to reproduce the social stratification of the city.2 5 7 Collegia were in many ways hierarchical, with different roles allowed for slaves and freedmen. As Flambard says, they were not “contre-cites egalitaires” (1981: 163), but rather built on the example of the res publica, with their rituals and elections. Indeed Flambard considers that they served “une fonction d’integration,” being places of apprenticeship for civic conduct, as is suggested by the fact that sons of freedmen, who were full Roman citizens, tended to be less active in collegia. The very fact of their existence, then, is not necessarily enough to explain the action taken against them.2 5 8 Rather, the reason for this decisive step surely lay in the trouble that had occurred in the years immediately preceding this edict. Two occasions of unrest, at the end of 67 and 66, can be gleaned from our fragmentary sources, and there may well have been more trouble than we know of.2 5 9 On the last day of 67, during the celebration of the Compitalia, we hear of an unsuccessful attempt by the tribune C. Manilius to bring in a law which would have 2 5 6 Cf. Tatum 1999: 148. 2 5 7 Cf. Flambard 1981: 158. 2 5 8 While Flambard is right to stress this role in social integration, he does seem to play down the anxieties that collegia would nevertheles have caused Roman Senators. This may possibly reflect an evidential issue: earlier texts do not tend to refer much to collegia and they only become an issue with Cicero (elucidated by his commentator Asconius). But later in the chapter we will see activity in the vici in the 80s which may well have involved collegia and the absence of explicit references in Plutarch and Appian does not allow us to neglect the possibility that the collegia may have been involved in the tumultuous events of the late 130s and late 120s. Yavetz 1983: 89 considers that collegia had become increasingly radicalized, especially collegia associated with the Compitalia which had large slave memberships: "It is possible that it was those very collegia of which slaves were already members in antiquity (with the agreement of their masters— volentibus dominis) that in the course of time developed into the most politically dangerous, whereas in early days they were totally harmless." 2 3 9 Our knowledge of events preceding the point where Cicero's extant correspondence begins in earnest is, of course, extremely sketchy. 145 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. distributes the votes of the frecdmen into all of the Roman tribes, allowing them to register in the tribe of the person who had freed them.2 6 0 Freedmen had long been confined to the four urban tribes, and so Manilius’ rogatio would have increased their electoral presence.2 61 These urban tribes consisted of the industrial city population, often men with no property (capite censi); they were probably made up of mainly immigrants and freedmen, since the freed population had always tended to be the recipients of the fruit of the expanding Roman empire, acquiring land in Italy and beyond.2 6 2 According to Treggiari, the effect that Manilius’s legislation would have on the rights of native Romans was "cataclysmic" (1969: 166).2 6 3 The enrolment of the liberti throughout all the tribes was, as Lintott points out, a particularly pressing concern since 10000 slaves had been liberated by Sulla, causing a notable addition to the number of liberti in the city.2 6 4 Manilius’ measure was accompanied by violence. Dio tells how the tribune gathered supporters from the crowd CrrapaaKEuaaas Tivas 6 K to u opiXou, 36.42), according to Asconius a band of freedmen and slaves (libertinorum et servorum manus, Asc. p45 Clark), and it seems likely that such people were organized from the compita, where local celebrations were occurring.2 6 5 2 6 0 See Dio 36.42.2: Tcp y a p e 0 v e i t g d t c o v c c t t e A e u O e p c o v . . . yuq n aaab ai p s ra xcbv E^EXEU0epcoadvTcov aq>a$ e B c o k e v . Also Asconius p45 Clark, dating the events to the Compitalia. 2 6 1 Manilius’ bill was a typically popularis measure; cf. Millar 1998: 23-4. Taylor 1960 chapter 10 is essential for the history of the measures taken concerning freedmen and their voting tribes, going back to the censorship of Appius Claudius in 312. Also Lintott 1999: 51-2. Compare the conflicts in the early 80s on what to do with the votes of the new citizens after the Social War; e.g. Appian BC 1.49; 53; 55. For further discussion of the liberti and the urban tribes, see the chapter on the Forum. 2 6 2 See Taylor 1960: 11. 263 See Taylor 1960: 132-144 and Treggiari 1969: 37-50 and 164-6 on the voting rights of freedmen. For a rather different reading of Asconius p45 Clark here, see Badian 1964: 143. 2 6 4 App. BC 1.100; Lintott 1968: 81. 2 6 5 Cf. Vanderbroeck 1987 Appendix B no. 14. As a result of the Compitalia, "a large part of the plebs, and especially the people who would profit from Manilius' proposal, were already on the streets. It is very likely that Manilius used the organization of the collegia to mobilize a following for the assembly and to organize streetgangs" (227). See Vanderbroeck 1987: 79 and 123 on how 146 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Asconius tells how Manilius besieged the Capitol and that the movement was repressed violently by the quaestor Domitius; he comments that by this act, Domitius offended the plebern infimam. Gruen, in his relentless effort to show that things in the Late Republic were functioning as normal, sees Manilius' liberti bill, which would enroll freedmen in the same tribe as their former master and patron, as not necessarily a radical move; he suggests that many aristocrats may have favored Manilius' proposal because it would have allowed them to make better use of their clients (1974: 407-8).2 6 6 But this hardly accounts for the constant opposition and aristocratic fury that this measure always met with. Indeed Cicero, commenting on Clodius' manifesto as candidate for the praetorship of 52, speaks of leges quae nos servis nostris addicerent (Mil. 87)2 6 7 ; Asconius explains these laws as a plan to allow libertini to vote in the rural tribes as well as the urban tribes (Asc. p52 Clark). And Asconius, commenting on Sulpicius Rufus’ attempt in 88 to introduce the same law that Manilius later attempted to bring in, describes this action as indicative of the shift from the good beginnings of Sulpicius’ tribunate to its desperate end (cum per vim rem p. possedisset et ab initiis bonarum actionum adperditas progressus esset, Asc. p64 Clark). Moreover, the importance of the issue is shown in the de Oratore where Cicero has Scaevola speak of the elder Ti. Sempronius Gracchus’ measures as censor in 169-8 confining the libertini into the urban tribes as saving the Republic: et saepe alias et maxime censor saluti rei publicae fuit; atque is . . .libertinos in urbanas tribus transtulit, quod nisi popular political action in general was often staged to take into account the presence of the people due to particular festivals or other special circumstances. 2 6 6 Taylor 1960: 133 agrees about the motive among aristicrats who advocated the move, noting that those who proposed such measures tended to be members of the patrician aristocracy: “That registration [in the four urban tribes] marked the freedmen as second-class citizens. The men who tried to register the feeedmen in the rural tribes were attempting to raise the status of the group primarily in order to profit from their votes.” However, she considers that it would have led to a radical change in the political structure of the city (e.g. 144). 1 4 7 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. fecisset, rem publicam, quam nunc vix tenemus, iam diu nullam haberemus (“and often at other times and especially as Censor he saved the Republic; and he transferred the freedmen into the urban tribes, without which we would no longer have the Republic which now we just about manage to hold onto.”; de Or. 1.38).2 6 8 Gruen goes on to suggest that Manilius' adherents were a picked band, "not independent representatives of the liberti, clamouring for class privileges" (439-440).2 6 9 But if one accepts that Manilius made use of the Compitalia to gain support, it is likely that the men who followed him were not a "picked band" but rather vicani who happened to be celebrating and who, given the libertine nature of the festival, can indeed be seen as being in a sense representatives of the group which would benefit by Manilius' bill.2 7 0 At the time of the next year’s Compitalia, the end of December 66 and the start of January 65, more upheaval occurred, although these events have become somewhat impenetrable as a result of Cicero's rhetorical obfuscation, which succeeded in merging these events into the so-called first Catilinarian Conspiracy.2 7 1 It does seem that real 2 6 7 See below for Cicero labeling liberti as servi. 2 6 8 See Livy 45.15.3-7. Gracchus’ measure seems to have allotted libertini who resided in the country into one of the four tribes chosen by lot. See Taylor 1960: 140-1. This was probably a response to the measure of M. Aemilius Lepidus and M. Fulvius Nobilior who as censors in 179 seem to have registered freedmen who owned more than 30000HS of property or had children who were older than 5 years old in the tribe where they owned property. See Livy 45.15.1-3 with 40.51.9. 2 6 9 Gruen claims that this is made clear by descriptions of the event, but I do not see how the passage of Asconius that he cites (Asc. p45 Clark) supports such a claim: C. Manilius tribunus plebis subnixus libertinorum et servorum manu perditissimam legem ferret. . . idque per tumultum ageret et clivum Capitolium obsideret, discusserat persuperatque coetum Domitius ita ut multi Manilianorum occiderentur. 2 7 0 Cf. Flambard 1981: 163: “Je suis persuade que cette date des Compitalia avait ete choisie a dessein par Manilius, car elle lui permettait de mobiliser la plebe des associations de quartiers qui chomait pour la fete et etait interessee au plus haut point par les projets du tribun.” For vicani referring to the inhabitants of a vicus, see Festus 508L: qui non dicuntur vicani, sicut hi, qui aut in oppidi vicis, aut hi, qui in agris sunt, vicani appellantur. Note, however, Taylor 1960: 135 n. 5, pointing out that C1L I2 records more instances of freedmen in the Republic from outside of Rome than in the city. 2 7 1 Cf. especially Cic. Cat. 1.15 and Dio 36.44.3. Seager 1964 is a good unpacking of the various plots and disturbances during 66-65, which tend to be confused together. Also Frisch 1948 and Stevens 1963. 1 4 8 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. disturbances occurred, possibly connected to the trial of the popular favorite Manilius, and again perhaps involving the people and collegia which were on the streets for the Compitalia?1 1 And there can certainly be little doubt that, as Wiseman says, "the forum was full of whispered rumours" (1994: 341-2). The atmosphere of concern about conspiracies which existed at this time was, it seems, intensified by portents which occurred in Rome in 65. Cicero in the third Catilinarian, in a passage which seems to be the ultimate source for a similar account in Dio (37.9), tells how in the consulship of Cotta and Torquatus lightning struck the Capitol, images of the gods were thrown down, statues of great men of the past were overturned, a statue of Romulus was struck, and bronze tablets with the law inscribed on them, were melted down. Cicero states that, according to the Etruscan Haruspices, this calamity portended strife, slaughter and the collapse of the city and the empire: caedis atque incendia et legum interitum et bellum civile ac domesticum et totius urbis atque imperi occasum appropinquare dixerunt (Cat. 3.19-20). In order to avert such a disaster, the Romans held ten days of games and built a larger statue of Jupiter which was to face east, overlooking the forum and senate house, in order to bring to light the conspiracies (consilia) which had been taking place: ac se sperare dixerunt, si illud signum quod videtis solis ortum et forum curiamque conspiceret, fore ut ea consilia quae clam essent inita contra salutem urbis atque imperi inlustrarentur, ut a senatu populoque Romano perspicipossent (Cat. 3.20). Doubtless these consilia referred to the kind of upper-class plotting so vividly portrayed in Sallust’s description of the Catilinarian conspiracy (eg Cat. 23). But the leaders of the Senate were surely aware that any upper-class plot would need popular support and this may have increased their 272 Accame 1942: 15. See Flambard 123 n.29 for there being trouble at the Compitalia in 66, 65, 64, 61 and 58. 149 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. apprehension about collegia, especially if collegia had been prominent in organizing the disturbances at the end of 67 and 66. And, of course, this nervousness, manifested in the attack on collegia in 64, was shown even more clearly in the swift suppression of the Catilinarian episode in 63. An association between the collegia and the Catilinarians is perhaps suggested by the fact that Catiline's conspiracy was planned for the Saturnalia (Cic. Cat. 3.10; Diod. 40.5; PlutC/c. 18), a festival that shortly preceded the Compitalia and indeed which tended to merge into it and which involved a similar sector of society.2 7 3 Moreover, Sallust makes it clear that many of the supporters were opifices, who would surely have been organized in collegia {Cat. 50).2 7 4 And it is striking, and not necessarily coincidental, that the Catilinarian conspirators were arrested on the day that the statue of Jupiter overlooking the Forum was set up, December 3rd 63, the date on which the third Catilinarian was delivered (Cic. Cat. 20; also Dio 39.34). The suppression of the collegia may have been, from the elite’s point of view, successful, at least temporarily. Indeed, some scholars have seen the suppression of the collegia as one reason for Catiline’s failure. For instance Treggiari suggests that the Catilinarians failed to communicate quickly enough with local leaders, perhaps because of the absence of organized collegia (1969: 172).2 7 5 If this suggests a concern about collegia, we also see an indication of the importance of the vici during this period. For instance, Lucullus gave a dinner to the people in their vici after his triumph in 63. The fact that Plutarch uses a Greek transliteration of the Latin vici suggests, perhaps, that this location for the feasts was 2 7 3 See Vanderbroeck App. B no. 23 for the events of 63. Note 232: "The timing was well-chosen, because during the festival the city would already be in a chaotic atmosphere with many people feasting on the streets and more than usual freedom for the slaves." 2 7 4 Also Cic. Cat. 1.8 for scythemakers supporting Catiline and cf. Appian BC 2.5 for XEipoxsxvas. See also the discussion in the next chapter. 150 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. stressed in his source: btt'i TOUTOtg t f |u t e tto X iv E'uxriaas XauTrpcbg Ka'i Tag TTEpioiKiBag Kcbpag, ag out’ KOug KaXouat, Lucullus 37.4). Moreover, Cicero is urged during his election campaign to give banquets (convivia) passim et tributim (Comm. Pet. 44). The author of the Commentariolum Petitionis may be referring to the vici here by his use of passim, especially since elsewhere in the treatise vicini and tributes are associated together, in a passage in which Cicero is urged not to neglect the vici in his canvassing: ut tributes, ut vicini, ut clientes, ut denique liberti, postremo etiam servi tui; namfere omnis sermo ad forensem famam a domesticis emanat auctoribus (Comm. Pet. 17).2 7 6 We will see later how the Roman elite were furious when popular politicians like Clodius used the vicus organization of the people to gain support, but it would seem that good boni like Cicero and Lucullus were themselves not above appealing to the vici when it was in their interests. Finally, an episode related in Dio offers a certain insight into the nervousness that the Senate seems to have been feeling at this time. Dio 37.9 tells how a tribune C. Papius passed a law in 65 expelling peregrini (uduTEg oi ev Trj 'Pcbpq 5iaTpi(3ovTEg, uXqv tcov Tqv vuv ’IxaXlav oikouvtcov); such a measure may have been indicative of a hostility to foreigners in Rome, and, of course, many liberti would have been of foreign origin.2 7 7 In general, I would see the anxieties that the elite was exhibiting during this time as a response to the change in the nature of Roman politics following the restoration of the full power of the Tribunes in 70. In particular the events of 67, the tribunate of Cornelius and a year described by Wiseman as an 2 7 5 Accame 1942: 29 suggests that Catiline was more successful outside Rome, in for instance Etruria, because the collegia associated with the compital cult had not been banned outside the city. 2 7 6 Cf. also Cic. Mur. 67, where Murena during his canvassing for the consulship of 62 is said to have given prandia everywhere (et item prandia si vulgo essent data). 151 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. annus mirabilis of the restored tribunician power, doubtless affected the Senate deeply. I would suggest that a sense that traditional Senatorial authority was at crisis point lay behind the decision to attack the means of popular organization at a local level and so to limit the organized support that a popularis politician might call upon.2 7 8 The decree of 64 was the result.2 7 9 It seems certain that the urban plebs and those popularis politicians who wished to court it were unwilling to accept quietly the injunction against the Compitalia. And the fact that Cato as tribune in 62 brought in an extension of the grain supply (Plut. Cato Min. 26; Caes. 8.6) may reflect a desire to appease a popular indignation not only at the treatment of the Catilinarians but also at the attack on neighborhood institutions. This lingering discontent is demonstrated by the unsuccessful attempt to revive the Compitalia at the end of 61, when we hear of an 2 7 7 See the next chapter for expulsions of the Latins from Rome in the 180s and 170s, an earlier period of crisis for the Roman aristocracy. Papius’ law is referred to also at Cic. de leg. Agr. 1.13 and Arch. 10. 2 7 8 See Wiseman 1994: 338 for 67BC. In general Wiseman's narrative of the events of 69-50 (1994: 327-423) is outstanding for its attention to what must have been the ever-changing mood of the city of Rome. 2 7 9 For more involvement of collegia in popular political activity leading up to 64, see Treggiari 1969: 171 for a collegium of Comelii, freedmen of Sulla, probably causing trouble in the period prior to 64BC. Also see Vanderbroeck 1987 Appendix B nol 16 for the disturbances at the trial of Cornelius, where Asconius p75 Clark seems to suggest that the adherents of Cornelius were organized in collegia and that they were one of the factors behind the senatus consultum of 64: frequenter turn etiam coetus factiosorum hominum sine publica auctoritate malo publico fiebant: propter quod postea collegia et S. C. et pluribus legibus sunt sublata praeter pauca atque certa qua utilitas civitatis desiderasset, sicut fabrorum lictorumque. However, Linderski suggests that Asconius' S.C. here is plural, standing for Senatus Consultis and that Asconius here is offering "einen kurzen Abriss der Entwicklung des Veeinsrechts von dem Senatsbeschluss vom J. 64 bis zur Gesetzgebung des Augustus einschliesslich” (1995c: 168). If so, it would be inaccurate to take the passage as implying a cause of the S.C. of 64; indeed it might better be related to the Clodian period (note the stress on coetus which lack public authority). Linderski 1995c: 169-170 feels that gradually, through S.C.s and laws, collegia lost their rights until only those which were useful to the state remained; in the past all which did not break the public laws had been allowed (see the statute from the Twelve Tables cited above). But cf. Waltzing 1968:1.110: "II est probable que le Senat laissa subsister ceux des colleges industriels qui etaient fort anciens; peut-etre leur fit-il grace parce qu'on attribuait leur institution a Numa, plutot que parce qu'ils paraissaient necessaires a l'interet general. II supprima le reste.” 152 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. "unknown tribune" who gave auxilium to magistri attempting to celebrate the Ludi Compitalicii.2 H 0 This attempt was blocked by the auctoritas of the consul designate Metellus Celer, but the episode reflects the unresolved tensions surrounding the Compitalia and the desire of the vicani to celebrate a festival that was clearly important to them.2 8 1 But above all, the Compitalia and the collegia associated with them became an issue with Clodius' tribunate in 58, during which, as Flambard says, Clodius took "la rue des pauvres" (1977: 153).2 8 2 It is striking that almost the first action of Clodius was the celebration of the Compitalia, carried out against the opposition of the Senate, for whom the tribune Ninnius was acting (Asc p7 Clark) and with Sex. Cloelius presiding over the festival.2 8 3 This celebration surely took on the character of 2 8 0 Cic. Piso 8 with Asconius p7 Clark. See e.g. Tatum 1999: 118. 2 8 1 If Bradley 1984 is correct that the Saturnalia and Compitalia played an important aspect in the social control of slaves, then it is perhaps not surprising that putting a stop to the festival was followed by unrest (see above note). 2 8 2 See Flambard 1977: 153: “Les propheties retrospectives sont trop faciles, mais on peut remarquer qu’entre l’armee, tenue par les triumvirs, et les cornices, manipules par les optimates, il restait un espace a occuper dans la vie politique de la republique en decomposition: la rue des pauvres. Clodius l’a fait avec determination et, apres tout, un certain succes.” Note Whittaker 1993: 287: "Every educated Roman would remember from his reading of Cicero how dangerously close to a proletarian revolution Rome had come in the last decade of the Republic, when Publius Clodius organized the street gangs of the city into collegia; including the slaves and freedmen, who had little or no voting power but could wield weapons and to whom he gave solidarity by using the organizations for distributing free grain." 2 8 3 For this name, cf. Shackelton-Bailey 1960 and 1981, arguing for Cloelius from the manuscripts of Cicero. However, Flambard 1977: 126-128 defends the reading Sex. Clodius, among other arguments pointing to de domo 25 where Sextus is defined as socius tui sanguinis and suggesting that Asc. p7 Clark (is fuit familiarissimus Clodii) suggests manumission. However, the textual arguments Shackelton-Bailey makes are unrefuted. 2 8 4 See e.g. Lintott 1967: 160-1; 1968 chapter 6; Tatum 1999 chapter 5. See Flambard 1977: 131-3 on the relationship between operae and collegia. For the sources, see Vanderbroeck 1987 Appendix B no. 41. On the significance of the Aurelian Tribunal, adjoining the Temple of Castor, see Vanderbroeck 1987: 123-4. Gruen 1974: 445, typically downplaying anything in the Late Republic that may have differed from earlier times, feels that it is an exaggeration to describe Clodius’ men as a paramilitary organization. But he acknowledges that"... the guilds themselves, associated with districts of the city, provided convenient structures whereby to call up men for demonstrations or conflicts in the streets." See Treggiari 1969: 173: "These new associations were apparently based on 153 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. something of a manifesto, making it clear, in the most symbolic way, where Clodius' loyalties lay. When it was celebrated at the start of 58, the Compitalia was still forbidden. However, a few days later Clodius passed his lex de collegiis which reinstated the collegia which had been banned in 64, and thereby reintroduced the celebration of the Compitalia as well. It is not my purpose here to examine the details of Clodius' recruitment of what amounted to a paramilitary force by the establishment of new collegia, subdivided into centuriae and decuriae and enrolled in front of the Aurelian Tribunal, a platform in the Fomm with distinctively popular associations.2 8 4 Elsewhere, in the section on shops, I discuss the significance of the closing of the tabemae during the enlistment (Cic. Dom. 54). Here I want to focus only on the relationship between Clodius' actions and the organizational structure of the compita and vici. Cicero tells us that the people were first enlisted through their neighborhoods iyicatim). In the pro Sestio he describes a band of slaves being organized at this local level: isdemque consulibus inspectantibus servorum dilectus habebatur pro tribunali Aurelio nomine collegiorum, cum vicatim homines conscriberentur, decuriarentur, ad vim, ad manus, ad caedem, ad direptionem incitarentur (“With those same consuls looking on, a levy of slaves was held in front of the Aurelian Tribunal under the name the organizations for the cult of the Lares and thus adopted the convenient vicus divisions"; also 174: ". . . the celebration of the compitalia by Clodius helped recruitment, exploiting religious feelings." See Millar 1998: 113 stating that, if the vici were the usual method of mobilizing the populace, it is characteristic of our evidence that "it reveals the existence of an established custom only in relation to one prominent episode." See Brunt 1978: 128 on how easy it was to raise the collegia for riots, "just as the menu peuple in the French Revolution were raised throught the sections." 1 5 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. of colleges. Men were enlisted vici by vici, they were grouped into decuriae, they were incited to force, to violence, to slaughter, to plunder,” Sest. 34).2 8 :i Similar language is used in the de domo: servorum omnium vicatim celebrabatur tota urbe descriptio (129). And earlier in the same speech Cicero, addressing his great enemy, says: cum in tribunali Aurelia conscribebas palam non modo liberos, sed etiam servos ex omnibus vicis concitatis (“when at the Aurelian tribunal you were enlisting openly not only free men but also slaves from all the vici which had been stirred up,” 54). This local vicus organization of the plebs was extremely beneficial for Clodius' purposes, and indeed allowed him to remain a factor in politics in the years following his tribunate. He benefited from the organized forces that the vici could turn out and also from the influence of vici in elections, which we noted above. For instance, Cicero tells how in 57 Clodius, as candidiate for aedile, canvassed vicatim and offered slaves (who, as we have seen, were associated with vici) the hope of liberty: vicatim ambire, servis aperte spem libertatis ostendere {Att. 4.3.2). The reference to freeing slaves may be Ciceronian exaggeration, but the remark that canvassing, or perhaps rather offering bribes, was conducted at the vici is precise and interesting. As is well known, bribery was usually conducted through the tribes by means of divisores.2* 6 And ambitus might take forms other than gifts of money. Murena was charged by Cato, among other things, with giving spectacula. . . tributim, perhaps refering to his providing stands at the games for individual tribes; this offence is coupled by Cicero with providing meals for all and sundry: at spectacula sunt tributim data et adprandium volgo vocati {Mur. 72). As in the Commentariolum 2 8 5 See also Sest. 55 referring to collegia enrolled ab uno gladiatore. 2 8 6 See most recently Lintott 1999: 52-3 on divisores; See Taylor 1960: 15 and Yakobson 1999: 39- 40 for their organization of the tribes. For bribery carried out tributim see e.g. Asc. p33 Clark, Cic. Plane. 24 and Att. 4.19. 155 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Petitionis above, it is possible that the second complaint refers to meals provided vicatim, although Cicero’s following remarks perhaps suggests a tribal organization for these feasts too. Cicero denies that Murena himself had carried out these actions but then gives the defense that it was customary to provide liberality to one’s friends and tribesmen; he adds that poorer Romans as a result benefited from the goods distributed within their tribe: quod enim tempus fuit aut nostra aut patrum nostrorum memoria quo haec sive ambitio est sive liberalitas non fuerit ut locus et in circo et in foro daretur amicis et tribulibus? Haec homines tenuiores praemia commodaque a suis tribulibus vetere instituto adsequebantur (72). What time was there in either our or our ancestors’ memory where this phenomenon—whether you like to call it canvassing or generosity—was not such that a place would be given in the circus and in the Forum for friends and tribesmen? The poorer men went after these rewards and benefits from their tribesmen according to this old institution. Clearly, Cicero, like earlier Romans {vetere instituto), preferred the people to be approached through the tribes rather than directly. This tribal organization satisifed Roman elites in part because the liberti, who formed such a large part of the city, were confined in the four urban tribes; as a result these tribes tended to be more crowded than the 31 rural tribes, and so bribes, adminstered to members of these other tribes might have more of a chance of affecting the outcome of an election.2 8 7 Also, it was in general more comforting to think of the populus as a body made up of a variety of distinct groupings rather than as an enormous entity; and a tribal division was preferable to a division based on local neighborhoods with local identities. This division tributim et centuriatim was cited by Cicero as one reason why the populace in Rome was less seditious than in Greece (Flacc. 15). He is talking about the process of 2 8 7 Cf. Taylor 1960: 14. See Asc. p52 Clark, speaking of Clodius’ proposed legislation in 52, for rustic tribes consisting of only ingenui (propriae ingenuorum). But Cicero Sest. 109 shows that a 1 5 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. voting here, but dearly the complex division of the populace {tributim et centuriatim discriptis ordinibus, classibus, aetatibus . . .) made it more suscepitble to control and authority. The tribes were surely more amorphous and less prone to local loyalties than the vici organizations of which Clodius showed the potential.2 8 8 In a later text, we see Pliny conflate the tribes with the vici. He tells how the tribes set up statues to Gratidianus in omnibus vicis {statuerunt et Romae in omnibus vicis tribus Mario Gratidiano, NH 34.27).2 8 9 However, most of our evidence makes a firm distinction between the tribes and the vici, and I would suggest that Pliny’s expression here is somewhat loose, indicating how natural it was for the elite to think of the populace in terms of the tribus. Here, then, we see Clodius refusing to respect traditional divisions of the people, which favored the Senate. Rather, he approached the people directly, neighborhood by neighborhood, thus by-passing traditional means of aristocratic influence and control. It is true that boni, like Cicero and Lucullus, might approach the people vicatim if there was a benefit to be gained, but it was quite another thing for a popularis to go straight to the vici. And indeed when Cicero is urged in the Commentariolum Petitionis 17 to canvass the vicini, it should be remembered that at this period he was very much posing as a popularis, a supporter of Pompey.2 9 0 But Clodius’ success meant that his opponents had to respond in kind and his great rival on the streets, Milo, seems to have been active in the vici. In the pro Milone Cicero says that it was rumored that there was no vicus in the city that did not have a house rural tribe without members present might be filled with men from an urban tribe; however, this illustrates, if anything the stark inequality in the make up of urban and rural tribes. 2 8 8 Cf. Cic. de Leg. 3.44. 2 8 9 See below for discussion of Gratidianus. 2 9 0 See the next chapter on Cicero’s popularis rhetoric in his speeches against Rullus’ agrarian bill at the start of his consulship. 157 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. which had been hired by Milo’s forces (nullum in urbe vicum, nullum angiportum esse dicebant in quo non Miloni conducta esset domus, Mil. 64).2 9 1 Cicero’s fury at Clodius’ by-passing of the traditional means of aristocratic contol by appealing directly to the people in their neighborhoods is paralleled by an anxiety concerning the extra-constitutional nature of Clodius' supporters. At Sest. 34 Cicero says that during the turbulence of 57 there was no Senate and that all power rested in one man, who was dependent upon weapons and banditry (armis et latrociniis); at de leg. 3.45 Cicero blames slaves and bandits (servi et latrones) for his exile, contrasting them with cuncta Italia which urged his recall; and, in a letter to Lentulus Spinther in 56, he refers to the sceleratissimo... latrocinio of tribunes in the guise of serving the people (Fam. 1.4.2).2 9 2 In this last case Cicero is not refering to Clodius directly, but clearly, from Cicero’s point of view, C. Cato and the other tribunes were acting, in their vehemence to block Lentulus from restoring Ptolemy and their support for Pompey, like their popular predecessor. Cicero had leveled the charge of banditry a few years before in his attacks on the Catilinarians. As Habinek says in this context, “ bandits pose a threat to the established political order either directly or indirectly by offering an alternative model of political structure and by doing so in territory claimed by the ‘legitimate’ rulers” (1998: 72).2 9 3 Thus the charge of banditry for Clodius reflected Clodius’ by-passing of traditional constitutional mechanisms and his demonstration that there were alternative ways for the populus 2 9 1 Cf. Cic. Dom. 74 of the support for his recall from exile: nullum est in hoc urbe collegium, nulli pagani aut montani--quoniam plebei quoque urbanae maiores nostri conventicula et quasi concilia quaedam esse voluerunt-qui non amplissime non modo de salute mea, sed etiam de dignitate decreverint. In this passage where the pagani and montani are referred to, it seems noticeable that the other archaic subdivisions of the city, the vici, are not mentioned. Perhaps even Cicero was unable to claim support from this section of the population, the section which, through its support, had enabled Clodius to pass the law which led to his exile. Cf. Sest. 34. 2 9 2 Also Cic. Sest. 1, 2, 39, 76, 81, 130 and 144. Cf. Sest. 26 (of Gabinius as consul in 58). 158 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Romanus to exert its theoretical power. Elsewhere Cicero makes even more explicit this parallel between Clodius' men and the Catilinarians (Red. Sen. 33 and Red. Pop. 13). Doubtless many of the Clodians had been sympathetic to Catiline (cf. Sest. 42); we noted earlier Catiline’s support among collegia and in the next chapter we will see his support among tabemarii, mainly freedmen who would have been closely associated with vici organization and compita cult. But more generally Cicero surely recognized how Clodius’ organizational structure was a clear threat to the traditional aristocratic means of controlling the city.2 9 4 A theme of this dissertation is how the Roman republican constitution helped maintain the power of the Roman aristocracy while legitimating its rule under a veil of popularist ideology. Thus political action carried out by the people, divided into its centuries and tribes, was approved of (cf. Cic. Flacc. 15 cited above), whereas non-constitutional action was dismissed or attacked as latrocinium. No wonder that Cicero speakes of Clodius’ actions as causing the naufragium of the res publica (Dom. 129). And no wonder that later in the decade Cicero was so furious about Clodius’ proposed rogatio Clodia de libertinorum suffragiis, which, as we saw, would have increased the voting influence of the urban population and so would have enabled Clodius to threaten the res publica from within as well as from without.2 9 5 We saw earlier several instances where Clodius' recruits are referred to by Cicero as serve, this is also the case at in Pisonem 9: conlegia, non ea solum, quae senatus sustulerat, restituta. sed innumerabilia quaedam nova ex omnifaece urbis ac servitio concitata (“he restored not only those colleges which the Senate had removed, 2 9 3 For banditry in the ancient world, see Shaw 1984. 2 9 4 See Beard and Crawford 1985: 70 n. 21 for Clodius creating an alternative society in opposition to the state. 2 9 5 Flambard 1977: 149-151 on Clodius, the freedmen and the tribes. 159 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. but countless new ones made up of all the dregs of the city and of slaves”)-2 9 6 This language of slaves is also used in the speech Cicero delivered in the Senate after his return to Rome (Post Red. Sen. 33); but it is interesting that in the equivalent speech to the populus (Post Red. Pop. 13), they are described as homines. This change in tone might suggest that the slave and libertine terminology was simply a typical instance of aristocratic denigration of the vulgus, which was acceptable in talk among the boni but would not be well-received by a popular audience.2 9 7 However, I would suggest that Cicero is also making allusion to the social character of the vici and the compital organizations which were enlisted by Clodius. By stressing slaves rather than liberti Cicero is doubtless deliberately misrepresenting the nature of the vici, where freedmen were surely at least as prominent as slaves and indeed, as we have seen, occupied local magistracies.2 9 8 That Clodius’ support consisted of a crucial constituency of freedmen is strikingly confirmed by the fact that the noble Gellius, one of Clodius’ so-called “intermediary leaders” (Vanderbroeck 1987), half-brother of L. Marcius Philippus, consul of 56, and stepson of L.Marcius Philippus, the consul in 91 and censor in 86, won popularity among this section of the population by marrying a freedwoman. Gellius, described as the nutricula seditiosorum omnium (Vat. 4), was clearly a popular favorite. Cicero sarcastically describes this Gellius as a homo . . . populo Romano deditusmd says, alluding to the great Publicola of the early Republic, that his marriage 2 9 6 Note also the servis armatis at Fam. 1.9.13; see also de leg. 2.25 and 2.45; Sest. 47, 53 (after Cicero left Rome in 58, the Forum is handed over to sicariis servisque), 75, 81, 85 (fugitivi) and 95 (perigrinam manum facinerosum concitavit et servos ad caedem idoneos em it. . .). 2 9 7 Cf. Favory 1976: 129ff for Cicero's language in these episodes. Also Brunt 1988: 53f. See Flambard 1977: 122 n. 27 and 28 for Cicero’s terminology for operae and plebs etc. 2 9 8 Note Treggiari 1969: 265 on the use of the word servus to mean freedmen (and mentioning the Clodians in the context). However, at 174 Treggiari seems to accept that most of the operae Clodiani were in fact slaves. Cf. Flambard 1977: 123 n. 30. Gruen 1974: 407 n. 4 seems to get into confusion by taking these references to servi in 58 BC too literally. 160 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. was designed ut plebicdla videretur (Sest. 110). However, Cicero, by redefining popularis so that it encompassed his own followers, attempts to deny that he was truly popular: an, sicubi aderit Gellius, homo etfratre indignus, viro clarissimo atque optimo consulte, etordine equestri, cuius ille ordinis nomen retinet, omamenta confecit, id eritpopulare? (Cic. Sest. 110). In fact, Cicero says, Gellius had gone over to Clodius’ side in desperation at his own financial troubles.2 9 9 Between Clodius' tribunate and Caesar's dictatorship, action was taken against Clodius’ organized support. Cicero, in a letter to his brother, tells of a decree of the Senate in 56 passed against political clubs and caucuses: sodalitates decuriatique secederent (ad Quint, frat. 2.3.5). Sodalitates here doubtless refers to upper class clubs, who had been attempting to influence elections. But decuriati hints at the organization of Clodius’ operae (Sest. 34, quoted above), and, as Flambard points out, just before Cicero mentioned this senatus consultum in his letter, he had been talking about the long struggle between the operae of Milo and Clodius.3 0 0 A law of Crassus of 55, the lex Licinia de sodaliciis, is clearly associated in some way with this decree, but its title suggests that it may have been primarily aimed at the upper-class sodalitates, reinforcing the lex Plotia de v/.3 0 1 Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this is the parallel between upper-class groups which aimed at electoral intimidation and Clodius’ groups made up of vicani. Once more, we see how popular and upper-class culture could be, from an upper-class perspective, uncomfortably close. Finally, before moving on to Caeasar and Augustus, it is interesting to note that in the late 50s Cicero, in his discussion of his ideal religious laws in book two of the de 2 9 9 Note Flambard 1977: 126-131 on all the leaders of Clodius’ operae being from the plebs, except for this Gellius. 3 0 0 Flambard 1977: 120-1 and n. 19; cf. Flambard 1981: 164 and Treggiari 1969: 175. 161 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. legibus, favors retaining the Compitalia (2.27). Given the contested nature of this festival, this might seem at first surprising. However, it is clear that the festival that Cicero has in mind is not the festival celebrated in the city in the vici, but rather the original agricultural festival, a festival, he says, that has been handed down by the forefathers for master and slave alike and which is held within sight of farm and villa. The festival at the city compita, carried out by freedmen and city slaves, seems to have no place in Cicero's laws, at least those mentioned explicitly. Later in the same book Cicero, dealing with the issue of how a framer of laws should decide among variant ancestral traditions, cites Apollo's advice to the Athenians to follow that tradition which is "the best" {optimum, 2.40); the boni of course had a very specific notion of what counted as “best” and doubtless the country version of the Festival suited an optimate vision of Roman religious life better than the often wild version celebrated in the city. 5. The Augustan Reforms In this section, I will look at various ways in which Augustus responded to the local activity and local culture of the compita. It seems that anxieties about vici continued after the fall of the Republic. For instance, Horace at Epodes 5.97 makes the boy curse curse Canidia and the witches, saying that the crowd will assail him with rocks vicatim: vos turba vicatim hinc et hinc saxis petens. This suggests perhaps that the vici were still seen as associated with riots and as able to turn out a crowd.3 0 2 We find Horace 3 0 1 On this law see Linderski 1995d and Accame 1942: 232-248. See also Yavetz 1983: 92-3 and Gruen 1974: 228-231. 3 0 2 See Porphyrio ad loc.: eleganter, quia insanos solent fustibus et lapidibus insectari, ut eos in domibus suisfugent. Citing Fedeli, Mankin ad loc. suggests, somewhat oddly, that vicatim is a “rare 162 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. also ridiculing the lower-class associations of collegia. At the start of Satire 1.2 he lists the kind of petty collegia which were upset at the death of Tigellius: ambubaiarum collegia, pharmacopolae, / mendici, mimae, balatrones, hoc genus omne / maestum ac sollicitum est cantoris morte Tigelli (1.2.1-3). In making fun of what he seems to see as the pretensions of these lower-class collegia, Horace of course distances himself from the cultural activity that this genus enjoy.3 0 3 But it seems likely that Horace is also reflecting a wider elite concern with collegia, many of which still existed despite the measures taken against them which we have been observing. Julius Caesar had as dictator already, in 46, brought in a lex Iulia to once again prohibit collegia that appeared threatening to the State.3 0 4 Typically, Augustus put into effect a more fundamental reform than any attempted by his predecessors to deal with collegia. Augustus built upon Caesar’s legislation with an edict of 22 B.C. in which he dissolved all but the “old and legitimate” colleges {collegia praeter antiqua et legitima dissolvit, Suet. Aug 32). In this passage, Suetonius mentions the action carried out with regard to collegia as one of several measures to deal with widespread trouble and disorder in Italy. The Digest shows that ordinarily under the empire, charters were given only to collegia tenuiorum (which organized burials for its members) which were allowed to meet once a month, and also to those collegia which met for religious and affected” usage when found in Latin verse. I would suggest that the word is used here technically rather than affectedly. 3 0 3 See Lintott 1999: 178. For Tigellius, see below on tabemae. Such associations are also mocked in graffiti from Pompeii: see CIL 4.575-6 and 581 (- ILS 6418d-f) for groups of sleepers (dormientes), thieves (furunculi) and late-drinkers (seribibi). Note Dessau ad loc.: iocose haec dicta esse putant. 3 0 4 See Suet. Iul. 42. But cf. Jos. A J 14.215 where Caesar is said to gave banned all religious groups in Rome (Slaoous auvayeaSai k c c tc c t t o A i v ) except for Jewish synagogues. See also Philo leg. 311-2 for Augustus following a similar policy. For the debate on whether Caesar’s action was a lex Iulia, or a decree, or merely a consequence of Suetonius' confusion resulting from Augustus' later legislation, see Yavetz 1983: 85-96. Yavetz accepts that it was a law (as did Waltzing 1968:1.113) and dates it to 47 or 46. 163 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. purposes {Digest 47.22.1-4).3 0 5 We learn that people could join only one collegium and that they had to pay a fee, and Ulpian tells how the penalty for unauthorized collegia in the Empire was the same as that for an armed man who seized a public place (47.22.2); once more the Roman concern about unauthorized congregations is apparent.3 0 6 However, as Stambaugh points out, the acceptance of religious collegia provided groups with a wide loophole, allowing collegia, all of which claimed allegiance to the emperor and some deity, to proliferate (1988: 211-2). But the important issue here is surely the appropriation of the group’s loyalties by the Princeps. As Stambaugh notes, collegia now were allotted assigned seats at the arena and would often turn out to support and acclaim the Princeps: “and in general during the principate, surrounded by an aura of pious devotion to the imperial cult, they channeled the energies of the populace into constructive currents” (1988: 212). Julius Caesar also preempted Augustus’ measures concerning the distribution of grain in the vici. Both Caesar and Augustus had clearly learned from Clodius’ leadership of the city population the opportunities presented by the vici organization as a means of associating themselves with the people at a local level. For instance, Caesar used the neighborhood organizations for distributing his grain dole, making use of the domini insularum to carry out the dole. It is striking that Suetonius notes this as an innovation: recensum populi nec more nec loco solito, sed vicatim per dominos insularum egit.. . (Suet. JC 41.3).3 0 7 Suetonius tells how Augustus continued this 3 0 5 There were to be no collegia sodalicia (Dig. 47.22.1). 3 0 6 We saw above Trajan’s concern about the political repercussions of collegia (Pliny Ep. 10.34). See Dig. 42.22.3 for slaves being allowed to join collegia with their master’s consent. See also Dig. 3.4 for regulations concerning actions taken against or in the name of a corporate body, with 3.4.1-2 outlining various rules for the existence of collegia. 3 0 7 Livy tells how the vici were used to distribute doles and grain during the middle Republic; here, however, the Augustan historian may be reflecting contemporary practice rather than portraying 164 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. process (Aug. 40). However, Augustus limited the number of people who received the grain doles to 200000 (Res Gestae). These privileged recipients came to identify themselves as a group, a group which benefited from imperial generosity. In a typical move, Augustus was able to cut across alternate local loyalties while at the same time fragmenting the unity of the urban plebs.3 0 6 It is striking, then, that this dole was made precisely at the vici which had been the focus of earlier political energies. Perhaps more fundamental even than these changes to the collegia and to the grain distribution was Augustus’ reorganization of the local administration at Rome.3 0 9 Augustus, whose tribunicia potestas promulgated the ideology that he would serve as protector of the plebs, saw both the dangers of Rome’s vibrant local neighborhoods with their cult at the compita and also the political possibilities that they offered him. As in so many other areas of Roman cultural life, Augustus' response was an attempt to appropriate a rival source of authority for his own purposes.3 1 0 Recalling the actions ascribed to Servius Tullius by the antiquarian tradition, Augustus in 7BC reorganized the city into 14 regiones (an increase from the original 4) and 265 vici (Pliny NH 3.66).3 1 1 We have seen that Servius Tullius was said to have made the cult of the historical reality. See Livy 25.28 (congii olei in vicos singulos dati)\ Livy 30.26.5-6 (the aediles deliver grain vicatim after floods and a fire on the Clivus Publicus). 3 0 8 See ILS 6045 for an altar to Vespasian set up by the plebs frumentaria: plebs urbana quae frumentum publicum accepit et tribus [XXXV}. See Woolf 1990: 13-215 for foodgiving as establishing and maintaining status differentials. For the populus Romanus in early imperial politics, see Rowe 1997: 94 arguing that the recently discovered Piso inscription implies a recognition of informal popular politics, with the senatus consultum praising the people for allowing itself to be controlled by the Princeps’ wishes, despite its enthusiasm in calling for the punishment of Piso. 3 0 9 See MacMullen 1974: 129 for vicatim administration. He suggests that this local administration existed only in a "semi-official form" before the Augustan reforms. But, as we have seen, it was nonetheless effective. 3 1 0 Cf. Wallace-Hadrill 1998 for four areas appropriated by the Augustan regime. See Raster 1988 on how in the Empire the elite coopted and assimilated the grammarians. For a more modem example, cf. Hobsbawm 1959: 164 on Napoleon's attempts to bring freemasonry under control. 3 1 1 Cf. Suet. Aug. 30. See also Dio 55.8.6-7 for Augustus’ administrative reorganization, dating it to 7BC and refering to the 14 pept], but not mentioning the vici. Bibliography includes Beard, North 1 6 5 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Lares Compitales central to the vicus (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.14), and compita cult remained important under Augustus. However, Augustus was not content to allow the local cults to continue to be worshipped in the same way as before; that had contributed to local loyalties and disorder. In an act, whose audacity is perhaps not sufficiently stressed, Augustus arranged that the Genius Augusti be installed at every compitum alongside the Lares, which were now worshipped as the Lares Augusti. Thus Augustus' ancestors {Lares Augusti) were now worshipped alongside Augustus' genius in the heart of every community in Rome.3 1 2 As Liebeschuetz says, "instead of, or in addition to, being a celebration of the end of the year, the cult became a means of expressing the feelings of the urban plebs . . . Once again a community ritual became focused on the Emperor and his family without becoming worship of the ruler and his family" (1979: 70). In short, "the inhabitants of Rome were being asked to join in Augustus' family worship" (70).3 1 3 Finally, Suetonius also tells how at the start of every year, all the ordines gave a gift (strena) to Augustus on the Capitol, and with this money Augustus bought and dedicated statues of the gods vicatim {Aug. 57). This would be a powerful means of displaying that Augustus would repay the loyalty of the people in a direct, local way. Suetonius also tells how the local shrines were decorated and Price 1998: 184-6; Liebeschuetz 1979: 69-71; Meuli 1955; Dar.-Sag. 1.2.1429; also Niebling 1956. The note at CIL VI. 1 p86 on magistri vici is very useful. 3 1 2 See Ovid Fasti 5.145-8, especially 5.146: et vici numina trina colunt. This refers to the two Lares and the Genius Augusti. Cf. Liebeschuetz 1979: 70; Alfody 1973: 19-23; Marco Simon and Pina Polo 2000: 169 (stressing Augustus’ appropriation of an instrument of political agitation into the patronage system of the Principate); Beard, North and Price 1998: 185; Laurence 1994: 40. Inscriptions with dedications Laribus Augusti et genio Caesaris include CIL 6.445-456. Also see Bomer 1981: 37-52 for epigraphical material concerning the worship of the Lares. See Liebeschuetz 1979: 70 for the creation of new administrative units in antiquity being accompanied by new cults. 3 1 3 Liebeschuetz 1979: 71: "The cult at the compita was a religious corollary of the princeps' patronage of the people of Rome." See also Thommen 1995: 369. Cf. how after Actium, Augustus’ honors included being included in the libations at all banquets, both public and private (Dio 51.19.7). 166 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. from treasures looted in Greece, again a powerful signal to the people of the city that they had an everyday stake in the imperial ventures of the new regime. Beard, North and Price point out that Augustus’ interference in compita worship led to a permanent change in how religion was represented in the Empire: The creation of the new wards took the emphasis on place to every comer of the city; here we see the emperor inserted within a religious framework that incorporated the whole city, by creating an opportunity for local participation in the creation of imperial Rome's new mythology. (1998: 186) This participation was extended beyond Rome to the Italian municipalities through the institution of the seviri and the Augustales?'5 These were the officials who were responsible for the cult of the genius Augusti and for honoring the princeps in the Italian cities. These men were liberti, like Trimalchio in Petronius' Satyricon, and the cult thus proved to be a means of securing the support of a class whose loyalty had at times during the late Republic been in doubt.3 1 6 As Whittaker says of these local offices: "In short, all the evidence goes to show that despite a certain moral subculture of the poor, the rich successfully imposed their own value system upon the more socially ambitious sector of the plebs, which fragmented the solidarity of the poor" (297).3 1 7 Those who became Augustales were indeed the wealthier freedmen, but it was an office that the poorer liberti might aspire to and was an incentive to loyalty. 3 1 4 Or, more bluntly, Gallini 1970: 164: "E un colpo da maestro, che riesce in una sola volta a liquidare ogni eventuale residua velleita eversiva, organizzandola entro una rete di responsabilita municipali." 3 1 5 On these terms see Nock 1972: 349-353. On the Augustales in general, see Duthoy 1978. 3 1 6 Goodman 1997: 175 compares the honors given to the Augustales with the privileging of the plebs frumentaria through its receipt of the grain dole. D’Arms 2000 is useful for the status of the Augustales in the second century A.D. With the investment of the Augustales in the new regime, compare the plebs frumentaria discussed above. 3 1 7 See Nock 1972: 354: “To return to the original emergence of seviri and Augustales, I venture to suggest that it should be regarded not as primarily concerned with the worship of the princeps but rather as one of the ways in which the Augustan system sought to find a special function within the state for all classes . . . ” 1 6 7 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The worship of the genius Augusti and the lares Augusti at the compita presumably occurred throughout the year, not only during Compitalia. Moreover, Augustus added a new celebration on August 1st, the date that magistrates entered office, in honor of the genius Augusti (cf. Beard, Price and North 1998: 185). This festival was presumably celebrated at the shrines of this genius at the compita', this may also relate to Suetonius' reference to Augustus arranging for the Lares at the compita to be decorated twice a year with spring and summer flowers (Aug. 31.4). But in addition to these permanent changes, Augustus also carried out ad hoc celebrations at the compita. For instance, Boyance 1950 connected Suetonius' reference to Augustus sometimes holding ludi in the vie/3 1 8 with Propertius' seemingly strange association of compita with the theater: nulla meis frustra lustrantur compita plantis: o nimis exitio nata theatra meo (2.22.3-4). No compita are traversed vainly by my feet; O theater created too much for my destmction. Boyance suggested that the theater here refers to ludi scaenici held at the compita in honor of Augustus' Triple Triumph of 29 BC. His hypothesis is based on the famous scene described on the shield of Aeneas: at Caesar, triplici invectus Romana triumpho moenia, dis Italis votum immortale sacrabat, maxima ter centum totam delubra per urbem. laetitia ludisque viae plausuque fremebant. .. (Verg. Aen. 8.714-7) But Caesar, carried within the Roman walls in Triple Triumph, was consecrating his immortal vow to the gods of Italy, throughout the three hundred greatest shrines all over the city. The streets were roaring with happiness, with games and with applause. 3 1 8 Suet. Aug. 43.1: Fecitque nonnumquam etiam vicatim ac plurihus scaenis per omnium linguarum histriones, munera non in Foro modo, nec in amphitheatro, sed et in Circo et in Saeptis . . . 168 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Boyance suggests that viae here refer to vici, and he cites Servius ad loc.: hoc est, compitalicii ludi celebrati sunt.3 1 9 Therefore it seems likely that Augustus at his triumph ensured that celebrations were held throughout the different neighborhoods of the city, and the impact of the festivities was such that two Augustan poets deemed them important enough to allude to them. I would suggest that these celebrations in the vici were a useful way of demonstrating local, grass-roots support for the new government and thus helped legitimate the new regime.3 2 0 Such neighborhood games were also held by other Emperors. Calpumius Siculus tells how under Nero there are games at the compita, where the paganica turba offers applause to the bono... magistro (4.125ff).3 2 1 And in 69AD, during the Civil Wars, when the support of the urban plebs was so crucial, Caecina and Valens are said to have celebrated the Emperor Vitellius' Birthday by holding gladiatorial games throughout the vici (tota urbe vicatim gladiatoribus celebravere, Hist. 2.95). In the same passage, Tacitus associates these games with what he sees as Vitellius' pandering to the "rabble" (foedissimo cuique) by holding funeral rites for Nero.3 2 2 Augustus, then, organized dramatic performances at the compita, performances which Vergil alludes to in one of the most climactic and thematically important 3 1 9 Boyance points out that the 300 shrines may allude to the 265 compita mentioned by Pliny, but he expresses some caution here because of the seemingly inappropriate adjective maxima. Grandsen ad loc. feels that 300 is merely a round number (used elsewhere by Virgil, e.g. Aen. 4.510); he points out that Augustus in the Res Gestae claimed to have restored 82 temples (Res Gestae 20). 3 2 0 See Liebeschuetz 1979: 69 on Augustus' patronage of local festivals at compita. A sense of the ideological force that such celebrations would have had may be gained by comparing the street parties which are held with public funds throughout the United Kingdom to celebrate the coronations and jubilees of monarchs, for instance Queen Elizabeth II's Silver Jubilee in 1977. It is hard to think of a better way of producing the impression that support for the monarchy is all-pervasive. 3 2 1 See below for the associations between compita and pagi. 3 2 2 But the vici could be used to intimidate as well as court the people. Suetonius tells how Caligula ordered the large and handsome Aesius Proculus, son of a centurion, to fight in the arena; when Proculus won, the jealous Emperor ordered him to be bound, dressed in rags and put to death, after which he was led around the city vicatim and, apparently, exhibited to women (Caligula 35). 169 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. episodes in the Aeneid. But Vergil also speaks of the compita as venues for dramatic prizes in the Georgies: Praemiaque ingeniis pagos et compita circum Thesidae posuere, atque inter pocula laeti Mollibus in pratis unctos saluere per utres . . . (Georgies 2.382-4) The sons of Theseus set up prizes for talent at the pagi and compita, and happy in their cups they danced on the soft meadows on oiled leather skins. Vergil is speaking here of the Athenians setting up dramatic prizes at villages and crossroads, but as Thomas ad loc. suggests, pagos et compita alludes to the Paganalia and Compitalia, two rustic festivals which provide the Italian settings for lines 385- 396.3 2 3 It seems clear that plays had long been central to the Compitalia and that ludi scaenici were staged at this festival. But the kind of theater held at the Compitalia in the late Republic may have been rather less amenable to the interests of the Roman elite than these games sponsored by Augustus. Certainly, theater in general was, as Cicero makes clear, a venue for political expression, and in the next chapter I will look at the social and political context of tabemaria, a genre offabula togata which was, I believe, associated with the world of the compita. Here I simply note Augustus’ interest in the cultural life of the vici and his attempt to use it for his own benefit. Finally I would stress Suetonius’ reference to Augustus carrying out stage performances in the vici with actors of every tongue: Fecitque nonnumquam etiam vicatim ac pluribus scaenis per omnium linguarum histriones (Suet. Aug. 43.1). This reference to actors omnium linguarum is usually understood as refering to performances in Greek, Latin and Oscan (Atellan mime). But Augustus’ attention to the local neighborhoods suggests another possibility: Augustus may have arranged for local performances in the 323 See Meuli 1955 on these lines. 1 7 0 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. languages most often spoken in a particular vicus, whether Greek, Latin, Syrian or another language. 6. The Compita in Daily Life Above I examined the role played by the Compitalia in the street politics of the Late Republic; but it would be a mistake to believe that elite concerns about such local activity were confined to the few days of the Compitalia, even if this period might be especially politically volatile. In what follows, I examine the role of compita in everyday Roman life. According to Wiseman: “On the other days of the year the open space where they [the Compitalia] were held by the altar of the Lares at each compitum was presumably available for private performers to take advantage of the crowds of loungers and gossipers who were normally to be found there” (1987: 272- 3).3 2 4 I hope to show that this vision of compita as a place for gossip, lounging and itinerant performances is at best partial, although it is the dominant picture that emerges from our sources. I will suggest that compita were also the focus of a local politics and a locus for the preservation of plebeian cultural memory; and, in examining the representation of the compita in our sources, I will argue that, as with circuli, the repeated denigration of the compita reflects a wider strategy of rendering non-elite 3 2 4 Wiseman 1987: 273 suggests that entertainers would have needed permission from the magistri before being allowed to perform, although this seems likely only for large-scale performances. Cf. Dar.-Sag. 1.2.1429: "II est vrai que, des le temps des rois, la ville etait formee de vici, et que les compita qui leur servaient de centres furent, des l'origine, des lieux de rassemblements populaires, particulierement animes a l'epoque des compitalia: des lutteurs, des faiseurs de tour, des acteurs de toute espece s'y donnaient en spectacle." Note Yavetz 1983: 203, who seems to limit the activity at compita to a few fixed ones, rather than compita in general: "Street comers, especially the Solarium in the neighborhood of the forum, the baths and the barber shops, were centers of gossip." 171 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. speech illegitimate, rather than a reflection of what went on at the compita on a daily basis.3 2 5 The crowded nature of the vici, which we noted earlier, makes it unsurprising that we find much evidence for a vibrant sociability at the compita. As MacMullen says, commenting on the cramped living conditions of most Romans, “the narrower one’s house, the more time would naturally be spent among one’s neighbours, the more intercourse and friendliness, the more gossip and exchange of news and sense of fraternity” (1974: 63). Various elements, in addition to the cult of the Lares, contributed to the activity that occurred at compita. Indeed the setting of the compita as a venue for sociability was in some ways overdetermined. For instance, the compita also seem to have been the typical venue for a neighborhood's water fountain and a standard location for the popina, or eating and drinking place.3 2 6 Other amenities were often located there. For instance, Rome's first doctor's surgery was at the Compitum Acili?1 1 And compita were also the site for auctions and for marshalling local men.3 2 8 3 2 5 In this context, note that Ovid in the Fasti makes the Lares Compitales the twin children of Tacita, the Dea Muta, whose tongue is cut out for betraying Jupiter’s plans to Juno and Jutuma (2.601-616). Note Feeney 1992 plO: “Ovid’s story, by linking these little deities to his fictions about excessive speech, enforced muteness, and rape, transforms them into an ever-present warning of the dangers of using your tongue without restraint.” It is temting to see Ovid’s mythologizing here as reflecting an Augustan concern with the popular speech that occurred at compita. 3 2 6 For water fountains, see Dar.-Sag. 1.2.1430; Richardson 1977 on Propertius 2.20.22 and Laurence 1994: 46. See Picard 1997 for conduits in London as venues for people to congregate in order to draw water and gossip. For popinae, see below in the chapter on taberrme. 3 2 7 Pliny NH 29.12. On the Compitum Acili, Rome's best surviving compitum altar, see Dondin- Payre 1987; also Beard, North and Price 1998: 185-6. For other known compita in Rome, see Richardson 1992: 98. 3 2 8 See the commentator on Horace Satires 2.3.25-6: Nam auctiones fere in competis fiunt, ex quibus quaedam se emere solitum et vendere significat (Pseudo-Aero, in the edition of O. Keller). For other references to the compita as the site of auctions, cf. Dar.-Sag. II. 1.1430. See also Cicero leg Agr. 1.7 (cited below). Ling 1990: 209 comments on signposts at Pompeii on streetcomers from the time of Sulla’s siege, suggesting that they may have been intended for locals, indicating marshalling points for men of each neighborhood. Note also Livy 10.4.2 for the guarding of the city after a setback against the Etruscans in 302: nam ut exercitu deleto ita iustitium indictum, custodiae in ortis, vigiliae vicatim exacta, arma, tela in muros congesta. See also Livy 8.38. See above for the involvement of 111 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The sociability I focus on is in general among non-elites. Romans engaged in public life would presumably have engaged in social interaction in the private space of their houses,3 2 9 and indeed the kind of interaction that I discuss would have been inconceivable for many Romans of the political classes who were usually accompanied in the city by their retinue of followers.3 3 0 It is said, for instance, that Tiberius Gracchus, at least at the time of his death, never left home without 3-4000 men with him,3 3 1 and that likewise another reforming tribune, Livius Drusus, was always accompanied by a huge crowd.3 3 2 However, such politicians might come to the compita precisely to pick up followers from the people who could always be found there: indeed, Horace has his bore say that he will find a figure of no less importance than Maecenas at the crossroads {in triviis) and then escort him (deducere) to his house {Sat. 1.9.59).3 3 3 Of course, upper class Romans, who did not choose a public compita in grain distributions. 3 2 9 Cf. Wiseman 1985b: 14-6 on political groups usually meeting in a politician’s house. 3 3 0 See Comm. Pet. 9 for the various kinds of escorts that a politician required. 3 3 1 Semp. Asellio fr. 6 Peter (= Gellius 2.13.4): eius verba de Ti. Graccho, tribuno pi., quo in tempore interfectus in Capitolio est, haec sunt: nam Gracchus domo cum proficiscebatur, numquam minus terna aut quatema milia hominum sequebantur. 3 3 2 Again this is said about Drusus at the time of his murder, at the time that he was trying to enfranchise the Italians: quod cum moliens revertisset eforo, immensa ilia et incondita, quae eum semper comitabatur, cinctus multitudine (Veil. Pat. 2.14.1). 3 3 3 For the equivalence of compitum and trivium, see Cicero leg. agr. 1.1: at hoc etiam nequissimi homines consumptis patrimoniis faciunt ut in atriis auctionariis potius quam in triviis aut in compitis auctionentur. Here trivia and compita are surely used identically; it seems doubtful that Cicero is making a serious distinction between the two expressions. 173 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. career, might be more able to spend time at the compita. For instance, Catullus suggests that fine men who are down on their luck, men such as Veranius and Fabullus, could be found at trivia on the lookout for dinner invitations (Cat. 47).3 3 4 Given this daily sociability, it is perhaps not surprising that the compita were sites for political discussion and activity. We have already seen from the Commentariolum Petitionis that the vici were canvassed in elections at Rome. Likewise, evidence from Pompeii shows that the vici there were also involved in electoral politics, with 32 Pompeian electoral notices surviving in which vicini recommend a candidate for political office.3 3 5 Such evidence tends to support Ramsey MacMullen's claim for a common identity among members of local neighborhoods (see above). We have also already noted the role of the vici and compita in the non constitutional political life of the late Republic. Moreover, Livy shows how the compita were the venues for popular supplications during times of political crisis. For instance, during a pestilence in 208 BC the people prayed at the shrines throughout the whole city: . .. eius pestilentiae causa et supplicatum per compita tota urbe est et P. Licinius Varus praetor urbanus legem ferre ad populum iussus ut ii ludi in perpetuum in statam diem voverentur (27.23.7). And in 188 BC we hear of a three day supplicatio 3 3 4 In general, I believe that the public world of social interaction at the compita reflects an aspect of a broader division between public and private at ancient Rome that I am concerned with in this dissertation. Interaction at compita was part of the public life at Rome associated with the people at large as opposed to the private world; we will see this opposition in the next chapter reflected in a division between tabernae and domus and we will meet it again in the discussion of the Forum. Moreover, this notion of a division between public and private space was well-known at Rome; it is not simply a modem categorization. For instance, Ulpian makes the division when he discusses what constitutes loca sacra: sciendum est locum publicum tunc sacrum fieri posse, cum princeps eum dedicavit vel dedicandi dedit potestatem (Dig. 1.8.9). See also Dig. 47.22.2 for loca publica. And Cicero in the pro Sestio distinguishes between res publica and res privata'. hie [Milo], qui se est tutatus sic, ut in privata re deos penates suos, in re publica iura tribunatus atque auspicia defenderet.. . See Cohen 1991: 70-97 for the public/private distinction (iSiov and Sripooiov) in Athens. For Rome, see Riggsby 1997, discussing the cubiculum. 1 7 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ordered by the decemviri, following an eclipse: supplicatio triduum pro collegio decemuirorum imperatafuit in omnibus compitis (38.36.4). This instance, in which the priestly college mandates worship at the compita, is particularly striking given its date just two years before the suppression of the Bacchic cells. This was surely a period of nervousness among the Roman Senators, and an eclipse may well have been accompanied by a variety of rumors among the city population. One might compare how years later in 45AD, Claudius announced in advance that an eclipse of the moon would take place on his birthday and explained the reasons for this eclipse, fearing that otherwise there might be mmors and disturbance (Tapccxf], Dio 60.26.1). Thus the priests’ order that a supplicatio take place in all the vici might have been as much an act of social control as of religion.3 3 6 The importance of the vici and its compital worship and organization in the political life of the city is shown by the honoring by the people of its leaders, especially the worship of the praetor of 85B.C., M. Gratidianus. The plebs was, it is apparent, often very loyal to the memory of its leaders. For instance, we hear how the tombs of the Gracchi were honored by the city population.3 3 7 And Cicero, while hostile to the Gracchi in the Senate, realized the need to honor them in his speeches before the 3 3 5 See Laurence 1994: 38. See Franklin 1991: 21-2 for collegia of tradesmen acting as rogatores of a candidate and posting programmata on tabemae. For shops, see the next chapter. 3 3 6 c p Polybius 21.2 on an order for a 9 day period of thanksgiving throughout the city: oxoAct^eiv travBrmei Kai Sueiv xoTs O e o T s x a PiaTinPla t c o v Euxuxopacxcov. It the light of the passages in Livy, it is tempting to see TravSripEi here as corresponding to vicatim. 3 3 7 Plut. C. Gracchus 18.2 telling how the demos was, after the fall of the Gracchi, at first cowed but later began worshipping these martyrs for the popular cause: o A l y c p 5 e u a x E p o v E K c p g v a v x o s o a o v e i X e v i p E p o u K a i t t 6 0 o u x c b v T p d y x c o v . e ’ i k 6 v o c s t e y a p a u x c o v a v a S E ^ a v x E j e v c p a v E p c p T T p o u x ( 0 £ v x o K a i x o u s x o r r o u s e v o l s E < p o v E u 0 r | a a v a c p i E p c o a a v x E s d t r f i p x o v x o p £ v c b v c b p a i q > E p o u a i T r d v x c o v , e 0 u o v S e K a i K a 0 ’ f j p E p a v t r o A A o i K a i u p o a E T r i T r x o v , c o a r r E p 0 e c o v 'lEpoTj E T n c p o i x c o v x E j . The discussion of Gratidianus which follows may suggest that these statues were placed at local compita shrines as well as at shrines where they died. See Marco Simon and Pina Polo 2000: 155. 175 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. people.3 3 8 Likewise, Marius was honored after his defeat of the Cimbri: he was hailed as the third founder of Rome by oi ttoAAou and the people brought offerings of food and wine to the gods and to Marius kcxt’ oTkov (Plut. Marius 27). Marius’ memory was still able to stir the crowd in 67 when Julius Caesar delivered the speech at the funeral of his aunt Julia, Marius’s widow, and displayed Marius' imagines (Suet. JC 6), and as aedile in 65 Caesar arranged for the trophies commemorating Marius' victory over the Cimbri and Teutones to be displayed upon the Capitol (Plut. Caesar 6; Suet. JC 11; Veil. Pat. 2.43.4).3 3 9 Moreover, the loyalty that Clodius won in 58 survived his tribunate and lasted until his death when a crowd could be stirred by Sex. Cloelius to bum down the curia at his funeral (Asc. p33 Clark). The honoring of politicians as notable as the Gracchi and Marius over a long period by a plebs usually dismissed as fickle is interesting enough. But perhaps more striking still is the honoring of the relatively obscure praetor, M. Gratidianus.3 4 0 As a 3 3 8 Senatorial speeches: of. Cat. 1.3ff, 1.29, 4.13, and de leg. agr. 1.21. Condones: of. de leg. agr. 2.11, 2.31, 2.81 and pro Rab. perd. 14. See Brunt 1990: 290 n. 8. Note in particular Phil. 8.13.15 defending both Scipio Nasica’s murder of Tiberius Gracchus and the S.U.C. of 122. 3 3 9 On Cicero’s references to Marius before the people and before the Senate, see Rawson 1991a. For the worship of popular figures, see Weinstock 1971: 215 and Duquesnay 1995 on Horace Odes 4.5: 175. 3 4 0 Cf. Nicolet 1982: 914-5 for the Gratidianus episode as “poco noto, ma che aveva lasciato un ricordo nella concienza collettiva dei Romani." See Rawson 1971a: 78 for Gratidianus’ career. 3 4 1 See tabema section for further discussion of this murder. See e.g. Brunt 1988: 158. 3 4 2 Here I follow Crawford 1985: 187-193, who bases his account on Cic. de Off. 3.80 and essentially dismisses Pliny 34.27 as confused. Crawford sees Cicero's reference to the nummus being tossed about as referring to the value of the denarius. 3 4 3 Cic. de Off. 3.80; cf. Pliny 34.27; Sen. De ira 3.18.1. Also Asconius p84 Clark with Marshall 1985: 290-3. For the date and economic background, see Crawford 1985: 187-193. See also Lo Scascio 1979, Dyck 1996 on de Off. 3.80-1 and Marshall 1985b. See now Marco Simon and Pina Polo 2000. 3 4 4 Gratidianus’ popularity is also mentioned by Asconius: M. etiam Mari Gratidiani summe popularis hominis (Asc. p84 Clark; also p87 Clark: hominis maxime popularis): also Comm. Pet. 3: hominem carissimum populo Romano. 3 4 5 For Gratidianus’ death, see Marco Simon and Pina Polo 2000: 156-7. Also Marshall 1985b. 1 7 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. result of the Social War, the Roman populus was badly affected by an economic crisis. In 89 a praetor named Asellio had attempted to revive a law prohibiting usury; he was murdered by the boni as a result, and in the following year the consuls Sulla and Q. Pompeius passed a more moderate measure.3 4 1 There was also a serious currency crisis as a result of the depreciation of silver coinage. The lex Papiria of 89 had reintroduced the semuncial as (Pliny NH 33.46), perhaps as a result of a need to issue new coins to pay for the army. This reduction of the as' weight had caused confusion in the unofficial exchange rate between as and denarius, with the result, according to Cicero, that the nummus, by which he is probably referring to the denarius, was being tossed about. This situation was doubtless exacerbated by the chaos in Rome caused by the civil and foreign wars of the period and the ending of Italian tribute following the grants of citizenship to Italian tribes after the Social War. It was probably this confusion that the praetors of 85 decided to do something about.3 4 2 According to Crawford, the praetors' edict was designed, as part of a return to stability in the first joint consulship of Cinna and Carbo, to end the violent sudden fluctuations during the preceding years in the unofficial exchange rate between denarius and as, probably reasserting the old exchange rate and threatening speculators with punishment (1985: 191). However, Gratidianus, with the support of the tribunes, snatched the credit for this action from the college of praetors as a whole.3 4 3 This action clearly offended Cicero who was vexed that an individual had stolen from the aristocracy praise for the currency measure. Indeed in the de legibus Gratidianus' action is described as causing a storm in the Aegean sea, as opposed to the "storm in a tea cup" (or, more literally, wine ladle) caused by his father's ballot law in Arpinum, which Cicero's grandfather opposed: excitabat enimfluctus in simpulo, ut dicitur, Gratidius, quos postfilius eius Marius in Aegaeo excitavit mari {de leg. 3.36). 177 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Almost without exception, our sources for this episode stress the unparalleled popularity of Gratidianus and also the role of the vici in maintaining his cult. Cicero tells how statues of the praetor, who was dearer to the people than any other figure, were set up in the vici, and describes how he was worshipped there with incense and candles: omnibus vicis statuae, ad eas tus. Cerei; quid multa? Nemo umquam multitudini fuit carior (de Off. 3.80). Likewise Pliny refers to his being honored vicatim (NH 33.132) and in omnibus vicis (NH 34.27), and Seneca too tells of his worship vicatim (delra 3.18.1; cf. Asc. p84 Clark). Clearly the role of local neighborhoods in celebrating the memory of Gratidianus’ praetorship was crucial in the tradition. Undoubtedly Gratidianus’ popularity offended the boni. His unique popularity was stressed by Cicero, who, as we saw, claimed that noone was dearer to the multitudo than Gratidianus. This popularity was long remembered, with Seneca too, like Cicero, emphasizing the unique popularity of the praetor: vir mali exempli, popularis tamen et non tarn immerito quam nimis amatus . . ,344 The offence Gratidianus caused is above all clear from his murder, allegedly carried out by Catiline on Sulla’s orders, the gruesome nature of which was long remembered, serving a paradigmatic function in Seneca (de Ira 3.8).3 4 5 And indeed the story’s survival into the Empire perhaps illustrates the persistent anxiety over the kind of popular behavior that I am concerned with here. The association of the vici with popular favorites clearly impacted the consciousness of Roman elites. The worship of Gratidianus at vici indicates the importance of the Roman neighborhoods in Roman popular political life. And doubtless it was at the compitum, at the center of each vicus, that Gratidianus was worshipped. Indeed, we can probably assume too that the collective memory of Marius and the Gracchi was maintained at these shrines too, though our sources are not explicit about this. I would suggest that 178 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. just as aristocratic occasions, such as funeral orations, kept alive the memory and honor of aristocratic Romans of the past, so too actions at the compita and vici would have served to honor popular benefactors and to preserve the political and cultural memory of the plebs. Compared to the Gracchi and Marius, Gratidianus' acts seem fairly minor and the unique honor and popularity he received surely reflects what must have been enormous tensions between the people of Rome and the aristocracy in the 80s BC.3 4 6 Gratidianus' cult shows both the role of the vici in popular politics and also the anxiety that this activity, which by-passed traditional means of aristocractic control such as patronage networks and constitutional mechanisms that tended to serve elite interests, caused. I hope to suggest that less dramatic activity at the compita also bothered the aristocracy: for instance, there may have been an unease about the kind of speech that occurred in this space for popular interaction. In the discussion on circuli, it was seen that there was a particular anxiety among elites about popular discussion of foreign affairs and a desire that only the official news as disseminated by the Senate be listened to in such matters. This is precisely the kind of discussion that Horace depicts in the Satires as taking place at the compita. Horace tells how a rumor concerning the Dacians arises in the Forum at the rostra and quickly spreads through the compita. Whereupon, people are said to approach Horace seeking information from the friend of Maecenas: frigidus a rostris manat per compita rumor: quicumque obvius est, me consulit: 'o bone, nam te scire, deos quoniam propius contingis, oportet, numquid de Dacis audisti?' (Sermones 2.6.50ff) A cold rumor spreads from the rostra through the compita. Whoever I meet enquires of me, "Good man, you must know, since you touch 3 4 6 In this light, it is tempting to place a fragment of Sisenna, where an unidentified figure is presented as going around the vici in mourning appealing to the populace, during this period (fir. 47 Peter). 179 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. more closely the gods; You haven't heard anything about the Dacians, have you? Here, then, the crossroads are seen as a typical location for people to wonder about matters of state which men like Maecenas, deos, are in charge of.3 4 7 Such discussion is not surprising, but it is worth stressing given the trivializing representations of compita activity which I outline below. In what follows, I argue that various strategies of representation were adopted in a broad attempt to render the role of vici and compita in local politics illegitimate and to discredit the speech and cultural activity that occurred there. Livy's account of the debate on the repeal of the lex Oppia in 195 makes very clear the nervousness of one section of the Senate concerning the kind of political discussion that occurred at the crossroads. In his speech in opposition to the proposal to repeal the law on female extravagance, Livy has the consul Cato deliver words which clearly betray an uneasiness about the kind of political discussion that might take place there: maiores nostri nullam, ne priuatam quidem rem agere feminas sine tutore auctore uoluerunt, in manu esse parentium, fratrum, uirorum: nos, si diis placet, iam etiam rem publicam capessere eas patimur et foro prope et contionibus et comitiis immisceri. quid enim nunc aliud per uias et compita faciunt quam rogationem tribunorum plebi suadent, quam legem abrogandam censent? date frenos impotenti naturae et indomito animali et sperate ipsas modum licentiae facturas: nisi uos facietis, minimum hoc eorum est quae iniquo animo feminae sibi aut moribus aut legibus iniuncta patiuntur. omnium rerum libertatem, immo licentiam, si uere dicere uolumus, desiderant. quid enim, si hoc expugnauerint, non temptabunt? (Livy 34.2.11-14.) Our ancestors refused to allow any woman to transact even private business without a guardian to represent her {sine tutore auctore); women had to be under control of fathers, brothers, or husbands. But we (heaven preserve us!) are now allowing them even to take part in politics, and actually to appear in the Forum and to be present at our 3 4 7 It is tempting to see obvius here as punning on vici, hinting at the neighborhoods associated with the compita. 1 8 0 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. meeting and asssemblies! What are they now doing in the streets and at the street comers (per uias et compita)? Are they not simply canvassing for the proposal of the tribunes, and voting for the repeal of the law? Give a free rein to their undiciplined nature, to this untamed animal (datefrenos impotenti naturae et indomito animali), and then expect them to set a limit to their own license! Unless you impose that limit, this is the least of the restraints imposed on women by custom or by law which they resent. What they are longing for is complete liberty, or rather— if we want to speak the truth-complete license.3 4 8 Here the compita and viae are seen as locations at which people might be appealed to directly to support political measures.3 4 9 In his attack on the protestors, Cato uses the metaphor of taming, suggesting that by allowing the women to speak at the compita and vici, the supporters of the repeal are giving a free rein to their untamed nature. The metaphor also highlights, perhaps, an attitude to political discourse that took place outside of authorized, domesticating political institutions, a discourse that was seen as unbridled and out of control.3 5 0 Earlier in the same speech, Cato had spoken of a secessio mulierum (34.2.7), a withdrawal of the women, alluding to the secessions of the Plebs and the effective withdrawal of the people from the institutions of the Republic which the aristocracy so dreaded; indeed in Livy’s account of the debt crisis in book two, it was precisely such secret meetings of the Plebs (described by Livy as more dangerous than open demonstrations, 2.27.13) which led to the withdrawal to the Sacred Mount and the establishment of the Tribunate. Finally, we see here how the viae et compita are opposed to activity in the official political space of the Forum. But of course, the Senate was in general equally hostile to women taking part in the official mechanisms of the State, and Livy introduces his account of the debate by stating that the women dared to approach the magistrates and appeal the law: iam et consoles praetoresque et alios magistratus adire et rogare audebant (34.1.7). 3 4 8 Penguin translation. 3 4 9 See above for viae used to mean vici. 181 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Women's activity at crossroads is also referred to by Juvenal in his sixth Satire, and, as in Livy, this passage bears witness to a concern that women might pick up information and news there. In this case the anxiety concerning unauthorized political speech issues in a trivialization of that speech. Juvenal says that he would rather a wife sing, despite all the horrors that that brings, than that she should rush about the whole city (totam pervolet urbem, 6.398) attending coetus. . . virorum. Women who behave in this way are aware of everything that is going on in the world (in orbe, 402) but Juvenal portrays them as unable to show any discrimination between events, showing equal attention to the Chinese and Thracians as to the stepmother and stepson. Such a woman picks up rumors from the city gates and then tells everything she has heard to everyone she meets at every trivium: instantem regi Armenio Parthoque cometen prima videt, famam rumoresque ilia recentis excipit ad portas, quosdam facit; isse Niphaten in populos magnoque illic cuncta arua teneri diluuio, nutare urbes, subsidere terras, quocumque in triuio, cuicumque est obuia, narrat. (Sat. 6.407ff) She first sees the comet threatening the Armenian and the Parthian, and she picks up at the gates gossip and recent rumors, and makes some up: how Niphates has flooded over the nations and all the fields there are covered beneath the flood; how cities totter and the lands are subsiding, she tells to whoever she meets at whatever crossroad she is at. The determination of both Juvenal and Cato in his speech in Livy to dismiss women's interest in politics and warfare surely reflects a wider concern, seen earlier in the discussion of circulatores, about people who insist upon conversing with others about the events of the day at the compita and elsewhere, instead of leaving politics to the ruling class. Indeed, although Cato and Juvenal are speaking of women, I would suggest that their anxiety extends to all unauthorized speech, at crossroads and 3 5 0 Cf. the use offremere for sermo in circuli discussed above. 182 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. elsewhere, carried out by non-elite groups more generally. Indeed Cato, as we saw, associates the actions of the women with the earlier actions of the Roman plebs, refering to a mulierum secessio (34.2.7). Moreover, Livy has Cato, earlier in his speech, explicitly state his concern about uncontrolled communication in general: equidem fabulam etfictam rem ducebam esse uirorum omne genus in aliqua insula coniuratione muliebri ab stirpe sublatum esse; ab nullo genere non summum periculum est si coetus et concilia et secretas consultationes esse sinas ("I really used to think it a fable, a piece of fiction— that story of the destruction, root and branch, of all the men on that island by a conspiracy of the women. But in fact there is the greatest danger from any class (genus) of people, once you allow meetings and conferences and secret consultations (coetus et concilia et secretas consultationes,” 34.2.3-4). This hostile discourse around women, crossroads and political speech is, then, part of a broader discourse intended to legitimate the monopoly held by the male aristocracy on political authority. The trivialization of crossroads talk more generally is reflected by Cicero. In a period even before Clodius had shown the potential of vici for popular political organization, Cicero represents compita as places where politics is engaged in with bad language and insults. So when Cicero rebukes Cato for describing Murena as a saltator, he accuses him, as the Loeb translation puts it, of picking up epithets from the "gutter" (trivium): Saltatorem appellat L. Murenam Cato. Maledictum est, si vere obicitur, vehementis accusatoris, sin falso, maledici conviciatoris. Qua re cum ista sis auctoritate, non debes, M. Cato, adripere maledictum ex trivio aut ex scurrarum aliquo convicio neque temere consulem populi Romani saltatorem vocare . . . (Murena 13). Cato calls L. Murena a dancer. If this is charged truly, it is the abuse of an aggressive accuser; but if falsely, of an abusive slanderer. And so, since you are endowed with that auctoritas of yours, you must not, Cato, grab 183 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. abuse from the crossroads or from some slander of the comedians, nor should you rashly call a consul of the Roman people a dancer. . . Cicero complains that in this instance Cato has sunk to the level of the compita, and the example shows that at the compita people were passing judgment on the politics of the day in a way that the boni disapproved of and felt the need to distance themselves from. And once more, the distrust of popular speech is brought out through a contrast with authorized political activity {cum ista sis auctoritate)?5 1 There is, it seems, no means for official political discourse and popular speech to coexist. The rest of this chapter will look at various ways in which the speech and culture of the crossroads is represented. An example of the force of elite representations of popular speech is offered by the word trivialis. Trivialis derives from the word trivium, which like quadrivium, was also used to describe a crossroads, and indeed, as we have seen, trivium is used synonymously with compitum by Cicero.3 5 2 It is striking that trivialis develops the dismissive connotations of the English word “trivial”; as, for instance, in Juvenal’s comparison of the true poetic genius, uncontaminated by the public, with song that is trivialis and of a common currency: sed uatem egregium, cui non sit publica uena, qui nihil expositum soleat deducere, nec qui communi feriat carmen triuiale moneta, hunc, qualem nequeo monstrare et sentio tantum... (7.53ff). But your real poet, who has a vein of genius his own— one who spins no hackneyed lays, and whose pieces are struck from no common m int- such an one as I cannot point to, and only feel. . . 3 5 3 351 For more political talk at the crossroads, from much later in the Empire, near the start of the extant portion of Ammianus' work, we see how Gallus, with a few attendants, is said to have roamed around the streets and inns during the evening (vesperi per tabemas perlabatur et compita), inquiring what people thought of Caesar (1.9). 3 5 2 Accame 1942: 20 distingusihes beween a trivium and a quadrivium-, he points out that compitum is used of both. 3 5 3 Loeb translation. 1 8 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. I would suggest that in such references to “trivial s o n g carmen triviale— it is precisely the world of the compita which is informing the image. In this example, the idea that the song is of a common (communis) coinage perhaps hints at a public culture, the kind of culture that the culturally exclusive Roman aristocrats were wary of and attempted to trivialize. In this context, it is interesting that Juvenal describes the poet whom he contrasts with the crossroads poet as a vates, indeed a vates egregius. As elsewhere, the figure of the vates has been appropriated from the public culture to support and legitimate the elite system of literature. Suetonius tells how Augustus sometimes allowed popular “players” to take part in his dinner parties and even included them, to Suetonius' surprise, in the conversation (. . .etiam triviales ex circo ludios interponebat ac frequentius aretalogos, Aug. 74).3 5 4 Augustus may well have taken genuine pleasure in such entertainers, and he was surely wise enough to see that, as the ideology of the principate rested on his status as protector of the plebs through his tribunicia potestas, it was in his interests to show an interest in popular culture, whether at the circus or at home. But Suetonius’ use of the adjective trivialis to mean “popular” can perhaps also be taken more literally: such players were usually found at the crossroads where, presumably, there was always a good chance of gathering a crowd. We know that Roman poets could also find an audience at compita, even if it was an audience they wanted nothing to do with. For instance, Martial sarcastically lists compita as one of several popular places where the libellus will be read and attain fame: 3 5 4 See Horsfall 1989: 206 n. 8 for this passage. 185 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. o quantum tibi nominis paratur! o quae gloria! quam frequens amator; te convi via, te forum sonabit aedes compita porticus tabemae. uni mitteris, omnibus legeris. (7.97.9ff) O how great a name is being prepared for you! O what glory ! How many lovers you will have! Banquets and the forum will make you resound, and the temples, the compita, the porticos and the shops. You will be sent to one, but you will be read by all.3 5 5 Such an indiscriminate popularity is of course anathema to Martial whose poems ultimately serve a function of marking off his elite audience as distinct from the rest of the society. As with poetry performed in circulis, popular poetry or song performed at the crossroads was used as a benchmark by Roman poets against which their own more refined and serious literary activity could be compared. For instance Horace, in the Ars Poetica, tells how he believes writers of Satyr plays should avoid both an excessively high and an excessively low style; for instance they should avoid making the Fauns sound like people found at crossroads or in the Forum (velut innati triviis ac paene forenses). A more detailed discussion of this passage is offered in the next chapter, in the discussion of fabula tabemaria. Also in the next chapter, we will see further Roman poets’ anxieties about popular performers of poetry, such as Tigellius in the first book of Horace’s Satires. Several of these examples have shown how popular talk can be dismissed even when it is explicitly about political and military matters. But more generally, there is a tendency to present the talk of the compita as trivial gossip and thereby to deny the political edge that activity there clearly often had. I am not suggesting, of course, that poets deliberately set out to write poetry attacking popular speech; rather they reflect and participate in a discourse among upper-class Romans associating unofficial venues 3 5 5 Cf. Wiseman 1987: 272. 186 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. of speech with trivial gossip and confining serious discussion for the Senate or contiones. Typical of the focus on gossip is Propertius' poem where the elegist tells how there have now been seven full moons, during which there has been no compitum which has not been talking about him and his puella: septima iam plenae deducitur orbita lunae, cum de me et de te compita nulla tacent. (2.20.21-2) The seventh orbit of the full moon has come since the time when all the crossroads began to talk about you and me. And in a similar vein, Ovid has Tragoedia warn the persistent elegiac poet that his sex life is discussed throughout Rome, in convivia and the compita'. Nequitiam vinosa tuam convivia narrant, narrant in multas compita secta vias. Saepe aliquis digito vatem designat euntem atque ait "hie, hie est, quern ferus urit Amor." Fabulam nec sentis, tota iactaris in Urbe, dum tua praeterito facta pudore refers. (Amores 3.1.17-22). Drunken dinner parties tell of your wickedness; the compita, dividing into many roads tell of it. Often someone with a finger points at the poet as he goes along and says "he, he it is whom savage Amor is burning." Do you not sense the talk? You are being mentioned in the whole City, while, putting aside shame you renew your actions. Here Ovid, by the coupling of convivia and compita, signifies that he is the subject of discussion both in private and in public.3 5 6 Likewise, popular gossip at the compita plays a part in Juvenal's remarkable description of how the rich at Rome cannot keep any secrets from the city: quod enim dubitant componere crimen in dominos, quotiens rumoribus ulciscuntur baltea? nec derit qui te per compita quaerat nolentem et miseram uinosus inebriet aurem. (9.110ff)3 5 7 3 5 6 See the previous chapter for the coupling of circuli and convivia. 3 5 7 The association of the compita with alcohol is found elsewhere. Porphyrio, commenting on Sat. 2.3.281 (discussed below) brings out the force behind Horace's stress on the freedman's sobriety, commenting that this was rare at the compita: Qvi circvm compita siccvs. Note also the scholion on 187 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. For what accusation will they hesitate to compose against their master, whenever they avenge their strapping by spreading rumors? Nor will there be lacking someone who seeks you out against your will at the compita and drunkenly inebriates your wretched ear. And finally, Horace, in his Satires, has Damasippus tell how the "crossroads crowd" has given him the name of Mercury because of his eye for a bargain in real estate: unde frequentia Mercuriale / inposuere mihi cognomen compita (2.3.25-6). Here Horace seems to hint at the association of compita with auctions which we noted earlier.3 5 8 Compita and crossroads are also associated with vice and lowlife. Juvenal, for instance, tells how a satirist can fill big notebooks while observing those who have profited from vice at the crossroads (nonne libet medio cera inplere capaces / quadrivio, 1.63f). He goes on to single out for mention an effeminate, a half-naked forger and a matrona potens who is a poisoner. The criminals that the satirist observes at the crossroads provokes Juvenal's famous exclamation: si natura negat, facit indignatio versum (1.79). It is also striking that in Catullus it is at crossroads and in narrow doorways that Lesbia fellates the descendants of Remus: nunc in quadriviis et angiportis glubit magnamini Remi nepotes (Cat 58.5). And if Wiseman is correct about the plebeian associations of Remus, Catullus may well be associating here the Persius 4.28 where compotando is offered as an alternate etymological variation for compitum, a variation reflecting elite views of the compita rather than linguistic probability. Certainly the festival of the Compitalia itself may have been a drunken affair: Cato, for instance, tells how at the country festival extra amounts of wine were given to thefamilia (de Agr. 57), and the Catalepton in the Vergilian Appendix speaks of the uncta compitalia (13.27). And from the later Empire, note also Ammianus Marcellinus 28.4.28, discussed in the previous chapter, where the compita, along with other elements of plebeian culture, are indirectly related to wine. But to transfer this association to the compita in general as if they were always connected with drinking is striking and perhaps reflects the typical tendency to dismiss actions which appear threatening as driven by alcohol. An extreme example is Sallust Cat. 22, where the meeting of the conspirators is said to have been accompanied by drinking of wine mixed with blood. 3 5 8 As Pseudo-Acro notes ad loc.: nam auctiones fere in competis fiunt, ex quibus quaedam se emere solitum et vendere significat. 188 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. crossroads very firmly with the people.3 5 9 Finally, compita are seen as places where you can find people who are on the scrounge. We saw above how Catullus makes the trivia the venue for people who are forced to seek dinner invitations, like Veranius and Fabullus (Cat. 47). And Horace, in his letter to Scaeva, tells of more conventional kinds of beggars at the trivia: nec semel irrisus triviis attollere curat fracto crure planum, licet illi plurima manet lacrima, per sanctum iuratus dicat Osirim: 'credite, non ludo; cmdeles, tollite claudum!' 'quaere peregrinum,' vicinia rauca reclamat. (Ep. 1.17.58ff) And once made a fool of, one does not care to raise up from the crossroads an impostor with a broken leg, although he pours many tears, and swears and calls on holy Osiris: ‘Believe me, I’m not joking; cruel men, raise up a lame man!’ ‘Seek a foreigner,’ shouts back the neighbors until they are hoarse.’ The word for the suspicious neighbours, vicinia, suggests that the beggar at the compita is being rejected here by his fellow vicctni. And the appeal to Osiris indicates Horace’s opinion of the lower class nature of the typical vicus.3 6 0 In this last example worshippers of Osiris are found at the compita', but we have seen that the more usual worship that occurred in these local centers was that of the Lares Compitales and various popular heroes who were worshipped with them.3 6 1 The compita, then, served an important function in popular religion; but this religiosity of the plebs is also ridiculed. We have already seen how in Satire 2.3 Horace brings out how the compita are a venue for gossip concerning Damasippus. In the same 3 5 9 Cf. Wiseman 1995. 3 6 0 Accame 1942: 30 associates Gabinius’ decrees against the cult of Serapis and Isis with the action taken against compital cult, seeing both as instances of the importance of popular religion in the politics of the period. Cf. Scheid 1985: 130-1. For senatorial action against the worshippers and shrines of Isis in the 50s and 40s, see Dio 40.47.3-4 and 42.26.2; also Val. Max. 1.3.4 and Varro ap. Tert ad nationes 1.10.17-18. See also Coarelli 1985. 1 8 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. poem, Horace has fun with a freedman who would wash his hands each day and then run between the various compital shrines asking to be saved from death. Horace tells how his master might have been sued had he claimed that he had a good brain when he tried to sell this slave: libertinus erat, qui circum compita siccus lautis mane senex manibus currebat et 'unum', 'quid tarn magnum?' addens, 'unum me surpite morti! dis etenim facile est' orabat; sanus utrisque auribus atque oculis; mentem, nisi litigiosus, exciperet dominus, cum venderet. (Sat. 2.3.28Iff) There was a freeman, who in his old age would run in the mornings sober around the compita with washed hands and would plead: "snatch me alone, big deal, from death! For this is easy for gods." He was healthy in both his ears and eyes; but, unless he was fond of lawsuits, the master would except his mind from such a claim when it came to selling him, Porphyrio, commenting on this passage, points out that Horace is ridiculing superstitions: Hie incipit de superstitiosis et religiosis loqui. But he is perhaps also reflecting a more specific scorn for the religion of the compita, which was clearly a major aspect of local life, and for the liberti and slaves who were particularly associated with it; and indeed Horace is describing here a libertinus. This ridiculing of religious life is particularly striking in that religiosity tends to be taken seriously in Rome even by the more sceptical. So, Cicero in the de Divinatione argues against belief in the powers of haruspices and augurs, but he is adamant that they should act as they had always done for political reasons. And in the de Natura Deorum, Cotta is able to doubt the very existence of the gods but, as pontiff, he continues to take the state cults 3 6 1 Note also Augustine Civ. Dei 7.21, citing Varro on the rites of Liber being celebrated at the compita. See Wiseman 1988, 1998 p35-51 and 2000 p265-299 for Liber and his role in popular religion at Rome. 190 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. seriously and says he would never express his scepticism in contione (1.61).3 6 2 Augustine, it is true, tells how Seneca in his book de Superstitione ridiculed Roman theology, but it is possible that Augustine may not be the most reliable source on this issue (CD 6.10). Certainly when Augustine cites specific examples it suggests that Seneca’s critique was not aimed at Roman religion itself; rather Seneca attacks ways in which traditional Roman religion had become debased, with, for instance, mime actors performing in the Capitol by the statue of Jupiter. The cultural and social anxieties which we have witnessed in various literary texts concerning the popular cultural activities that took place at compita are also revealed in rhetorical treatises. We saw in the previous chapter how Quintilian expressed concern about popular orators with a “knack” for speaking but with no ars- -a concern similar to that of Horace in the Ars Poetica concerning less cultivated poetry that his own.3 6 3 It is interesting to note that, just like popular poetry and drama, unrefined, untaught popular oratory is associated with the crossroads. For instance, Suetonius, in his account of the rhetor Albucius Silus in the de Grammaticis et Rhetoribus, likens oratory that is unschooled to trivialia verba— and I would suggest that the adjective here has strong associations with the compita and the kind of speech that occurred there. Suetonius tells how Silus would declaim modo splendide atque adomate. However, occasionally, so that he might not seem to be too school-like ( ,scholasticus), he would speak circumcise ac sordide et tantum non trivialibus verbis (de gramm. et rhet. 30.2). It is important to note here that Silus made sure that he never quite (tantum non) descended to the truly trivialis— even when attempting to appear unschooled, the elite orator had to maintain a firm distinction from such popular 3 6 2 See Brunt 1990: 296 for discussion of this and other passages in Cicero’s (and Varro’s) religious works. See also Brunt 1989 and Atridge 1978. 191 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. speakers. In this light, a passage from Gellius perhaps takes on added significance. Gellius takes it for granted that bad grammar and the compita go hand in hand. It is natural, Gellius thinks, for the incorrect usage of superesse se to be found at compita', however, he is dismayed that the expression is also misused in more formal politics: atque id dicitur non in compitis tantum neque in plebe vulgaria, sed inforo, in comitio, apud tribunalia (1.22.2). Again we see here a contrast between "official" political speech, the speech of the Forum, of the comitium and of the magistrates, and the speech of the compita. For a final example , I return to poetry. One of the major themes of Roman pastoral poetry is a distinction between high and low poetry, a distinction, related— in a somewhat complex manner— to the contrast between city and country.3 6 4 It is striking, then, that in Eclogues 3 Vergil locates Damoetas’ wretched song precisely at the crossroads. Menalcas says: Cantando tu ilium? aut umquam tibi fistula cera iuncta fuit? non tu in triuiis, indocte, solebas stridenti miserum stipula disperdere carmen? (Eel. 3.25-27) You challenge him in singing? Did you ever have a pipe joined with wax? Were you not accustomed at the crossroads, unlearned one, to destroy a wretched song with your shrill reed? It is true that crossroads, with their connection to Hecate, feature in Theocritus Idyll 2 (lines 35-6)~in a passage which Virgil has already alluded to earlier in the Third Eclogue.3 6 5 And indeed in the Aeneid, Dido speaks of Hecate howling at the trivia (noctumisque Hecate triviis ululata per urbes, 4.609). But Menalcas’ juxtaposition of triviis with indocte, highlighting the incompatibility between the crossroads and learned, 3 6 3 See discussion of the Ars Poetica in the next chapter. 3 6 4 See Boyle 1988: 15-19 for “city and country” in the Eclogues, a discussion that focuses on Eclogues 1 and 9. Boyle points out that there is no conflict between city and country in Theocritus. 3 6 5 With the barking dogs of Idyll 2.36 cf. Vergil’s latrante Lycisca (Eel. 3.18). 192 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. artful poetry, surely signals that an equally powerful intertext is the discourse concerning urban popular speech that I have been considering in this chapter.3 6 6 If so, it is somewhat striking, in this collection of poems where the city’s destructive effect on rural life is lamented, that Virgil should merge the urban and rural categories at this point. The urban and rural worlds in the Eclogues are perhaps not wholly irreconcilable and one— albeit problematic— means of transcending the division is verse; after all, later in the same poem, Damoetas and Menalcas themselves tell how the highly urbane Pollio loves their Muse, even though it is a rustic one (3.84: Pollio amat nostram, quamvis est rustica, Musam). Virgil is at some level describing a community of poets— rustic and urban— and one aspect that can unite them all is a desire to avoid the debased popular culture of the plebeian compita.3 6 1 3 6 6 Cf. Fitzgerald 1996: 409 on the Moretum: "But the high and the low have a culture of food, and this allows the separation between those who labor and those who don't to reappear as the distance between one culture of food and the other. In the Eclogues the fact that the high and the low both have a culture of 'song' is used to the same effect, and the distance between the two becomes a source of pathos in the world of Virgil's poet-shepherd." 3 6 7 Cf. Habinek 1998: 98-100, applying Anderson’s idea of an “imagined community” (Anderson 1983) to the audience of literati whom Horace envisages for the poetry produced by himself and other Augustan poets. Note that the (probably) Neronian bucolic poet, Calpurnius Siculus, likewise uses the poetry of the trivia as a way to highlight its opposite, serious poetic performance that is approved of: non pastor, non hoc triviali more viator, / sed deus ipse canit; nihil armentale resultat/ nec montana sacros distinguunt iubila versus. (Eel. 1.28ff). Here the poetry of the trivia is associated with poetry that is armentale, perhaps hinting at shepherds' verse, whose crudeness is a theme of the genre of Bucolic poetry. 193 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Tabemae Nunc Roma est, nuper magna tabema fuit. Martial 7.61 1. Tabernae and Tabernarii Martial’s description of Rome as, until Domitian’s edict prohibiting stores from spilling out onto the streets, “a great big shop” contains a truth about the city that is worthy of examination. Nicholas Purcell has recently made Roman shops a central feature in his account of the Roman urban experience, describing Rome, with a glance to Napoleon’s famous comment on the English, as “a city of shops, its people a nation of shopkeepers” (1994: 659).3 6 8 Literary evidence suggests that shop owning was seen as an ordinary feature of Roman life. As Yavetz says: le fait meme que soient mentionnes, dans les comedies de Novius et de Pomponius, les “pictores,” les “centonarii,” les “pistores,” les “fullones” et autres “restiones” suffit a prouver que les tavemiers constituaient un element dominant dans le paysage humain des rues de la ville et que la vie a Rome ne pouvait se concevoir sans leur presence. (1970: 145) Moreover, Juvenal, in his Satire on the city of Rome, implies that having your shop burgled was a problem faced by the average Roman: nec tamen haec tantum metuas. Nam qui spoliet te / non derit clausis domibus, postquam omnis ubique / fixa catenatae siluit compago tabemae (3.302ff). Archaeological evidence confirms that tabemae were central to city life. For instance, the Roman ground plan from the 3 6 8 Purcell 1994: 644-688. Other recent studies dealing with tabemae and tabernarii include Morel 1987 and Yavetz 1970 (and in general Yavetz throughout his writing is alive to the importance of the tabernarii: see his 1963 discussion of the Catilinarian “conspiracy”). Vanderbroeck 1987 also stresses the importance of the tabernarii in the street politics of the Late Republic. Note Kampen 1982 for 194 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Severan period, the forma urbis, gives an indication of the large number of shop units in Rome, and excavations confirm that tabemae were often an intrinsic part of many Romans’ homes and apartment buildings.3 6 9 This section will examine the political and cultural role of the tabemae. I will suggest that the so-called tabernarii (and the opifices, the artisans with whom the tabernarii were closely associated) were comprised in general from the same politically active section of the population which we examined in the section on compita, and that the culture of the tabemae, was an essential element in the culture of non-elite sociability that I have been stressing.3 7 0 The people associated with tabemae would have consisted largely of liberti, who would have been active in collegia and in the cult and institutions associated with the vici and compita.3 1 ' Purcell sees the tabemae and officinae (workshops) as central in the formation and development of a distinctive popular culture: .. .the life of the tabema and the officina, the cookshops and the stews, made possible a climate of public agitation central to the informal politics of the time; it was a defining characteristic of Rome to have female tabernarii-, also Kampen 1981. 3 6 9 Indeed, taberna often seems to have been used to refer simply to a living unit with no retail function. Note Morel 1987: 134: “Primordiale, la tabema va-t-elle jamais cesser de 1 ’etre a Rome? II n’est que de voir, pour en douter, la Forma Urbis severienne et ses rangees infinies de boutiques.” Cf. Stambaugh 1988: 166-7. Stambaugh 149-153 is useful for the various types of tabernae and their locations. Also Morel 1987: 135. See Yavetz 1970: 146 for the more upper-class shops, such as the margaritarii on the Via Sacra. For Pompeii, see Pirson 1997, showing that tabernae were more common there than has been thought. According to Frier 1977: 30 n. 20, 91-95% of the population of Ostia lived in shops or small flats or slept on the streets. 3 7 0 From the later Empire, note that when Gallus wants to know what the people think of him, he wanders the city’s tabemae and crossroads by night: per tabemas palabatur et compita Gallus (Amm. Marc. 14.1.9). 3 7 1 For the relation of tabemae and officinae, cf. Purcell 1994: 661. Cf. Treggiari 1980: 51: “The urban workers who document themselves are chiefly opifices and tabernarii. The former in theory work in a workshop {officina, e.g. a smith), the latter in a shop or inn {taberna). In practice the terms overlap, opifices are also hard to keep apart from artifices.” See Treggiari 1969: 168-177 on collegia and liberti, noting at 169 that "one way of uniting the opifices and tabernarii was through professional collegia." 195 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. developed to such an extent a distinctive and elaborate social behaviour of low-status people, what one might call a ‘low life.’ (1994: 666) I would prefer to speak in terms of a “popular” or “general culture” rather than “low life,” and not only to avoid the upper-class perspective implied by the latter term. Indeed "low life" gives a somewhat misleading view of the tabemarii, who represented on the whole a middling stratum of those Romans below the equestrian census.3 7 2 There is always a danger of seeing, along with our sources, the plebs as some kind of undifferentiated multitude. As Purcell says, this is a "distortion of a long perspective of diminishing plebeian statuses from the viewpoint of the higher aristocracy" (1994: 676). And this differentiation could be seen within the various kinds of tabemarii and opifices themselves.3 7 3 Yakobson, for instance, has argued that there were tabemariii sufficiently wealthy to vote in the First Class at the Comitia Centuriata.3 7 4 But while I acknowledge the dangers of treating the tabemarii as some kind of undifferentiated group, it nevertheless seems that this is how the Roman elite 3 7 2 Cf. however Treggiari 1969: 95 on the problems of using epigraphical evidence to determine the wealth of Roman workers: "The freedmen shopkeepers and craftsmen ( < artifices) of whom we have records naturally tend not to be of this poor and discontented class, since they were for the most part magistri of collegia or men wealthy enough to pay for a comparatively lengthy tomb-inscription. We thus tend to get from inscriptions a rather optimistic impression of the over-all situation, to which the discontents of the Clodians provide a useful corrective." Cf. Kampen 1982: 74 and Treggiari 1980: 52: “the people who pay for inscriptions must, however, be of some substance.” Note Vanderbroeck 1987: 110-2, assuming that tabemarii and opifices could read and write. 3 7 3 Cf. Yakobson 1999 n58 on the "complicated world of the Roman tabema." Also Tatum 1999: 18 on the lack of specificity of words like opifices. 3 7 4 Yakobson 1999: 43-45. Badian 1972 in his article on Tiberius Gracchus acknowledged the possibility of "prosperous shopkeepers" in the first class. He was assuming a census rating for the first class of HS40-50000. Yakobson follows Rich 1983: 315, suggesting a rating in the late Republic of HS25000, which would have allowed even more tabemarii to vote in the prima classis, alongside Senators and the municipal elite. See Yakobson 1999: 44 n. 62 and n. 64 on the controversy. Some scholars have put the census for the first class in the late Republic as high as HS100000 (e.g. Crawford 1985: 149-151), which Yakobson is understandably reluctant to accept since it would seriously affect his attempt to make the Centuriate Assembly less controlled by the wealthy than is often thought. Also Millar 1998: 203. See Livy 1.43.1 for a census rating of 100000 asses (ie 25000HS) and Gaius 3.42, in a discussion of freedmen’s patrimonies, for a rating of 100000HS 1 9 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. tended to consider them and this, as we will see, reflects to some extent the reality of their relative political influence. Moreover, as Whittaker has argued, the Roman elite may have been more concerned with a relative poverty which barred someone from public life than with real poverty (Whittaker 1989: 280). And even if tabemarii were financially a middling stratum, such a notion is itself, of course, extremely relative.3 7 5 While doubtless there were many tabemarii aspiring to unpward mobility, nevertheless I would suggest that what I describe as the culture of the tabemae was shared by the vast majority of those who are identified as tabemarii. Of course the Roman elite attempted to distance its own self-consciously refined culture from the kind of culture associated with tabemae. This was to lead to certain contradictions as the tabemae-based economy was essential to much of the Roman elite’s wealth. There is evidence for upper-class Romans making money from tabemae, which might often be run by their slaves. The Digest of Justinian gives evidence for the practice of installing a slave as manager (institor) of a tabema (cf. 7.8.20; 14.3.13). And Cicero, in a letter to Atticus (Att. 14.9), shows what is probably a typical elite interest in tabemae. Writing in April of 44 he tells how two of his shops or perhaps tenement buildings have collapsed and that the others are in trouble {tabemae mihi duae corruemnt reliquaeque rimas agunt), with the result that not only the tenants but even the mice have quit the buildings (itaque non solum inquilini, sed mures etiam migraverunt). Cicero claims that he is calm about the loss, thanking philosophy for his equanimity (Hanc ceteri calamitatem vocant, ego ne incommodum (not necessarily relating to the census rating of the prima classis). The issue seems unresolved. See below for the reality of the electoral influence of the tabernarii. 3 7 5 MacMullen 1974: 88-9 is useful on wealth differentials in the Empire, suggesting that there were perhaps 50 million people between Sardinia and Syria in the Empire in Tacitus’ day, of which the senatorial stratum represented about two-thousandths of one percent and the equites less than a tenth of 197 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. quidem. O Socrates et Socratici viri! numquam vobis gratiam referam. Di immortales, quam mihi ista pro nihilo!). Indeed, he is optimistic that he can make a nice profit out of the rebuilding (Sed tamen ea ratio aedificandi initur consiliario quidem et auctore Vestorio, ut hoc damnum quaestuosum sit). Doubtless, because of their partial dependency on the same kind of economic activity as the majority of the Romans, many among the Roman elite would have been more hostile to and anxious about the world of the tabema— the closer in practice that they were to those of a lower social class, the greater was the need to differentiate themselves and to develop a separate identity through an elite culture unique to them and difficult for others to acquire.3 7 6 Certainly the Roman nobility were on the whole consistent in professing hostility to such economic activity. Cicero, in a famous passage in de Officiis, considers shop trade and the work of artisans as among the means of livelihood that are illiberales and sordidi: Sordidi etiam putandi, qui mercantur a mercatoribus, quod statim vendant; nihil enim proficiant, nisi admodum mentiantur; nec vero est quicquam turpius vanitate. Opificesque omnes in sordida arte versantur; nec enim quicquam ingenuum habere potest officina (“They are also to be thought sordid, who buy from traders in order to sell the goods at once; for they would get no profit if they did not lie very much. And indeed nothing is more base than falsity. All artisans are occupied in a sordid trade; for a workshop can have nothing free about it”; 1.150). one percent. The senatorial census at this time demanded property worth 250000 times the day wage of a labourer. 3 7 6 Cf. the comments in the chapter on circuli. See Fitzgerald 1996, an article on the Moretum, for an excellent discussion of Romans’ views of labor (especially the general discussion at 391-2, where he cites Cato RR Pref. 4, where the censor concludes his paean to farmers with the comment that they are the least disaffected people— minime male cogitantes). Also cf. Veynel987: 117-137 for views of labor under the Empire. 198 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Cicero continues his discussion by specifying small trade as sordida, unlike large-scale trade which can lead to great fortunes enabling a life as a landowner: Mercatura autem, si tenuis est, sordida putanda est; sin magna et copiosa, multa undique apportans multisque sine vanitate impertiens, non est admodum vituperanda, atque etiam, si satiata quaestu vel contenta potius, ut saepe ex alto in portum, ex ipso portu se in agros possessionesque contulit, videtur iure optimo posse laudari( 1.151).3 7 7 Trade, however, if it is small-scale, must be thought sordid; but if it is great and large-scale, importing many things from all places and sharing them to many without falsity, it is not to be very much faulted. Indeed if sated, or rather content with his profit, the trader— as often he went from the sea to the harbor— takes himself from the harbor to fields and possessions, he can be very justly praised. Cicero is probably reliant upon Panaetius here.3 7 8 Another Greek, who, like Panaetius, helped the Roman elite define its character was Posidonius. Like Panaetius, Posidonius clearly discussed the value of different kinds of work and is drawn upon by Seneca at Epistles 88.21 -2: quattuor ait esse artium Posidonius genera: sunt volgares et sordidae, sunt ludicrae, sunt pueriles, sunt liberates. Volgares opificum, quae manu constant et ad instruendam vitam occupatae sunt, in quibus nulla dedecoris, nulla honesti simulatio est.3 7 9 3 7 7 Kampen 1982: 68 on Cic. de Off 150-1: “Although Cicero disparaged small retailers and hired laborers as vulgar, dishonest and unworthy, his conservative upper-class perspective allowed him to respect the tycoon for his potential absorption into the ranks of gentlemen.” Treggiari 1980: 49 cites Dio of Prusa Discourse 7.109 as taking an unusually favourable view of the dignity of labor; however, it may be significant that Dio of Prusa is from lower down the social scale than Cicero or Seneca. Some idea of the attitudes of workers themselves towards their own labor can be gauged from the epigraphical record, although this evidence is far from unproblematic. Joshel 1992, a valiant attempt to explore non-elite subjectivity, is fundamental for these worker inscriptions. Note also Stambaugh 1988: 150: “whereas the nobility listed their offices and military honors, these lower-class shopkeepers and artisans proudly expressed on their tombstones their pride in their trade, and even listed their place of business.” 3 7 8 Cf. Dyck ad be. Dyck offers Plato Rep. 37 le and Xenophon Oec. 4.2 as Greek parallels to Cicero’s thought. 3 7 9 Treggiari 1980: 48 discusses this and Cicero’s passage. This is a useful discussion of evidence for mercenarii (wage-labourers) and tabemarii and opifices, but Treggiari perhaps overstates the importance of the legal status of the tabemarii rather than economic and social factors and is heavily reliant on legal writers. 199 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Posidonius says that there are four kinds of arts: the vulgar and sordid, the amusing, the puerile and the liberal. The vulgar arts are those of the artisans, arts which involve the hands and which are concerned with equipping life. In these arts there is no pretence of anything beautiful or honorable. Dyck, commenting on the passage from the de Officiis, draws attention to the second speech against Verres where Cicero, with some scom, tells how Verres had established a workshop in the palace at Syracuse for making golden vessels: ipse tamen praetor, qui sua vigilantia pacem in Sicilia dicitfuisse in hac officina maiorem partem diei cum tunica pulla sedere solebat etpallio (2.4.54). The tunica pulla has derogatory associations, suggestive of the lower classes and sometimes used in contexts of untrained oratory, and so here the pulla of Verres marks the class associations of his officina.3 * 0 Finally, the foundation story of the Republic brings out the scom for opifices. Livy 1.59 tells how Brutus, in a contio after death of Lucretia, complained to his audience that under Tarquin the Romans had been turned from soldiers into opifices and lapicidas.m This indicates how a true ingenuus would be a soldier-farmer, not a workman; a distinction which Livy makes clear when he tells how, as a result of a rumor of a Gallic rising in 329, a levy was called without any exemptions, thus including the opifices and other members of the vulgus who were unsuited to military service: quin opifices quoque volgos et sellularii, minime militiae idoneum genus, exciti dicuntur (8.20). Treggiari seems to take Cicero's reference in the de Officiis to there being nothing ingenuum about the officina at face value. She argues that hostility to this kind of work was shared by all free Romans, not just the wealthy: "Ingenui in general, and especially those performing especially despised jobs, tended to conceal or apologize for 3 8 0 Richlin forthcoming for the tunica pulla. Cf. Quintilian 2.12.10 for a pullatus circulus (see above) and 6.4.60 for a pullata turba. 200 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. them when they set up their funeral inscriptions. The prejudice against the more 'sordid' forms of employment seems to have existed among the poor ingenui as among aristocrats and philosophers" (1969: 89). For Treggiari, this is plausible since she feels that most tabemarii and opifices were liberti. Indeed, as she notes, inscriptional evidence tends to support such an identification.3 8 2 The association of tabemae with liberti is important and provides a connection with the earlier discussion of the compita where the role of liberti (and slaves) in the organization of the local cult and of the vici was stressed, and where we saw the compita involved in issues directly relevant to liberti, most notably the question of the distribution of freedmen throughout all the tribes. However, while the libertine character of the tabemarii is significant, there must have been a good number of ingenui in these trades too, not least because the children of liberti who inherited the business would have been ingenui. Again, the tabemarii were not an undifferentiated group; but equally we can with a certain degree of confidence make useful generalizations about them.3 8 3 The libertine nature of most of the tabemarii would have had important repercussions for their role in the electoral politics of the city. Indeed, their relative powerlessness at comitia must have been one factor behind their taking to the streets so often; and indeed it is noticeable that one of the major issues which mobilized them was, as we have seen, electoral reform. Yakobson, as was mentioned earlier, has argued that there were tabemariii sufficiently wealthy to vote in the First Class at the Comitia 381 Cf. Ogilvie ad loc. for opifices implying slavery. 3 8 2 Treggiari 1969: 95-100 is a useful discussion of epigraphical evidence associating liberti with tabemae and opifices. 3 8 3 See Brunt 1971: 376-381 for the urban population of Rome in the Republic; at 383 he estimates that there were c750000 in the city in the late Republic / Augustan period. Note 386: slaves and freedmen “formed the larger part of the urban population”; see 387 for the enormous preponderence of freedmen on epitaphs, leading to the conclusion that “slaves and freedmen accounted for well over two- 201 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Centuriata. Yet even if there were a significant number of tabemarii in the First Class, eligible to vote alongside Senators and the great and the good of the municipia, it is likely that their electoral influence would nonetheless have been limited. As predominantly liberti or descendants of liberti, a high percentage of the tabemarii would have been enrolled in the four urban tribes, thus limiting their electoral influence. It is well known that, at the very least, the First Class of the Centuriate Assembly in the Late Republic was organized on tribal lines, with its 70 Centuries consisting of a senior and a iunior century from each of the 35 tribes. This would have meant that even wealthy tabemarii of libertine status would have been relatively marginalized, unlike the majority of the Roman elite who would have tended to belong to rural tribes, reflecting their origins as an agrarian aristocracy. Mommsen argued that the tribal organization extended also into the lower classes of the Centuriate Assembly3 8 4 ; as the number of centuries in the lower classes bore no relation to the figure of 35 tribes, he suggested that centuries were artificially grouped together to form voting units, a hypothesis supported by the procedure for combining centuries into voting units described in the Tabula Hebana.3 * 5 If Mommsen was right, then this would show that the tabemarii who were liberti, as well as descendants of liberti who had not been enrolled in another tribe at a census, would have been further marginalized in the lower classes of the Centuriate Assembly. Thus even if, as Yakobson thinks,3 8 6 the third, fourth and even fifth classes were called on to vote more often than is sometimes thirds of the urban population in 70, perhaps three-quarters.” At 388 Brunt suggests that the urban population was probably only maintained by manumissions and immigration. 3 8 4 Mommsen 1952: III.1.270ff. 385 See most recently Lintott 1999: 59. Note, however, Lucy Grieve’s important attempt to argue against any tribal organization below the prima classis, suggesting that passages linking centuries and tribes are of dubious value and that the Tabula Hebana is a bad parallel for the practice at the Comitia Centuriata (Grieve 1985). 3 8 6 See Yakobson 1999: 48-54. 202 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. thought, the voices of liberti, confined to 4 of the 35 tribes, and so to 8 centuries which would then be grouped with others to form voting units, may have had less than their numerical influence would indicate in the outcome of the voting.3 8 7 The generally enormous levels of bribery at Rome in the Late Republic have been taken by Yakobson to support his view that the votes of basically the whole of the citizenry, not just the prima classis, counted at elections in the comitia centuriata. However, while munificence at elections was clearly enormous, and increasingly often was felt to constitute ambitus, I would suggest that an explanation for this is more to be found in the social context for such largesse rather than in the practical need to buy individual votes.3 8 8 Like the expenses incurred by aediles in putting on games, such generosity would enhance the symbolic capital of a candidate. Indeed Appian reports how Cassius related to Brutus that, just as aristocrats ask from one another that they put on as magistrates various games, combats and races, so they now asked Brutus for liberty (App. BC 2.113). The aristocracy may have viewed munificence by electoral candidates in a similar way, especially if it was administered throught the tribal mechanisms preferred by the Senate.3 8 9 Such annual generosity would have been seen as a means of helping to keep the city population contented, while at the same time enhancing the aristocracy as a whole by reinforcing their role as protectors of the plebs and by providing the people with a stake in what was otherwise a transparently unfair 3 8 7 Of course the confinement of the liberti in the urban tribes would have seriously impacted their significance in the Tribal Assembly too. See below in the Forum section for liberti and the comitia tributa. 3 8 8 Yakobson is certainly not oblivious to the social context for electoral munificence. E.g. 1999: 22- 3. 3 8 9 See compita chapter for the possibility of approaching the people directly in the vici, bypassing the tribal mechanisms in a manner that was clearly disturbing to the aristocracy. 203 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. electoral process.3 9 0 Certainly, the Roman aristocracy would have felt such individual munificence preferable to the use of public money which would have weakened the aristocratic ideology of munificence and their position as patrons of the populace.3 9 1 This view is supported by a letter of Cicero to Quintus (ad Quint. Fratr. 3.8.6), in which Milo is said to have given feasts and shows in 54 which were "beyond his duty," doing more than what was demanded of him (non postulatus). This passage seems to show the expectation of largesse by aspiring politicians on the part of the aristocracy as a whole; some largesse was expected, if not quite as much as Milo bestowed. Again, we see that munificence is a convenient means of social control which did not involve public expense but which involved an individual financial sacrifice, which in return brought honor and the chance to recoup the money later in a provincial command. Indeed, the role of munificence in social control is made explicit in the pro Milone where Cicero says that Milo used up three patrimonies to appease the plebs (cum plebem muneribus placarit, 95).3 9 2 Such munificence in canvassing, if performed in an appropriate way, might well gain not only the approval of the aristocracy but also win their support in the comitia centuriata at the election.3 9 3 of course the various trials for 3 9 0 See Veyne 1990: 215 for elections as negotiations, accompanied by the symbolic gifts of the candidates; he may, however, go too far when he suggests that elections were barely serious (225). 3 9 1 Cf. Cicero’s comment on Clodius’ grain law of 58 bleeding the Roman treasury (Sest. 55). It is true that Cato passed a grain law as tribune in 62, but this was a particularly turbulent period, the aftermath of the Catilinarian Conspiracy, and the measure was, according to Plutatch, designed explicitly to keep popular discontent at bay (Plut. Cato Min. 26; Caes. 8.6; cf. Rickman 1980: 52). 3 9 2 This is admittedly hardly a typical situation. Asconius p35 Clark says that this “bribe” was to scotch rumors. Yakobson notes at 1999: 32 that Milo’s distributions were portrayed as a "service to the Republic." 3 9 3 Yakobson 1999: 46-7 cites Cic. de Off. 2.56-60 where largitio is condemned unless necesse est aut utile (58). However, necessity and expediency are two extremely broad and vague exemptions; an aristocracy willing to extend the distribution of cheap com, as Cato did in 62, was not above feeling it necesse and utile to offer largesse at elections and to reward those aristocratic candidates who performed this role to their satisfaction. Note Augustus' attempt to end electoral bribery in 18BC; henceforth he would distribute 1000HS a man to those in his two tribes. This suggests that he wanted to monopolize munificia. See Suet. Aug. 40.2 and Dio 54.16.1. 204 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. electoral bribery show that this was a delicate issue and that a fine line was often drawn as to what was acceptable (although, of course, some of these trials were instigated by personal enemies rather than by an outraged aristocracy). As so often there was tension between individual services performed pro re publica and the need for cohesion among the members of the Senate. Finally, it should be pointed out that the introduction of the ballot for elections {lex Gabinia of 139) would have made relying on bribery to win elections a risky measure, as the secret ballot meant that an individual Roman could vote regardless of any promises made or money received.3 9 4 This is not to deny the predominantly libertine tabemarii any electoral influence. Indeed Horace, at Epistle 1.6.49ff, perhaps alludes to a politician’s canvassing of a tabemarius. Horace here speaks of the importance of a slave who could help win his master popularity by acting, among other things, as a nomenclator, telling his master the names of those he did not know: Si fortunatum species et gratia praestat, mercemur servum, qui dictet nomina, laevum qui fodicet latus et cogat trans pondera dextram porrigere. If appearance and influence make a man fortunate, let us purchase a slave to call out names, to prod our left sides and to compel us to stretch our right hand across the weights. The expression trans pondera is controversial, with most scholars following the scholiasts in suggesting it refers to the stepping-stones which are seen at street- crossings at Pompeii. However, I prefer here the idea, which seems to translate 3 9 4 Cicero de Legibus 3.34 for a recogniton of the practical effects of the leges tabellariae. Also Yakobson 1991: 124-147. If it is felt that the social context of munificence is not sufficient to explain the high levels of bribery in the late Republic, Lintott 1990 suggests that the point was to guarantee the support of local dignitaries and tribal leaders by lavishing support on people who were connected with them. In general, I find puzzling the tendency of the apologists for Roman 205 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. pondera more naturally, that the expression refers to weights on a shop-counter and that the image is of a politician canvassing in shops.3 9 5 And it is perhaps worth noting that, in the Commentariolum Petitionis, Cicero is advised not to neglect any aspect of the populace in his search for votes, although it may be equally significant that Quintus does not refer to the tabemarii in particular. But even if tabemarii were not wholly disenfranchised, I would suggest that their electoral influence was sufficiently limited to act as an incentive for them to take part in, along with other liberti, non-constitutional politics. We have seen in the previous chapter such action carried out on behalf of precisely the issue of extending the votes of the liberti throughout all 35 tribes. But, as this measure was repeatedly frustrated, other popular issues too were the focus of the demands of the tabemarii who took to the streets. In the discussion of compita, we saw the importance of liberti in extra constitutional or "street" politics. It is not surprising that tabemarii, drawn predominantly from the liberti, are seen in similar political contexts and provoked the same kind of alarm as activity at compita. Purcell rightly notes that the Roman shops and workshops (ojficinae) were connected closely with Roman political life and makes the important observation that at Rome the economic sphere had not, as yet, become divorced from the political sphere: Not that it would be proper to separate the activities of the populace sharply into ‘economic’ and ‘political’: the dichotomy is simply an investigative convenience. There were many points of overlap and cross-fertilization between the two worlds, and the creation, partly accidental, partly intentional, of the half-dependent, economically active, Roman populace was both an economic phenomenon and a part of the evolution of Roman politics. Work, membership of the tabema-world, was one of the ways in which a person aspired to a social niche. Employment was a form of social inclusion. The relationships of the “democracy” to consider the high levels of bribery as evidence for the democratic nature of the Roman constitution. 3 9 5 On this issue see Wilkins’ commentary ad loc. 206 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. taberna and the insula, of the tomb-relief and the collegium, of the familia and the neighborhood, had their final counter-part in the comitia, the contio and the riot. (1994: 672-3) Collegia have been touched upon elsewhere; here I want to look at the more direct role that tabemae played in the late Republic.3 9 6 It has been suggested that the economic position of the tabemarii within the city of Rome made them a particular threat to the Roman elite. Vanderbroeck, for instance, suggests that the com distibutions in the city might have made the tabemarii independent of the need for patrons and therefore more likely to take part in political activity such as the famous food riot of 57 (1987; 90).3 9 7 Indeed, Vanderbroeck relates tabemarii to Christian Meier's notion of a plebs contionalis, the section of the people regularly involved in the political life of the city.3 9 8 While we have seen that their economic position was complicated, the tabemarii would in general have formed a middling stratum in Roman society, avoiding the excesses of both riches and of absolute poverty. But, as Yavetz has pointed out, this to some extent privileged economic position by no means necessarily inclined them to support the aristocratic system, and we have seen that overall they would have been far closer to the poorest of the city than the wealthiest. In particular, the tabemarii would have needed capital and so would have taken out loans.3 9 9 As such they, no less than bankrupt aristocrats, 3 9 6 See Purcell 1995: 328 on how the economic life of the Forum was implicated in "a distinct plebeian social consciousness which we can just discern through the hostility of the sources." 3 9 7 See Vanderbroeck 1987 Appendix B number 60 for this riot. 3 9 8 Vanderbroeck 1987: 86-93. The identification of the plebs contionalis with tabemarii is also made by Meier himself (1980: 114-5). Meier's notion of a distinct plebs contionalis, a term not found in the sources, has been questioned (e.g. Tatum 1999: 29); however, it remains useful as a descriptive term. Cf. Pina Polo 1996: 130. See the discussion on the Forum crowd below. 399 Yavetz 1970: 144 a n d 1958: 572. Yavetz draws attention to Sallust lug. 73 as evidence of indebtedness: denique plebes sic accensa uti opifices agrestesque omnes, quomm resfidesque in manibus sitae erant, relictis operibus frequentarent Marium et sua necessaria post illius honorem ducerent. See also Nicolet 1979:1.204 on the tabemarii and debt. 2 0 7 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. would have responded to calls made by popular politicians such as Catiline for the abolition of debts. Cicero’s association at Cat. 4.17 of the tabemarii with the supporters of Catiline will be discussed below. The association is also made by Sallust who tells of attempts to persuade artisans and slaves to rescue Lentulus: .. .liberti et pauci ex clientibus Lentuli divorsis itineribus opifices atque servitia in vicis ad eum eripiundum sollicitabant; partim exquirebant duces multitudinum, qui pretio rem publicam vexare soliti erant (“The freedmen of Lentulus and a few of his clients were stirring up the artisans and slaves in various streets in the neighborhoods to rescue him; everywhere they were seeking out the learders of the bands who were accustomed to disturbing the Republic for a price”; Cat. 50). The location of the slaves and workmen in the vici suggests that the compital organization discussed in the previous chapter may have been exploited by the Catilinarians.4 0 0 In a famous article, Yavetz argued that the tabemarii were responsible for Catiline’s failure by withdrawing their support, fearing the kind of incendiary upheaval that Cicero warned of in his Catilinarian orations.4 0 1 But that they supported him in the first place suggests that the anxiety that this group caused the Roman elite was well placed.4 0 2 4 0 0 Appian BC 2.5 confirms this picture of many artisans (xEipoxexvas) trying to rescue the Catilinarians. See Cic. Cat 1.8 for Catiline’s alleged association with the scythemakers, perhaps suggesting a connection with a particular collegium. See also Dio 39.35.3 for plans to rescue Lentulus and others. Dio says that both slaves and free made plans, some inspired by pity and some by fear. See Dio 37.30 for Catiline’s supporters. 4 0 1 Yavetz 1963. See Habinek 1998: 69-87 for Cicero forming as well as reflecting Roman public opinion in this matter. And see below for Catiline and the tabemarii. 4 0 2 Nicolet 1979:1.204: "Mais dans leur ensemble, ceux qu'on appelle les tabemarii, la 'boutique', represented un element essentiel de la population urbaine, peut-etre le plus turbulent, le plus important en cas de troubles." Oddly, Nicolet cites as an example Polybius 3.20.5, the famous comparison of the historians Chaereas and Sosylus with "barber-shop gossip" (KOUpeaKfjs K o ct TTavSfiuou XaXi&s). This passage indeed might be read as indicating that barber shops were, not surprisingly, places for political discussion (Polybius is here complaining of what he views as the manufactured account of a senatorial debate after the fall of Saguntum), which those associated with the Roman elite contrasted with their own authoritative version of events (note that Polybius is precisely concerned to play down the authority of such historians: KOupeocK% k o u rravSfinou 208 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. There is evidence that the tabemarii were associated with populares throughout the Late Republic. We saw earlier how Gratidianus was worshipped in the vici for his monetary reforms, and it is plausible to see the tabemarii, like the magistri vicorum of libertine status, as among those who supported his measures to stabilize coinage in 85BC. We know that opifices were among Marius’ followers in his famous consular election campaign in 108. Sallust tells how the tribunes stirred up the opifices and the peasants, who left their work to support their favorite against the optimates: Praeterea seditiosi magistratus volgum exagitare, Metellum omnibus contionibus capitis arcessere, Mari virtutem in maius celebrare. Denique plebes sic adcensa uti opifices agrestesque omnes, quorum res fidesque in manibus sitae erant, relictis operibus frequentarent Marium et sua necessaria post illius honorem ducerent (lurg. 73.5-6) 4 0 3 Besides seditious magistrates stirred up the people, summoning Metellus in all the assemblies on a treason charge and celebrating the virtue of Marius as greater than it was. Finally the people were so inflamed that all the artisans and farmers, whose wealth and credit were dependent on their hands, left their work and attended upon Marius and considered their own needs as second to his success. And Cicero at de Oratore 2.266 tells how, after Marius’s victory over the Cimbri, scuta Cimbrica were hung as trophies on the Tabemae Novae in front of the Basilica Aemilia.4 0 4 As we will see later, this set of tabemae, on the north side of the Forum, were known as plebeiae tabemae (see Festus p258 Lindsay). Finally, Appian tells at BC 2.112 how Bratus was moved in part by the messages on statues to carry out the assassination of Caesar. Appian goes on to say (2.113) that Cassius made it clear to him that these slogans were not written by the xeipofexvai k cc'i KauriAoi. In other AaAiaj e p o iy E S o k o u g i rafjiv kcc'i Suvapiv); however, there is little here to suggest their role in turbulence and troubles. 4 0 3 Yakobson 1999: 16 argues that the opifices agrestesque were used for their electoral support, not their vocal and physical support as is usually assumed. But this reflects his optimism about the electoral voice of the lower orders. I would suggest that it is helpful to view Sallust's passage in the light of the other passages cited where tribunes call for shops to be closed and that this would suggest that the expectation of Marius' supporters was that they were not leaving work merely to cast a vote. 2 0 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. words, the opifices and tabemarii were supporting Caesar, the greatest of all the populares,4 0 5 2. Cicero and the Tabemarii in the Late Republic As so often in so many areas, Cicero’s attitude towards tabemae and tabemarii offers insight into the anxieties and self-contradictions of the Roman ruling class. In the fourth speech In Catilinam, delivered before the Senate in 63BC, Cicero tells how there had been stories that Lentulus’ “pimp” (leno) had been going around the tabemae trying to drum up support for the Catilinarians: qua re si quem vestmm forte commovet hoc quod auditum, lenonem quendam Lentuli concursare circum tabemas, pretio sperare sollicitare posse animos egentium atque imperitorum . .. (Cat. 4.17). Cicero here acknowledges the likelihood that stories about attempts to persuade the tabemarii are likely to provoke alarm (si quem vestmm forte commovet hoc quod auditum). But while he acknowledges that the project had indeed been undertaken (est id quidem coeptum atque temptatum), he tries to assuage the senators’ anxiety with a lengthy description of how the tabemarii were, more than most, invested in political stability, unwilling to risk their livelihood which was dependent upon otium: .. .sed nulli sunt inventi tarn aut fortuna miseri aut voluntate perditi qui non ilium ipsum sellae atque operis et quaestus cotidiani locum, qui non cubile ac lectulum suum, qui denique non cursum hunc otiosum vitae suae salvum esse velint. Multo vero maxima pars eorum qui in tabemis 4 0 4 Cf. Millar 1986: 1-2. 4 0 5 Treggiari 1969: 167 on opifices and tabemarii as supporters of Appius Claudius Caecus, on whose forensis turba see the discussion in the Forum chapter below. Livy 9.42 tells how Appius stayed in Rome to increase his prestige with artisans (urbanis artibus). Note Pliny’s story (NH 10.12If) of the crow and the shopkeeper in the Empire, suggesting the popular associations of tabemae under Tiberius (cited in Purcell 1995: 328). Cf. also Hobsbawm 1965: 118-125 on the “Church and King Mob,” which tended to be made up of artisans and shopkeepers. 210 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. sunt, immo vero— id enimpotius est dicendum— genus hoc universum arriantissimum est oti. Etenim omne instrumentum, omnis opera atque quaestus frequentia civium sustentatur, alitur otio; quorum si quaestus occlusis tabemis minui solet, quid tandem incensis futuram fuit? (Cat. 4.17) .. .but no men have been found so wretched in fortune or desperate in will that they do not want to keep safe the place where they sit and work every day and make a living, their couch and bed, in short the leisurely manner of life. Indeed much the greatest part of those who work in tabemae, or rather-and this is surely more true— that whole class is most fond of leisure. For their entire circumstances, their entire work and their profit is sustained by the number of their customers; it is fed by leisure. If their profit is lessened when the shops are closed, what would have been the case had they been burnt? Scholars have been prone to accept Cicero’s testimony here. Brant, for instance, citing this passage, writes: “The urban plebs had been detached from the conspirators by Cicero’s allegation that they planned to bum the city down; even the humblest would then lose the place where they sat and worked and earned their daily bread and the couch on which they slept” (1978: 132). And Yavetz argues that that while virtually all the plebs (Sallust’s omnino cunctaplebs) may have supported Catiline’s call for an abolition of debts, not least the tabemarii and artisans who were indebted due to a lack of working capital and because of excessively high rentals, nevertheless it did not want the “anarchy” which would result from such measures as giving liberty to slaves. Yavetz, then, like Brant, accepts Cicero’s portrayal of the plebs as ultimately wanting safety.4 0 6 There is doubtless much truth in this; however, I would suggest that we should be careful about taking Cicero’s words at face value and accepting his presentation of the tabemarii as having a stake in the Roman Republican system. That Cicero’s words here may not be indicative of the attitude of the tabemarii is shown by other references in Cicero which illustrate a very different perception of 4 0 6 Cf. Yavetz 1963: 496. See Yavetz 1983: 95 viewing shops a conservative element. 211 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the tabemarii. But before examining these passages, I want first to look at the related claim in the fourth Catilinarian that the shop-owners have a particular stake in otium. This is a theme that is familiar in the speeches of Cicero’s consulship. Earlier in the year in speeches before both the Senate and the assempled people concerning Rullus’ proposed land reform, Cicero had stressed otium, along with pax and concordia, as what the populus most wanted. As he says to the Senate: etenim, ut circumspicias omnia, quae populo gratia atque iucunda sunt, nihil tarn populare quem pacem, quam concordiam, quam otium reperiemus (de lege agraria 1.23). This may have been what the senators liked to believe, but, of course, the history of the previous 70 years had shown that few things were more popularis than land distribution, which the Roman propertied class was now doing its best to block.4 0 7 And Cicero, in his manifesto of the optimate cause in the pro Sestio, made the defence of property rights an essential element, a concern which is manifest throughout his writings.4 0 8 Cicero maintains his popularis theme in the second speech on Rullus' proposal, delivered before the people. He tells the assembled populus Romanus that before he was consul there had been threats to vestrum otium, even from the consul designates: omnia turbulenta consilia contra hunc rei publicae statum et contra vestrum otium partim iniri, partim nobis consulibus designati inita esse dicebantur (2.8). Again it is surely somewhat disingenuous to suggest that these consilia were aimed against vestrum rather than nostrum otium. Cicero goes on to pose as a rhetorical question what he had, before the senatorial audience, proclaimed as a fact: quod enim est tarn populare 4 0 7 Of course, land distribution was most important for the rural poor: as is well known, Tiberius Gracchus’ failure at the elections is attributed to the fact that the rural poor on whose support he relied were busy with their harvest (Appian BC 1.2.14); but it was also an increasingly important issue for the urban poor who might join colonies abroad and, of course, for veterans. 4 0 8 See Brunt 1988: 54. Passages include Sest. 103, de Off. 1.15, 20f, 2.73, de Rep. 3.24, Top. 9 and Phil. 8.9. 212 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. quam pax? .. .quid, tam populare quam libertas? . . . quid tarn populare quam otium? (2.9). And later in the same speech, Cicero makes the same point, suggesting that the state, when it functioned under normal conditions, was designed to take care of everything fairly through its legal and constitutional mechanisms: non modo vos eritis in otio, qui semper esse volueratis, verum etiam istos, quibus odio est otium, quietissimos atque otiosissimos reddam. Etenim illis honores, potestates, divitiae ex tumultu atque ex dissensionibus civium comparari solent; vos, quorum gratia in suffragiis constitit, libertas in legibus, ius in iudiciis et aequitate magistratum, res familiaris in pace, omni ratione otium retinere debetis. (2.102) Not only will those of you who have always wanted it enjoy leisure, but I will also make those who hate leisure most restful and at ease. For their honors and powers and riches are usually gained from disturbances and from the dissension of citizens. You— whose influence lies in your votes, whose freedom lies in the laws, whose rights depend on the judgments and fairness of magistrates, and whose property on peace— should hold on to leisure by every means. It seems hard to take Cicero’s comments in these passages at face value. When Cicero makes such a claim about the people’s attitudes, it surely reflects a worry that they might in fact act in the opposite fashion, supporting Rullus’ land reform, for instance, even if that meant disturbing the pax and otium of the property owners who governed the city and Empire. And as for the claim that nothing was so popularis as concordia, we know of course that it was the hallmark of Cicero’s program to maintain a concordia ordinum, which was a concordia of the boni, the knights and the senators and from which the people were probably excluded.4 0 9 As for Cicero’s feelings about otium, perhaps we get closer to his true view on the subject in a passage, also from the same speech de lege Agraria, where he is talking 4 0 9 The plebs was not a recognized ordo and so could not form part of this concordia ordinum. Cf. Beranger 1970: 227ff, examining evidence for a plebeian ordo. Beranger argues that the senate and knights were the principal orders and that there were other various ordines in Rome recognized by the census, but not the plebs as a whole. See Seager 1972: 335-6 on Cicero daringly redefining popularis 213 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. not of the Romans whom he is addressing but of the Capuans.4 1 0 Cicero here suggests that the maiores deliberately (ratione et consilio) set about transforming the Capuans’ arrogance and ferocity into a slothful leisure: itaque illam Campanum arrogantiam atque intolerandamferociam ratione et consilio maiores nostri ad inertissimum ac desidiosissimum otium perduxerunt (2.91). Thus, otium is seen as preferable to any kind of political independence by the Capuans and we might think too that, in the case of Roman internal politics, it was the existing upper class, not the Romans whom Cicero addresses in this speech, whose interests were truly served by the people’s otium.4 1 1 For the upper class, of course, Cicero envisaged a very different kind of otium, the famous cum dignitate otium which became an essential element in his optimate manifesto.4 1 2 If Cicero’s statements in the Fourth Catilinarian concerning the people and its desire for otium must be used with extreme care and tell us more about Cicero’s preoccupations and anxieties than the feelings of the Roman populus, so too we might doubt his comments in the same section of the speech about the particular investment that the tabemarii had in the Roman Republic. Indeed, this period seems to have been a time when the loyalties of the urban freedmen who formed a significant section of the tabemarii were extremely tense. We have seen how in 64, the year before Cicero’s in the de lege agraria. 4 1 0 See Bell 1997 on Cicero's rhetoric in the de lege Agraria and note 14 on Capua's role in the speech as an "anti-Rome". 4 1 1 But see the Forum chapter for how in Livy otium is seen as giving rise to dangerous rumores. 4 1 2 For cum dignitate otium see especially Sest. 96ff; cf. ad Fam. 1.9.21 where Cicero tells Lentulus Spinther in 55, in a letter explaining his somewhat embarrassing political volte-face, that this ideal of otium with dignitas has always been what he has preached. See above all on this concept Wirszubski 1954; note 5 for Cicero identifying otium with the preservation of the established form of republican government; and 9 on cum dignitate otium: “there can be no doubt that he thinks of cum dignitate otium primarily in terms of the tranquility of all and the dignity of the ‘best’”; also 13: “Cum dignitate otium was for Cicero above all tranquility with dignity in the Roman state as well as in his own life.” See also Brunt 1988: 55-6 and Balsdon 1960. 2 1 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. consulship, certain collegia had been banned in Rome, largely because of their participation in street politics, and it is probable that a large number of the collegia would have drawn their membership from the tabemarii.4n And that there continued to be an anxiety concerning the loyalty of the plebs after the suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy is suggested by Cato’s extension of the grain supply in 62 (PM. Cato Min. 26', Caes. 8.6; cf. Rickman 1980: 52). These were clearly years of great concern for the boni and they witnessed a sustained attempt to suppress popular dissatisfaction. Cicero’s references to the tabemarii elsewhere give a very different impression about the loyalty of this section of the population than does the Fourth Catilinarian, and indeed they suggest that the Senate was wise to be concerned about Lentulus’ agents stirring up this group. We have seen how the Catilinarians were associated with the tabemarii. It seems likely that Clodius took over for himself and consolidated their support.4 1 4 For instance, in de Domo Sua, the speech delivered after his return from exile, Cicero tells his audience of patrician pontifices that it was above all the tabemarii who supported Clodius’ proposal to exile the ex-consul. According to Cicero, Clodius was able to get a big enough crowd out to vote for Cicero’s exile only because he issued a decree closing the shops: quem tu tamen populum nisi tabemis clausis frequentare non poteras, cui populo duces Lentidios, Lollios, Plaguleios, Sergios praefeceras. O speciem dignitatemque populi Romani quam reges, quam nationes exterae, quam gentes ultimae pertimescant, multitudinem hominum ex 4 1 3 Indeed, among the first acts of Clodius in 58 was the reestablishment of the collegia and their festival, the Compitalia, and it will be seen that Cicero identified Clodius’ major support as the tabemarii. 4 1 4 See Lintott 1968: 193 on Clodius and craftsmen and shopkeepers. Also Flambard 1977: 124 for “la boutique” in 58-52 being Clodian as before it had been Catilinarian: “Opifices et tabemarii, XeipoxEXvai, egentes et imperiti, liberti, servitia, en un mot, cuncta plebs, constituent a dix ans de distance, les partisans communs de Catilina et de Clodius.” 215 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. servis, ex conductis, ex facinerosis, ex egentibus congregatum. (Dom. 89) Even this crowd, over which you had put in charge as leaders men like Lentidius, Lollius, Plaguleius and Sergius, you were unable to assemble without closing the shops. O pride and dignity of the Roman people, which kings, foreign nations and far off tribes fear but which now consists of a mob of men gathered together from slaves, hirelings, criminals and the destitute. Clearly the snobbish insults against those who voted for his exile suggest a picture of the tabemarii very different from that of the upstanding, respectable, solid citizen with an investment in the peace of the state that Cicero portrays in the fourth Catilinarian. And indeed in the next paragraph Cicero goes on to tell who he thinks are the true Roman citizens, those from the municipia who voted for his recall: cum denique homines in campum non tabemis, sed municipiis clausis venerunt (90).4 1 5 Earlier in the same speech Cicero had made a similar point about Clodius drawing his support from the tabemae, suggesting that nothing positive could be expected from such a group: cum in tribunali Aurelio conscribebas palam non modo libertos, sed etiam servos, ex omnibus vicis concitatos, vim turn videlicet non parabas? cum edictis tuis tabemas claudi iubebas, non vim imperitae multitudinis, sed hominum honestorum modestiam prudentiamque quaerebas? (“When at the Aurelian tribunal you were enlisting openly not only freedmen, but even slaves, who had been called up from all the vici, you were surely not preparing violence? When by your edicts you ordered the shops to be closed, were you seeking not the force of an unskilled mob but rather the 415 Wiseman in his review of Millar 1998 cites Cicero Dom. 89-90, mentioned above, as implying that "for most of the year the voters who mattered were those from the city tabemae, not those from the municipia" (1999: 539). But in this passage, Cicero directly connects the shops being closed with non-constitutional rather than electoral politics, with slaughter, fire and destruction, with the use of force against magistrates and with the besieging of the senate. By contrast, the closing of the municipia leads to a true populus Romanus which votes constitutionally for Cicero's recall. Thus I would suggest that the contrast here is not so much between the usual voters from the tabemae and the 2 1 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. modesty and prudence of honorable men?” 54).4 1 6 And moreover the tabemarii are portrayed as supporters of sedition, led by Sergius in the famous food riot that took place during the ludi Romani of 57BC: quis est Sergius? armiger Catilinae, stipator tui corporis, signifer seditionis, concitator tabemariorum, damnatus iniuriarum, percussor, lapidator, fori depopulator, obsessor curiae (13). Here the word lapidator recalls the lapidatio, suggesting an anxiety about popular, non-constitutional justice and the extra-constitutional politics occurring in Rome as a result of Clodius’ operae, organized largely through the revived collegia4 1 7 Cicero gives perhaps his most direct opinion of the tabemarii in the pro Flacco. Describing a context which is Greek but which has obvious implications for Rome, Cicero, once more in marked contrast to his portrayal of them in the fourth Catilinarian, associates the tabemarii and the opifices with the “dregs” of the city, which, unlike the poor and the rich, is easily stirred up for seditious action: opifices et tabemarios atque Mam omnem faecem civitatum quid est negotii concitare (18) 4 1 8 A recurrent feature of some of these passages has been the notion of the closing of the shops. Chapot in an entry in Daremberg-Saglio pointed out that most of the time the daily activity taking place in the shops would indicate that the political system was working and indeed shops would take part in festivals supporting the voters from the municipia, but rather between the non-constitutional politics that follows the closure of shops and the constitutional assembly vote that follows the closing of the municipia. 4 1 6 The Aurelian tribunal was located in the Forum and carried popular associations. See Forum chapter. 417 Cf. for instance Lintott 1967 and the previous chapter on the compita. Note how Cicero contrasts the tabemarii with the boni here: His atque eius modi ducibus cum tu in annonae caritate in consules, in senatum, in bona fortunasque locupletium per causam inopum atque imperitorum repentinos impetus comparares, cum tibi salus esse in otio nulla posset, cum desperatis ducibus decuriatos ac descriptos haberes exercitus perditorum, nonne providendum senatui fuit ne in hanc tantam materiem seditionis istafunestafax adhaeresceret? (Dom. 13.) 4 1 8 See the discussion of this passage in the Forum chapter below. 217 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. official order.4 1 9 By contrast, their closure would show that something was wrong. At Appian BC 5.18 we learn that, as a result of the virtual anarchy in the city of Rome in the late 40s with lawless soldiers and severe famine in the city as a result of Sextus Pompeius’ food blockade, the people closed their shops and drove the magistrates from their tribunals, thinking that there was no need for magistracies or crafts in a city th at w as w ith o u t reso u rces and b esieg ed by bandits: o 8 e Aedbs cxttekAeie tcc E p y a o x r i p ia kcc' i tcxs a p x a s e £ a v tc r r r i, c o s o u t e o c p x c o v o u t e t e x v c o v XPoCOVTE5 EV ocTTopouai] Ka'i A paxE uopEvq ttoAei. A s Purcell notes, commenting on this passage: “By the last days of the Republic .. .the tabemarii had become almost synonymous with the urban population. Their closing of the tabemae and boycotting of the tribunals of the Forum in the chaos of the 40s B.C. was a formal protest to the triumvirs, a sign that the city was no longer functioning” (661).4 2 0 The connection between the closing of the shops and popular political activity is made explicit by Asconius.4 2 1 On the last day of the trial of Milo, Asconius reports the closing of the shops {clausae fuemnt tota urbe tabemae, p41 Clark). He tells how, on the day before, the tribune Munatius had told the people at a contio that they should be at the Forum the following day to make their views known to the jury; this led Pompey, fearing trouble, to set up a guard: Dimisso circa horam decimam iudicio T. Munatius pro contione populum adhortatus est ut postero die frequens adesset et elabi Milonem non pateretur, iudiciumque et dolorem suum ostenderet euntibus ad tabellam ferendam. Postero die, qui fuit iudicii summus a.d. vii Idus Aprilis, clausae fuerunt tota urbe tabemae; praesidia in foro 4 1 9 Cf. V. Chapot at Daremberg-Saglio V .ll: “En revanche, elles etaient illuminees et omees de bannieres lors des grandes fetes, par exemple imperiales” (citing Tertullian Apol. 35 and de idol. 15). 4 2 0 Cf. Brunt 1978: 137 on this famine and the spontaneous closing of the shops: “Earlier riots too were probably not so much fomented by agitators as provoked by distress.” 4 2 1 Nicolet 1979:1.204 compares how in Muslim towns the closing of shops is a sign of political and social struggles. 218 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. et circa omnis fore aditus Pompeius disposuit; ipse pro aerario, ut pridie, consedit saeptus delecta manu militum. (Asc. p40- i Clark.) The trial was dismissed around the tenth hour, and then T. Munatius at a contio encouraged the people to be present as a crowd on the following day and not to allow Milo to escape. He said that they should show their own verdict and their grief to those on the jury as they rose to cast their vote. On the next day, which was the last day of the trial* seven days before the Ides of April, the shops were closed in the whole city. Pompey therefore arranged that there would be a guard in the Forum and around all the approaches to it. He himself sat, as on the previous day, in front of the treasury, surrounded by a chosen band of soldiers. This link between popular politics and the closing of the shops is again made by Asconius later in the commentary on the same speech: Idem T. Munatius Plancus, ut saepe diximus, post audita et obsignata testium verba dimissosque interim iudices vocata condone cohortatus erat populum ut clausis tabemis postero die ad iudicium adesset nec pateretur elabi Milonem. ( p52 Clark).4 2 2 The shops could be closed by a magistrate, but doubtless they were also closed spontaneously (see below on Germanicus). The idea of closing down the shops occurs in several of the Ciceronian passages discussed above.4 2 3 It is also referred to in the Academica, where Cicero suggests that it was customary for seditious tribunes to order shops to be closed, presumably to mobilize their supporters: quid me igitur Luculle in invidiam et tamquam in contionem vocas, et quidem ut seditiosi tribuni solent occludi tabemas iubes? quo enim spectat illud cum artificia tolli quereris a nobis nisi ut opifices concitentur? Qui si undique omnes convenerint, facile contra vos incitabuntur. Expromam primum ilia invidiosa, quod eos omnis, qui in contione stabunt, exsules servos insanos ess dicatis. (144) 4 2 2 For the mechanisms behind the closing of shops, Varro de lingua latina 6.90-1 is helpful, a passage in which the finance shops are closed as part of the procedure of calling the people to an Assembly. Varro is citing here from the indictment, which the quaestor M. Sergius brought against Trogus, accusing him of a capital offence. The Loeb Varro argues ad loc. that this indictment must have been after 242BC. Part of the indictment reads: collegam roges ut comitia edicat de rostris et argentarii tabemas occludant (6.91). Here the reference is to the tabemae argentarii in the Forum, not to shops in general but it is a good indication as to how the shops might have been ordered closed. 4 2 3 At Cat. 4.17 and de Domo Sua 54, 89 and 90. 219 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Why, therefore, Lucullus do you call me into disfavour and as it were to a contio, and indeed order the shops be closed, as seditious tribunes are accustomed to do? For what else is the point of your complaining that handicrafts are being removed except so that the artisans might be summoned? If they all came together from all sides, they would easily be incited against you. First I would expound those hateful things, how you say all those who are standing in the contiones are exiles, slaves and mad. As Vanderbroeck comments, this passage “provides us yet another indication that the following of the popular leaders was mainly composed of artisans and shopkeepers” (1987: 91). And the suggestion here that the suppression of trades will provoke the artisans perhaps sugests that economic grievances may have been behind many of the occasions when the shops were ordered shut.4 2 4 It seems clear, then, that the closing of the shops, and the mobilizing of tabemarii and opifices, were actions with strong political overtones and often with real political consequences. Livy reports several examples of the shops being closed down during times of crises in the early Republic, and it is interesting to see how his history, written in the aftermath of the turbulence of the late Republic, presents such closures. In particular we see how in Livy’s account the senators are at times depicted as closing down shops in order to establish order, a very different situation from that which seems to have prevailed in the years preceding the writing of his history; again I would suggest that this tells us much about Roman concerns and anxieties at the time of writing about tabemae and the difficulty of establishing control over them. At 3.5.14 Livy tells how, during a state of emergency when Postumius was attempting to defend the frontier from the Aequians, every precaution was taken in the city: watches were set up, pickets were posted by the gates, the walls were manned and quod necesse erat in 4 2 4 On this passage, cf. Griffin 1997: 9: “ . . .the teasing about the tribunate (Luc 13, cf. 72, 144) shows them sharing good Optimate attitudes.” See the Forum section for further discussion of this 220 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. tanto tumulto, iustitium per aliquot dies servatum— a iustitium being the suspension of legal business and civil jurisdiction.4 2 5 After the campaign, which proved quite damaging was over, normal business resumed in Rome, but now strange portents were seen “or, perhaps, imagined by frightened people” (aut vanas exterritis.. .species). According to Livy, this was taken so seriously that now a three days’ feriae was declared (3.5.14), which would have involved not only the closing of the courts but also the closing of the tabemae and the forbidding of work and an enforcement of religious worship. In this instance it is tempting to see a connection between the panic that was arising as a result of the talk of portents and strange lights and the decision taken by the authorities to suspend private as well as public business. Here, then, we might see the tabemae as a venue for the kind of talk that could be unsettling to the Roman elite. Of course, such talk would continue outside shops, but I would suggest that their popular character may have made shops a peculiarly charged locus of such discussion.4 2 6 Later in Livy, Cincinnatus is recalled to Rome as dictator to deal with more trouble from the Aequians, amid a general context of civil strife at Rome. Livy tells how the plebs was far from welcoming of his new appointment, and Cincinnatus’ first instructions were to declare a iustitium, to close all the shops and to prohibit private business of any kind from being transacted: iustitium edicit, claudi tabemas tota urbe iubet, vetat quemquam privatae quicquam rei agere (3.27). Again, this might perhaps suggest an awareness by the Senate of the potential for dissension provided by the city’s basic form of economic activity. In Book Four, there is a crisis once more, with passage. 4 2 5 For the iustitium cf. Mommsen 1952: 1.263-4. 221 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Manlius Aemilius Mamercus appointed Dictator to ward off the threat of invasion from the combined forces of Veii and Fidenae. Amid panic at Rome, “guards were stationed on the city walls, legal business was suspended, and all shops closed, and the city itself rapidly assumed the appearance of an armed camp” (iustitium inforo tabemaeque clausae, fiuntque omnia castris quam urbi similiora, 4.3). Mamercus then proceeds (4.32) to admonish the people in a speech, rebuking them for their bad morale. In these passages, the iustitium is declared by the authorities, in part, it seems, as a response to popular talk which appeared from their perspective to be dangerous. Certainly, as J.S. Reid says commenting on the passage from Cicero’s Academica discussed above, “the senate regarded the proclamation of a iustitium by magistrates as subject to its own control” (344). However, in Livy we hear also of iustitia or situations equating to iustitia as occurring without the Senate’s approval. At 9.7 we are told that after news reached Rome of the disaster against the Samnites at the Caudine Forks in the late 320s, the people began mourning of its own accord (sua sponte) and shut up the shops. It is significant that Livy stresses here the lack of public authority: extemploque sine ulla publica auctoritate consensum in omnemformam luctus est. Tabemae circa forum clausae iustitiumque inforo sua sponte coeptum prius quam indictum. Whereas in the earlier examples, Livy gives the Senate auctoritas over the tabemae, ordering them to be closed as it wished, here the people themselves close the shops, a situation perhaps mirroring the breakdown in senatorial auctoritas over the shops in the Late Republic. Likewise, at 23.25 we hear that the people have shut their shops following the defeat at Cannae and that the Senate wants them to reopen in order to restore a feeling of normality to the excessively silent city. 426 Note Purcell 1995: 334, connecting the iustitium with public ownership of shops: "That the tabemae were believed to have been a publicly-owned resource from the beginning is an important 222 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The most famous spontaneous iustitium, however, was surely that which Tacitus reports as occurring following the news of Germanicus’ death: hos vulgi sermones audita mors adeo incendit ut ante edictum magistratuum, ante senatus consultum sump to iustitio desererentur fora, clauderentur domus. . . {Annals 2.82). As we saw earlier in the context of circuli, conversations (sermones) of the vulgus were seen as sometimes leading to political action. In the case of Germanicus’ death, the political consequences of the people’s action were obvious and long-lasting, with the shops staying closed and business being suspended until, apparently, after Germanicus’ body had been placed in the Mausoleum and Tiberius requested a return to normality and business resumed (turn exuto iustitio 3.7). It seems that in this case the iustitium lasted nearly four months, which is surely as great an indication of the seriousness of the political crisis as one could imagine.4 2 7 In ending this discussion of the political associations of tabemae, I want to point out how popular leaders escaping for their lives are presented, surprisingly often, as taking refuge in tabemae. This may again reflect an association between tabemae and popular politics. By contrast, when leaders of the aristocracy are in similar situations, they are often presented as fleeing into private houses. I would suggest that this again reflects the division between private and public space that we have seen elsewhere, with tabemae being seen as the part of the public space which belonged to the citizens, a space where a Roman's provocatio should be respected. Indeed, the tabemae in the Forum seem originally to have been strongly associated with the plebs. Festus in his de Verborum Signification stresses that the tabemae novae on the north datum in the history of the f.R. [Forum Romanum] as a plebeian space." 4 2 7 For the chronology of Tacitus’ events, cf. Ando 1997: 300. The iustitium is recorded on the Fasti Ostienses as having begun on December 10, AD 19 (Ehrenberg and Jones 41). When Tiberius 223 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. side of the Forum were called plebeiae, and he precedes his reference with an account of the development of specifically plebeian political institutions: Plebei aediles dicuntur, qui plebeiscito, cum plebs tributim sine patribus suffragium tulit rogante magistratu plebeio, sunt constituti, tribunorumque plebei collegae sunt, qui una cum tribunis primum creati sunt dissidente plebe a patribus. Plebeias tabemas novas vocant nostra aetate, ut dicant V tabemas esse, et septem feruntur olim fuisse. Plebeias appellamus a genere magistratus. Eas enim faciendas curaverunt Iunius Brutus, Q. Oppius Aediles pi. (p258L)4 2 8 They are called plebeian aediles and they were establised by a plebeiscitum, when the plebs in their tribes on the proposal of a plebeian magistrate passed a vote without the patricians. They are the colleagues of the tribunes of the plebs and like the tribunes were first established when the plebs was in strife with the patricians. In our age they call the “new shops”— this is the name of the five shops, although they are said to have once been seven shops— “plebeian.” We call them plebeian after the type of magistrate, for Iunius Brutus and Q. Oppius, who were aediles of the plebs, arranged for them to be constructed. Moreover, Pliny NH 35.113 tells how the galleries of the tabemae veteres designed by the painter Serapion were a famous example of a popular style. In the Second Philippic, Cicero tells how in the past Antony had attacked Clodius in the Forum (probably in 53 at the time when Antony was a candidate for quaestor); we learn that Clodius had saved himself by throwing himself into a bookshop and barricading himself against Antony’s attack: cum tu ilium inforo inspectante populo Romano gladio insecutus es negotiumque transegisses, nisi se ille in scalas tabemae librariae coniecisset eisque oppilatis impetum tuum compressisset? {Phil. 2.21).4 2 9 This a story that Cicero had told earlier at his defence of Milo {Mil. 40), stressing again how requested a return to normality, the Megalesian games were nearly at hand (Ann 3.6); these games took place on April 4th . 428 Noting Festus’ description of the shops as plebeias, Coarelli 1983-5:11.149 writes: “quest’ area infatti, come abbiamo visto in precedenza, e strettamente legata alle attivita dei magistrati plebei, e in particolare dei tribuni della plebe, che vi avevano la loro sede.” See Purcell 1995: 325 on the tradition of state-ownership of the space of the Forum; he notes that, according to tradition, tabemae were let by the state from the regal period (Vitr. 5.1.1; cf. Digest 18.1.32). 2 2 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Clodius hid under the stairs, in a manner like that of the runaway slaves described by Horace (Ep. 2.2.15). Clodius, in his final unsuccessful flight for his life, took refuge and hid (latens extractus est) from Milo's men in a tabema at Bovillae (Asconius p32 Clark). That Clodius may have found people within the tabema willing to help him physically is perhaps suggested by Asconius' later reference to Milo's men having to take the tabema by storm:.. .M. Saufeius M.f. qui dux juerat in expugnanda tabema Bovillis et Clodio occidendo (Asc. p55 Clark). Appian seems, in his history, to have been particularly sensitive to this association between popular figures and tabemae, or at any rate to have followed sources that were. The word he uses for tabema is TravSoxeTov, as for instance when Clodius is taken to the u c c v 8 o x e ! o v at Bovilla by his groom after being stabbed (BC 2.21). Again at BC 1.28, Appian tells how Satuminus and Glaucia pursued Nonius, a man of noble birth who had been elected a tribune into a TravBoxeTov and stabbed him there. As Appian suggests, Satuminus was at this point in his career the enemy of the urban mob (who resented his agrarian legislation favoring the rural plebs and the Marians) and so it may be significant that the tribune Nonius flees from him into a shop. Nonius may have hoped for support, but it seems equally likely that he was making a symbolic statement, entering a place associated with the plebs in order to make it apparent, by calling very literally ad populum, that the people's right of provocatio was being destroyed. We also hear in Appian how the praetor Asellio, who in the financial crisis of 89BC sided with the debtors over the creditors by reviving an old usury law, enraged the lenders to such an extent that they determined on killing him; as a result this popularis figure took refuge in a tabema (TravSox^ov) where he 4 2 9 Cicero may be deluding himself in his statement in this passage that Clodius was pursued approbante populo. 225 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. was murdered (BC 1.54). His death in a shop (tabemula) is also noted in the account of Valerius Maximus (9.7.4).4 3 0 We have already seen the interest that the tabemarii had in economic and monetary issues, in particular their desire for debt relief, and so in this case Asellio may well have expected to be met by supporters. Appian also reports how an earlier great popularis, Fulvius Flaccus, the colleague of Gaius Gracchus in 122-1, in his flight from the Senators after they had issued the senatus consultant ultimum, hid in a workshop (epyacrrfjpiov) of someone he knew; Flaccus, however, was handed over with no straggle (BC 1.26).4 3 1 Finally, it is noticeable that even in the Digest, one of the hypothetical cases involves someone on the ran, perhaps from a magistrate (magistratum forte), who flees into a shop (9.1.2.1). This pattern of behavior is, then, significant in that it shows the associations of popular politics and tabemae. But it would be unwise to push this evidence too far, and indeed Asconius tells how a slave of Milo, that bulwark of the optimate cause, took refuge in a tabema (Asc. p37 Clark). Yet even in this case, it is surely true that we might expect Milo's slave to get a better reception than Milo himself. By contrast, we see members of the boni in similar perilous situations take refuge in the private space of someone's house. For instance when Cicero himself is escaping from an attack on the Via Sacra he flees not into a shop but into the vestibulum of a friend of his (Cic. Att 4.3). And from a slightly earlier period, Sallust tells how the consuls of 75, along with Q. Metellus, fled, during a tumultus, into the nearby domus of Octavius (Hist. 2.45M). Appian BC 2.126 notes how, in the 4 3 0 Cf. App. BC 1.54, Livy per. 74 and Val. Max. 9.7.4. See on this affair Yavetz 1970: 135. Valerius Maximus’ text is: creditorum quoque constematio adversum Sempronii Asellionispraetoris urbani caput intolerabili modo exarsit. Quern, quia causam debitorum susceperat, concitato a L. Cassio tribune plebis pro aede Concordiae sacrificium facientem ab ipsis altaribus fugere extra forum coactum inque tabemula latitantem praetextatum discerpserunt. (9.1 A.) 4 3 1 Vanderbroeck 1987: 71-2 cites this and other evidence suggesting that “Gracchus and Fulvius 226 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. aftermath of Julius Caesar's assassination, those of the people who had not been bribed by the conspirators, along with Caesar's veterans, became indignant because the praetor Cinna, Caesar's relative, had been the first to slander him publicly. Enraged, they threw stones at him and Cinna fled into a certain house (oiidav Tiva), which the people proceeded to set alight until Lepidus intervened and put a stop to their action.4 3 2 Another incident described in Appian reveals this dichotomy between private and public, houses and tabemae. Appian tells how M. Antonius, fleeing from Marius, ran away to the country, where he was hidden in a private house by a farmer. However, the farmer sent some slaves to a ttc c v B o x e T o v to get better wine for his noble hideaway. The innkeeper asked why their master wanted better quality wine and the slaves told him, whereupon the innkeeper is said to have run to tell Marius, with the result that Antonius' head was sent to the people's hero at Rome (BC 1.72).4 3 3 Finally, the popular associations of the shops may have made them a potent place for carrying out political action. For instance, Livy 3.48 tells how Verginius killed his daughter near the shops by the shrine of Cloacina, a detail remembered by Pomponius in the Digest (Dig. 1.2.2.24). This location was clearly suited to get attention for such an act, and at 3.49 Livy tells how a crowd quickly assembled. In this case, the tabemae would have been both symbolically important as a well-established popular space and the most convenient place to quickly gather together a sympathetic crowd. Also it may be worth pointing out that on three occasions in Livy (27.11; 30.38; 36.37), prodigies are said to have occurred in the location of the shops, again Flaccus had a following among the tabemarii and opifices." 4 3 2 See Laurence 1994: 88-89 for examples of aristocrats fleeing or being besieged in their own houses: e.g. Cic. Vat. 22 (Bibulus); Mil. 18 (Pompey); and Cic. Cat. 28 (Cicero). 4 3 3 Millar 1998: 31, 44, 140-1, 157 and 182 on houses in the Late Republic serving as a limitation on the power of the crowd. 227 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. suggesting that this was a typical location where a stir could be created among the inhabitants of Rome.4 3 4 3. Tabernae and Sociability The general culture that was produced by activity in the Roman tabemae was similar to that of the related compita, and like activity at the crossroads, activity around the shops and the workplaces seems to have been a cause of unease for the Roman elite. Indeed tabemae are presented by Martial alongside other places typically associated with sociability such as banquets, the Forum and the cross-roads: O quae gloria! Quam frequens amator! Te convivia, te forum sonabit, Aedes, compita, porticus, tabemae. Uni mitteris, omnibus legeris (7.97 lines 10-13)4 3 5 O how great a name is being prepared for you! O what glory! How many lovers you will have! Banquets and the Forum will make you resound, and the temples, the compita, the porticos and the shops. You will be sent to one, but you will be read by all. And Purcell suggests that Livy’s description of Tusculum offers a portrait of an Italian town which could be applied to Rome, a description which emphasizes daily activities in which opifices and tabemae are prominent. According to Livy, when Camillus entered Tusculum: . . . ingressus urbem ubi patentes ianuas et tabemis apertis proposita omnia in medio vidit intentosque opifices suo quemque operi et ludos litterarum strepere discentium vocibus ac repletas semitas inter volgus aliud puerorum et mulierum hue atque illuc euntium qua quemque suorum usuum causae ferrent. . . (6.25.9).4 3 6 4 3 4 See Feldherr 1998: 204 for spatial oppositions between the Forum and the domus in Livy’s narrative of the Lucretia and Verginia stories. 4 3 5 It is unclear whether the setting of this poem is Rome or the Umbrian town where the addressee comes from, but this does not affect the general point. 4 3 6 For a description of a bustling imperial city, cf. Dio Chrysostom Orat. 20.9f. 228 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Camillus entered the city and saw the doors lying open and everything from the open shops displayed in the open. He saw artisans all busy on their own labor and schools resounding with the voices of people learning their letters and streets full with boys and women, among the rest of the crowd, going here and there, wherever their individual tasks took each of them. In this section, I examine some of the consequences of this sociability and at the reaction that it caused. A suggestive parallel to Roman tabemae is brought out in Melanie Tebbutt’s book on gossip in English working-class neighborhoods, a discussion which, among other topics, looks at the comer-shop and its role in class formation, gossip and general sociability, especially among women. This culture of the comer-shop was largely lost as in post-war Britain new housing estates replaced old working-class streets and the solidarity brought about by narrow terraced houses was weakened by the increased privacy and isolation of the new council houses and the estates with their less personal shops.4 3 7 It seems that one might think of tabemae in Rome along similar lines. Certainly, barber-shop gossip was a well-known phenomenon in Rome. Horace Satires 1.7 begins by telling how the tale of Rupilius Rex and Persius is known to the all the bleary-eyed (probably referring to apothecaries) and to barbers ( .. .opinor/omnibus et lippis notum et tonsoribus esse); and Polybius compares the accounts of the historians Chaireas and Sosylus to “barber-shop gossip” (3.20.5) 4 3 8 And equally, as we will see, we find at Rome rebuilding projects and legislation which seem to have been designed to weaken this sociability. One of the reasons why tabemae dominated much of the life of Rome was that they tended to spill out onto the streets and so much of the activity associated with them 4 3 7 Tebbutt 1995. Also McKibbin 1998: 190. 229 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. would have taken place outdoors, as we see from Livy’s description of Tusculum. Indeed it is significant that measures were taken to try to prevent this outdoor activity and to keep the activity indoors. Domitian, for instance, enforced laws that kept shopkeepers in their shops, as Martial 7.61 tells us in a poem that can be quoted in its entirety: Abstulerat totam temerarius institor urbem inque suo nullum limine limen erat. iussisti tenuis, Germaniee, crescere vicos, et modo quae fuerat semita, facta via est. nulla catenatis pila est praecincta lagonis nec praetor medio cogitur ire luto, stringitur in densanec caeca novacula turba, occupat aut totas nigra popina vias. tonsor copo cocus lanius sua limina servant, nunc Roma est, nuper magna tabema fuit. (Martial 7.61) The rash peddler had stolen the whole city and there was no threshold in its own space. You have ordered, Germanicus, the narrow vici to grow, and now, what had been a track has become a street, No pillar is girded with chained wine vessels nor is the praetor compelled to walk in the middle of mud, nor is a secret razor drawn in a dense crowd, nor does the dark popina occupy the whole street. Barber, innkeeper, cook and butcher keep to their own thresholds. Now there is Rome again— recently it was a giant shop. Moreover, Justinian in the Digest (43.10.1) records a law of Papinianus, who died in 212AD, requiring merchants to keep clear the streets in front of their shops.4 3 9 It is perhaps interesting in this context that, as Morel points out, one of the etymologies of macellum, the markets that came more and more to take over the functions of tabemae, 4 3 8 Cf. Kapferer 1990: 49 for reasons why places such as communal washing places, markets, hairdressers and cafeterias are the hub of rumor and gossip. Also cf. the idiosyncratic account of Firebaugh 1972: 241. 4 3 9 Cf. Stambaugh 1988: 356 n. 35. Also Yavetz 1970: 144: “le coiffeur et le cabaretier, le cuisinier et le boucher furent obliges, desormais de servir leur clientele a l’interieur de leurs joyeuses boutiques et de ne pas gener la circulation dans la rue.” 230 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. relates to an enclosed space (136).4 4 0 As we will see, one response to the problem caused by the shops was an attempt to make the space of economic life at Rome more restricted and controlled. The economic structure of the city of Rome would, it seems, have reinforced a culture of sociability and even solidarity among local tabemarii. It is often pointed out that Roman shops tended to coexist in a spirit of cooperation rather than competition, with various types of crafts and shops congregating near each other and with certain parts of the city taking their name from the trades predominant in them.4 4 1 This cooperative spirit is best seen in the various collegia, associations of traders which would have often had a regional nature.4 4 2 It is clear from the various measures taken against collegia (discussed in the previous chapter) that they were seen as a threat to authority. As Stambaugh says: “such associations had their own interests distinct from those of the larger society, and although they were not necessarily hostile to the larger society, they often aroused suspicion among the defenders of the established order” (1988: 211).4 4 3 We saw in the previous chapter Trajan’s concern that a collegium fabrorum in Bithynia might turn into a political association. Commenting on Pliny and Trajan's exchange over this proposed collegium, Hermansen writes: “When the emperor can deny the citizens of Nicomedia a fire brigade for political reasons, he can for the same reasons deny Roman citizens the benefit of hot meals or 4 4 0 For the MAcellum see de Ruyt 1985. 4 4 1 Cf. Brunt 1974: 88-9 commenting on how, as in medieval towns, men of one craft congregated so that there was, for instance, a pottery district and streets named after silversmiths, grain merchants, sandal-makers, timber merchants, log-sellers etc. Also MacMullenl974: 127-8 for a list of vici named after trades. See also 132-5. 4 4 2 See MacMullen 1974: 71-87 on this culture. Cf. 72-3: “ . . .a great deal suggests that a friendly, gossipy atmosphere prevailed among people who saw each other every day, worked at the same job in the same neighborhood, and shared all the same ups and downs. Trade associations were the result.” 4 4 3 Cf. Cicero’s clearly misleading view of the collegia which supported Clodius as being a rabble of slaves (Sest. 34). See above. 231 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. meat in their inns” (1974: 170-1).4 4 4 Hermansen here is refering to imperial legislation which served to make popinae in particular less attractive places in which to socialize. For instance, Suetonius tells how Tiberius prohibited the sale of baked goods in popinae {Tib. 34); and Dio (60.6.6-7) tells how taverns where collegia met were closed by Claudius and the sale of meat and hot water was prohibited.4 4 5 The association of collegia and taverns here shows once more how the worlds of the collegia, tabemae, compita and vici tended to intersect as part a broad popular culture of sociability which could cause unease.4 4 6 4 4 4 As Stambaugh 1988: 209 says of such places: “The talk could take a political turn, and inns and taverns were often regarded as breeding grounds of political unrest.” 4 4 5 Cf. Suet. Nero 16 and Dio 62.14.2 for further bans on food; also Vespasian took further measures (Dio 60.10.3). Hermansen 1974 argues that archaeological evidence supports the efficacy of such laws. He compares inns at Herculaneum and Pompeii with those 50 years or so later at Ostia and shows that there are at Ostia no longer counters with food jars built in, presumably because legislation had forced such customers out. The role of the popinae, drinking and eating places, in this culture of sociability would have been crucial. They may well have served to function as a public counterpart to elite convivia. Cf. Davidson 1997 on bars possibly being banned in late fifth century BC Thasos; he sees bars as a democratic force, in contradistinction to symposia, and therefore feared by the oligarchs on Thasos. Popinae in Rome would merit further discussion, although most of the evidence is imperial and the general focus here is the Late Republic. MacMullen 1974: 86 points out that there would have been one “cafe” per 50 adult males in Pompeii, many of which were shut down for reasons such as noise and vice (some seem to have functioned as brothels). General insults against inns are, of course, easy to find, especially in Martial: cf. Mart. 3.57 for the cunning innkeeper; Mart. 3.59 for a taverner who is, along with cobblers and bleachers, seen as an upstart; Mart 5.70 for gorging in taverns on stalls: Syriscus has eaten up a fortune gorging in sellariolis vagus popinis, and he didn't even recline at the table; Mart. 5.84 for a boozy gambler (aleator), snatched from the secluded cookshop {arcana e popina)', also Mart. 1.41. See also Cicero’s attacks on Antony’s drinking at Phil. 3.21: vino atque epulis retentus, si illae epulae potius quam popinae nominandae su n t.. .; also Phil. 13.24: in lustris, popinis, alea, vino tempus aetatis omne consumsisses .... One of C. Gracchus’ claims on his return from Sardinia was that there were no taverns and no beautiful boys waiting on him during his quaestorship (ORF3 26-28 = Gellius NA 15.12). By contrast, cf. the accounts of Nero slumming it in the city of Rome, frequenting taverns (Tac. Ann. 13.25 and Suet. Ner. 26.1). See circulus chapter for Seneca de Prov. 1.5.4 associating the popina with the circulus and the Campus as a place where the people are idle while the Senate labors the whole day long (cf. Columella DRR 1.8.2). Also Seneca de vita beata 7.7.3: voluptas humile, servile, imbecillum, caducum, cuius statio ac domicilium fom ices et popinae sunt (by contrast, virtus is found in, among other locations, the curia). See Hor. Sat. 1.4 for a perfidus . . .caupo; also Hor. Sat. 1.5.3ff: inde Forum Appi, / Differtum nautis, cauponibus atque malignis; cf. Hor. Ep. 1.14.21ff for brothels, popinae, and tabernae; also Ep. 1.17 where the caupona is one of the unpleasantries of the city (6ff); cf. Vergil’s Copa and Catullus’ salax 232 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Anthony Giddens has commented on how “the insulation of the economic from the political. . . [is] one of the major mechanisms of class domination”; consequently, a society in which the economic and political are intertwined is likely to be a cause of tension for the ruling class.4 4 7 It seems that the ancients were themselves aware of this. For instance, Aristotle at Politics 133 la-b, in his description of an ideal city, tells how ideally there should be a so-called “free” agora, as in Thessaly, which is devoid of merchandise and where artisans, farmers and others only enter when summoned by a magistrate 4 4 8 He wants the gymnasium of the older men to be situated in this space and for magistrates to be present before people’s eyes, in order to engender respect. The Forum for merchadise should be elsewhere, somewhere convenient for trading: TTpenei 8’ u t t o pev t o u t o v t o v t o t t o v Totaurqs ay o p a$ eTvai K CX TaaKEuqv oi'av k c u Trep't ©ETTOtXiav voqtfpuaiv qv eXeu0epav KaXouaiv, airrq 8’ e o t i v qv 8eT Ka0apdv slvai t c o v c o v ic o v irduTcov kcc'i pf|TE (Bdvauaov pf|TE yecopyov pf|T’ dXXou pqSeva t o i o u t o v 7rapa(3dAAEiv pq KaXoupEvov u t t o t c o v apydvTcov . . . q y a p e v ocpSaXpoTs t c o v apyovTcov irapouala pdXiaTa e p tto ie T Tqv dXqBivqv ai8cb Ka'i t o v t c o v e A e u S e p c o v q>6(3ov. Tqv 8 e t c o v covicov dyopdv ETEpav t e 8eT T a u r q s eT voi Ka'i xcopis • • • (Politics 133la-b) It is appropriate that beneath this site there should be the construction of an agora of the kind that is customary in Thessaly, which they call a “free agora.” This is an agora which it is necessary to keep pure, free of all shops and it is necessary that neither artisans nor farmers nor anyone of that sort enter it, unless under the summons of the magistrates . . . For the presense of the magistrates before men’s eyes brings about true reverence and awe among the free men. It is necessary that the other agora— the agora for shops— should be separate from this one. tabema (on which see Wiseman 1985a: 26); also Juv. 8.172-6; Suet. Nero 27; Gellius 9.2.6; and from the later Empire Ammianus 28.4.30 where the plebs is described as spending all day in wine. There is a lot of good comparative material on this topic, especially on pubs on the East Coast during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries and also on Parisian drinking places during the Revolution. E.g. Brennan 1988, Conroy 1995, and Thompson 1999. 4 4 7 Cf. Giddens 1983: 20. 4 4 8 Cf. Morel 1987: 135. See 133-137 on tabemae. 2 3 3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. This Greek ideal was a far cry from the original Roman Forum, where the tabemae were close by the major political spaces of the city. But it seems plausible to see various later building projects in the Forum as in part attempts to come closer to this ideal of dissociating the primary economic and political areas of Rome. Shops dominated the old Forum, with booths facing opposite each other and with a space in the middle which would have been the scene of much social and political activity— like Verginius’ killing of his daughter. The tabemae veteres on the south side were originally provisions sellers4 4 9 ; while the tabemae novae on the north side were mainly fruiterers and butchers (as in the Verginius episode). Major changes occurred in the second half of the fourth century, changes connected by Coarelli (1983-5:11.142) with the social and economic upheaval that arose due to the leges Liciniae-Sestiae. Varro (ap. Nonius Marcellus p853L) tells how the tabemae lanienae (the new shops, including the butchers) became around this time the tabemae argentariae (hoc intervallo primum forensis dignitas crevit atque ex tabemis lanienis argentariae factae).4 5 0 Thus as the "dignity of the Forum" increased, ordinary tradesmen disappeared (cf. Lanciani 1967: 233), and shortly afterwards, during the Triumph of L. Papirius, the dictator of 308, gilt shields of the Samnites were distributed among the owners of the argentariae to decorate their shop fronts. Coarelli (1983-5: n. 143-5) attributes the creation of the tabemae argentariae to Maenius, who was consul in 338 and who was responsible for the Maeniana, projecting balconies on the top of the shops for spectators to witness entertainments in the Forum. The evidence for this 4 4 9 Cf. Coarelli 1983-5:1 .52 n. 49 on the tabernae veteres, built, according to tradition, by Tarquinius Priscus. 450 Cf. Coarelli 1983-5: II .142 for the date. Livy 9.40.16 suggests that the argentarii were in these tabernae by 310. Thommen 1995: 362 on the expulsion of food merchants from the Forum before 320: a “place de marche” became “un centre economique et politique.” 234 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. period is so unreliable that it is very dangerous to draw any conclusions concerning these spatial reforms and this move to transform the Forum into primarily an official place for public business. Nevertheless, it is perhaps suggestive that this was a period, according to our sources, of great plebeian agitation in which the Forum would doubtless have been the arena for many popular demonstrations of feeling and so it is tempting to see the changes as an attempt by the Senate to regain control of Rome’s most important space.4 5 1 But perhaps the most dramatic changes in the Forum occurred in the early second century with the building of the great basilicae which came to dominate the Forum. Such basilicae, it is true, offered new locations for tabemae. Indeed, Purcell comments on these changes: “At that period the state, mainly through the censors involved itself in the provision of premises for such activities: a novel mood, which did not last into the age of anxiety about plebeian activities, but was resumed in the Principate” (1994: 661 n. 61). However, for the very period that Purcell is referring to, when the new shops were publicly provided by the state (cf. Livy 39.7 and 44.16), there is plenty of evidence for considerable anxiety over plebeian activities: for instance, in 4 5 1 Tradition records the following results of plebeian agitation in this period: 366 first plebeian consul; 356 first plebeian dictator; 351 first plebeian censor; 342 a law that one consul each year must be plebeian and that both could be; 339 legislation of Publilius Philo that one censor must be plebeian and that plebiscita should be binding on the whole people if ratified by the comitia centuriata, 337 the praetorship was made open to plebeians; 326 lex Poetilia abolishing self-imposed debt slavery; 300 lex Valeria de provocatione and the lex Ogulnia opening the colleges of Pontifices and Augures to plebeians; and 287 the final secessio and the lex Hortensia enacting that plebiscita should be binding on all people without any further ratification. For the contested nature of the space of the Forum, cf. how, shortly before this period, the Temple of Concordia, commemorating the pact between the plebs and patricians in 367, was erected overlooking and dominating the Forum. In 121 BC after the victory over the Gracchi, the consul L Opimius enlarged the temple of Concordia, adding at its side a new basilica (cf. Stambaugh 1988: 113). Wiseman in his narrative of events of the late Republic (1994: 406-7) describes how Caesar in the late 50s may have been planning a theater against the slope of the Capitol overlooking the Forum, which would have involved the destruction of the Career, site of the executions of the Catilinarians, of Opimius' Temple of Concordia (which had beceome a monument to the murder of C. Gracchus), and possibly of the Basilica Porcia. 235 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 186 there was the suppression of Bacchanalian Conspiracy.4 5 2 Given this tense political climate, it seems significant that the public provision of shops that Purcell talks about involved the incorporation of the old tabemae into new basilicae, set up by and named after aristocrats. Thus in 184, Cato as censor bought up four shops for the state and erected in their place the Basilica Porcia (Livy 39.44),4 5 3 at the same time building two atria, or markets, the Maenium and the Titium. And when Livy describes the building in 169 of the Basilica Sempronia by Gracchus as censor, it is noticeable that he makes it clear how many shops this replaced: .. .77. Sempronius ex ea pecunia, quae ipsi attributa erat, aedes P. Africani pone Veteres ad Vortumni signum lanienasque et tabemas coniunctas in publicum emit basilicamque faciendum curavit, quae postea Sempronia appellata est (44.16.10-11). An interesting story in Pliny (NH 19.23-4) tells how Cato, around this time, expressed the wish that the Forum should be paved with sharp stones to discourage loiterers45 4 ; certainly, it seems that everyday activity in the Forum was on people’s minds in this period. As Dupont comments on these architectural developments which began to transform the Forum from the second century BC: 4 5 2 Many other instances of “conspiracy” in this period are found in our sources. In the year following the Bacchanalian conspiracy, we hear of a magnus motus servilis in Apulia which took the form of banditry; the praetor Lucius Postumius, in Tarentum, investigated de pastorum coniuratione and condemned 7000 men (Livy 39.29.8); cf. the poisonings in municipia conciliabulaque in 184, for which 2000 were condemned (39.41.5-6). It is to be noted that the Senate had authority to deal with instances of n p o S o o ia, auvcopoaia, 9 appaKEia and 5oXoq>ov(a in Italy (Polybius 6.13). While many of the instances of conspiracy etc are from Italy (and of course the Bacchanalian inscription is also addressed to the foederati: quei foederatei essent, ita exdeicendum censuere, ILS 18), Livy’s narrative of the Bacchanalian affair makes it clear that the Senate was also worried about what was going on in the city of Rome. Also suggestive of trouble is the expulsion in 187 of 12000 Latin emigrants from Rome (Livy 39.3), followed in 177 by further restrictions on Latin immigration rights (Livy 41.8). Such actions may have been prompted partly by a desire to reduce the population of the city and a desire to keep the rewards of the nascent empire among citizens, though Livy tells us that these expulsions were also an attempt to ensure that Latin communities were able to meet their levy requirements more easily. 4 5 3 Cf. Stambaugh 1988: 344 n. 11 and 111. 2 3 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Cette petrification des trajets solennels ou des lieux de rassemblement populaire n'est pas innocente. Elie tend a transformer les rituels en institutions, a fixer les espaces dans une seule fonction, a separer clairement l'Etat et la societe. Ce que realisera l’Empire. Les rues de Rome ne seront plus alors que des lieux de promenade et non plus le lieu d'exercise des rituels politiques. (1989: 209-210) There were now fewer opportunities for public displays of grief, provocatio and other acts of "violence symbolique" (207). And one might add that there were perhaps also fewer opportunities for everyday sociability and interaction. It is tempting, then, to see the incorporation of the shops into the aristocratically funded and named basilicae as part of this process.4 5 5 4. Representation: Literature and Drama Despite the fact that tabemae were, as we have seen, very much bound up in the financial thinking of many wealthy Romans and were in fact probably mostly run by a middling stratum of the plebs, they are represented in our sources as being associated not just with non-elites, but even with the pauperes. In the Sestius Ode, Horace tells his friend that pale Death strikes with equal foot the shops of the poor and the towers of Kings: pallida Mors aequo pulsat pede paupemm tabemas / regumque turris (1.4.13-4). The expression here is striking, and suggests the plebeian connotations of tabemae. Indeed Porphyry’s comment on the passage is: per tabemas vulgares 4 5 4 See the Forum chapter. 4 5 5 As Morel points out, this attempt to continually circumscribe the spatial sphere of trade continued into the Principate: “Et lorsque les empereurs interviendront dans le meme sens, il faudra y voir moins un “imperial interest in trade ...” [Morel is quoting Tenney Frank here.] qu’une volonte de cantonner, autant que faire se peut, les activites de la production et du commerce dans les lieux bien definis. Semblablement se poursuivra au long des siecles un autre effort, commence tres tot a Rome, pour specialiser de plus en plus les lieux de travail, de stockage ou de vente, depuis les anciens fora consacres a une categorie de commerce unique, mais relativement vaste, jusqu’aux Horrea Piperatoria, Chartaria ou Candelaria de l’empire” (1987: 136). 237 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. domos significat, per turres altiores. In other words, tabemae is seen as being a marker for the typical home of a member of the vulgus.4 5 6 In the discussion of circuli we saw that an essential element in the attempt by the Roman upper classes to differentiate their culture from the general culture was the persistent stress on correct language. As Bloomer says of Cicero's philosophical output: "Cicero's dialogues stressed a new readerly Romanness not on the basis of birth or military distinction but on the authority of proper Roman speech and culture" (1997: 55).4 5 7 It is interesting in this context to note that tabemae are associated with low speech. As was the case with circuli, we see an elite that has developed a highly literate and self-consciously erudite culture distancing itself from the rest of the population by attacking its speech as inferior. For instance, in the Satyricon, a text of course that is very alive to gradations of wealth and culture, Petronius has a character tell how Socrates had never entered a tabema, contrasting the talk of tabemae and its large crowds with “wisdom”: Socrates, deorum hominumque [iudicio sapientissimus], gloriari solebat, quod numquam neque in tabemam conspexerat nec ullius turbae frequentioris concilio oculos suos crediderat. Adeo nihil est commodius 4 5 6 See Pirson 1997: 168 on this use of pauperum tabemas. Pirson feels that tabemae is generally used of humble dwellings and "more precisely" of workshops, shops and taverns. He cites Ulpian Dig. 50.16.183 for tabema used of a place for living: tabemae appellatio declarat omne utile ad habitandum aedificium. Pirson points out that in Pompeii cooking-facilities, latrines and niches for beds are sometimes found in rooms identified as tabemae, along with household shrines. But even if people lived in the tabema, I would suggest that it was primarily seen, at least in the late Republic, as a retail space and that therefore it is significant that this term is used of the pauperes in Horace. (However, Pirson suggests at 170-1 that there were purely "residential tabemae" at the Insula Arriana Polliana, without the wide openings onto the street which would be necessary for trading.) The advertisement that Pirson discusses (CIL 4.138) distinguishes tabemae from other living spaces such as pergula (mezzanine floors) and cenacula, here an upstairs apartment: Insula Arriana / Polliana Cn Allei Nigidi Mai / locantur ex kalendis Iulis primis tabemae / cum pergulis suis et cenacula / equestria et domus conductor / conventio Primum Cn Allei /Nigridi Mai servum. Likewise CIL 4.1136, also discussed by Pirson. Pirson 168-9 cites Petronius Sat. 38 and 74 as illustrating the lower-class associations of the pergula and the cenacula. 4 5 7 See also Palmer 1988: 123-4. 238 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. quam semper cum sapientia loqui (“Socrates, who was wisest in the judgment of gods and men, used to boast that he had never looked in a tabema nor entrusted his eyes to a gathering of a bigger crowd. So nothing is more desirable than always to converse with wisdom”; Sat. 140) We have already seen how circuli and compita were both associated with a kind of vulgarizing literature, and were avoided by writers who aimed at a higher class of reader. A similar association is made with literature and tabemae, although in this case the situation is perhaps more complex because of the existence of shops which specialized precisely in selling books.4 5 8 At Satire 1.4 Horace explicitly disassociates his book from the kind of poetry read (or perhaps here sold) at tabemae'. Nulla tabema meos habeat neque pila libellos, quis manus insudet volgi Hermogenisque Tigelli, nec recito cuiquam nisi amicis idque coactus, non ubivis coramve quibus libet. In medio qui scripta foro recitent sunt multi quique lavantes: suave locus voci resonat conclusus. Inanis hoc iuvat, haud illud quaerentis, num sine sensu, tempore num faciant alieno. (1.4.71ff). Let no shop or pillar have my little books, on which the hands of the crowd or of Hermogenes Tigellius would sweat. I do not recite to anyone except to friends, and then only if compelled. Nor do I recite anywhere, in the presence of anyone. There are many who recite their works in the middle of the Forum, or in the baths. That enclosed place resounds with their voice! But this pleases the light-weight, not those who ask whether what they do is without sense or out of season. 4 5 8 However, Pliny Pref. 6, the dedication to Vespasian, shows that the vulgar readership a published book might expect included opifices, whose associations with tabemarii we have observed on several occasions in this chapter: neque enim similis est condicio publicantium et nominatim tibi dicantium. turn possem dicere: 'Quid ista legis, Imperator? humili vulgo scripta sunt, agricolarum, opificum turbae, denique studiorum otiosis. And note Martial 2.17, which indicates that the Argiletum, which was the main center of the book trade, was also filled with cobbler and barber shops— indicating that the bookshop played a part in the more general world of tabemae. 239 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Here Horace scorns poetry read aloud in the Forum or at baths and only recites for amici.4 5 9 We might compare how the Ars Poetica is likewise written for Horace’s friends (line 5).4 6 0 The Satires serve, in one sense, as a bonding activity between Horace and the others in his social group, and, more specifically, the group centered round Maecenas. Certainly this is the implied performative context suggested by the text; for instance, Satire 2.2 is specifically addressed to the boni. Shops in Sat. 1.4 are associated with the vulgus and with Hermogenes Tigellius, whose sweaty hands Horace here wants to keep his poetry away from.4 6 1 This Tigellius is a figure who features prominently in the first book of Satires. In the final satire of the first book, for example, Horace takes the side of the Augustan poets, distancing himself from what he considers the popular scribbling of men like Tigellius. Tigellius is accused at lines 17ff, together with an unnamed “ape,” of not knowing the writers of old comedy, in contrast with whose virility he is described as pulcher. And towards the end of the poem, he and similar poets are contrasted unfavorably with Vergil and the group centered round Maecenas: Men moveat cimex Pantilius, aut cruciet quod vellicet absentem Demetrius, aut quod ineptus Fannius Hermogenis laedat conviva Tigelli? Plotius et Varius, Maecenas Vergiliusque, Valgius et probet haec Octavius optimus atque Fuscus et haec utinam Viscorum laudet uterque! (1.10.78-83) Am I to allow that bed-bug Pantilius to bother me, or will what Demetrius says about me behind my back torment me, or whatever 4 5 9 See Wiseman 1987: 254-6 on this passage and for reading aloud to popular audiences. See also Wiseman 1987. 4 6 0 Cf. the interesting comments of Oliensis 1991: 109 on the opening of the Ars Poetica: " The solidarity of Horace's amici, a product of their joint participation in an escapade which is at once aesthetic and erotic {admittere bears a sexual sense), is confirmed by the shared guffaw with which they prove their sameness against Sylla's difference. The laugh is irrepressible .. .The laugh banishes Sylla from the community, which in fact forms itself through this gesture of exclusion." 4 6 1 Cf. Porphyrio here: negat se libellos suos edere bibliopolis, qui vel tabernis habeant vel armaria apud pilas, [s]ubi in sordidam turbam, qualem vult intellegi Tigellium Hermogenen incidant.... 240 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Fannius, the fellow banqueter of Hermogenes Tigellius harms me with!. Let Plotius and Varius, Maecenas and Virgil, and Valgius approve of these verses, and Octavius best of men and Fuscus. And may the two Visci both give their praise! And the poem and the book ends with Horace telling Tigellius and Demetrius to wait among their students and so to keep his distance from him: Demetri, teque Tigelli, / discipularum inter iubeo plorare cathedras (90-1). In the same poem, Horace shows his scom for those who write prolifically: amet scripsisse ducentos / ante cibum versus, totidem cenatus (60-1)4 6 2 ; and he also makes it clear that he thinks a poet should aim for a few readers, showing scom for the popular readership: saepe stilum vertas, itemm quae digna legi sint scripturus, neque te ut miretur turba labores, contentus paucis lectoribus. An tua demens vilibus in ludis dictari carmina malis? Non ego; nam satis est equitem mihi plaudere . . . (72-76). Often you must turn your pen to erase, if you are to write something worthy of being read. Don’t toil so that the crowd wonders at you, but be content with a few readers. Or do you madly prefer your poems to be dictated in cheap schools? Not I! For it is enough that the knights applaud me . . . Hermogenes Tigellius,4 6 3 then, seems to represent the kind of poetry associated with the turba and the vulgus which Horace wants to distance himself from and which he ends his first book of Satires, the book with which he establishes himself in Maecenas’ 4 6 2 The fault of writing too quickly is associated with Hermogenes Tigellius in Satire 1.9 where the bore tells Horace that noone can write poetry more quickly than he and that even Hermogenes envies his smooth singing: si bene me novi, non Viscum pluris amicum, / non Varium facies: nam quis me scribere pluris / aut citius possit versus ? quis membra move re / mollius? Invideat quod et Hermogenes ego canto (1.9.22ff). 4 6 3 See Rudd 1966: 292-3 n. 15, distinguishing the Sardinian Tigellius of 1.2.3 and 1.3.4 from Hermogenes (Tigellius) of 1.3.129, 1.4.71, 1.9.25, 1.10.17-8, 80 and 90. The Tigellius from Sardinia who features in Satires 1.2 and 1.3 is generally thought to be a different figure since Horace is generally sympathetic to him and because he, unlike Hermogenes Tigellius, is dead. However, as the start of Satire 1.2 shows, this Tigellius too is associated with a low form of poetry, a poetry Augustus, if not Maecenas, was clearly fond of (cf. 1.3.4f). Of course, that Augustus showed enthusiasm for plebeian culture was one of the reasons for his popularity and fundamental to the ideology of the tribunicia potestas. 241 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. circle, by claiming he has successfully rejected.4 6 4 We see here, then, an attempt to distance literate, high culture from a more popular culture in which a less cultivated verse clearly played a part and which was associated with bookshops where Horace’s libelli might fall into the hands of the vulgus and people like Tigellius.4 6 5 One might compare here the last poem (1.20) of Horace’s first book of Epistles. Here, we hear that Horace’s book wants to go to Vertumnus and Ianus— the booksellers’ quarters.4 6 6 However, Horace wants it to stay and to be shown only to the few (4).4 6 7 Similarly near the start of his collection, Martial tells his book that it is better off at home than in the dangerous shops of Rome, especially the bookshops on the Argiletum: Argiletanas mavis habitare tabemas, Cum tibi, parve liber, scrinia nostra vacent. Nescis, heu, nescis dominae fastidia Romae . . . (1.3.Iff). Do you prefer to live in the shops of Argiletum, when my boxes lie open for you, small book! You do not know, alas, you do not know the haughtiness of mistress Rome. And the importance of this theme is shown by the fact that Martial returns to the same topic in the penultimate epigram of the first book (1.117.9). This poetic trope perhaps reflects a more concrete concern about those who could read and who frequented bookshops and who might threaten the cultural capital of the leisured aristocracy.4 6 8 4 6 4 This preoccupation in the first book of Satires with the nature of good poetry as opposed to vulgar versifying is perhaps paralled in book two by a concern with the nature of a good feast. On the latter see P.A. Miller 1996: 272ff. 4 6 5 Cf. Martial 2.86-7 mentioned above for a similar attitude in the first century AD: scribat carmina circulis Palaemon / me raris iuvat auribus placere. See above on circuli. 4 6 6 The Temple of Vertumnus was in the Vicus Tuscus, a neighborhood full of bookshops and, according to Wilkins ad loc., “houses of ill repute.” Janus’s temple was at the bottom of the Argiletum, on the opposite side of the Forum, near the Subura. 4 6 7 Note lines 11-2: contrectatus ubi manibus sordescere volgi / coeperis, a u t.... For the allusions in Ep. 1.20 to prostitution see K. O’Neill 2000. For the poem in general see Oliensis 1995. 4 6 8 Cf. Harris 1989: 255-259 on, for instance, literate slaves who were needed because of economic necessity. 242 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Horsfall has stressed, in his work on Roman popular culture, a culture of song, and it is thus interesting to note that tabemae are associated with song and poetry and that, again, this song and verse is disparaged in our sources. Indeed the phrase tabemaria came to signify a genre of dramatic poetry, a genre that was significantly placed low in the hierarchy of genres as described by grammarians: epos sive dactylicum, epigramma, iambica, lyrica, tragoedia, satira, praetextata, comoedia, tabemaria, Atellana, Rhintonica, mimica (Caesius Bassus, Poeticae Species Lat. p312 line 9). It is perhaps not surprising, from its position in the list, to see it listed with the more popular forms of poetry, forms that were most scorned by elite writers. And a similar scom can be identified in descriptions of some of the characters of the genre: for instance Festus describes the characters of the tabemaria as including "kidnappers and slaves" (plagiarii.. .servi denique), and in general as the kind of people who ex tabemis honeste prodeant (Festus s.v. togatorum p352L). This existence of a theatrical genre known as tabemaria indicates the importance of tabemae in Roman life. The grammarian Diomedes makes it clear that the tabemaria was a type of fabula togata: secunda species est togatorum quae tabemariae dicuntur et humilitate personarum et argumentorum comoediis pares, in quibus. . .humiles homines etprivatae domus inducuntur, quae quidem olim, quod tabulis tegerentur, communiter tabemae vocabantur (Ars Gramm. 3).4 6 9 Here Diomedes seems to associate tabemae with private houses in general, an association which we have seen before. However, some scholars have wanted to see Diomedes' reference to tabemae here as indicating more specifically the booths of shopkeepers 4 6 9 Cf. Festus 480L associating togatae with tabernariae. Also Diomedes: Ars Gramm. 3: apud Graecos tragica comica satyrica mimica, apud Romanos praetextata tabemaria Atellana planipes.. . For the fragments of the fabula togata, see Daviault 1980. 243 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. and traders, in order to differentiate the tabemaria from palliata which took as their setting privatae domus (1.25).4 7 0 We have already noted that in many ways the world of the tabemae was the economic counterpart to the world of the compita. Indeed, as we have seen, the economic and social lives of Romans were fundamentally interconnected. Here I want to suggest that fabula tabemaria also intersected with compita and the festival associated with them. In the previous chapter, we saw that the ludi Compitales were an occasion for popular drama to be performed, drama that seems to have been held vicatim.4 1 1 I would suggest that the ludi Compitales were one of the venues where such tabemaria could be performed and that fabula togata, and tabemaria in particular, were associated with the world of the compita. Several factors hint at there having been dramas directly related to the social fabric of the compita. A mime of the late Republican dramatist Decimus Laberius— whose plays were famously political— was entitled Compitalia. From the previous century, one of Afranius’ togatae was 4 7 0 Cf. Conte 1994: 126: "It is easy to suppose that the togata met the need for a dramaturgy closer to local, everyday realities. One need only think of the fabula tabemaria, a particular species of togata (if not just another name for it), in which the characters were Roman or Italian and the scene was set in a taberna, a shop or tavern." Note Conte 1994: 37 defining Tabemaria as "A comic work with a Roman setting. The term is not strictly distinguished from togata but seems to have a connotation of greater lowness. Tabema is used in Latin for 'hut, shack' or 'shop, tavern, hostel.'" See also Teuffel/Schwabe 1890:1.30: "Togata heipt im Gegensatz zur palliata das Lustspiel mit romischen (italischen) Stoffen, spater auch tabemaria genannt. Es stellte das Treiben der unteren Stande Roms dar, hatte deshalb einen derberen Ton als die palliata, zugleichjedoch mehr Frische und wahres Leben. Insbesondere aber hat vor jener die togata den ganzen Begriff der Familie voraus: das weibliche Geschlecht spielt darin eine unvergleichlich bedeutendere Rolle als in der palliata, wogegen die Sklaven zuriicktreten.” Of course, all such comments on Roman domestic national drama are inevitably speculative. 4 7 1 Performances held in the vici would, of course, have been on a smaller scale than those held in theaters built for other festivals involving the whole city. Note that Cicero Sest. 118 suggests that in togata the actors and singers were identical, which perhaps indicates that there was no chorus in such plays. 244 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. also called Compitalia, possibly named after the festival at which it was performed.4 7 2 Moreover, several titles of the plays of those who wrote tabemaria (the three most significant writers being Titinius, Afranius and Quinctius Atta) suggest the social context of the compita and the tabema. For instance, Afranius’ titles hint at the world of those associated with the compita, refering to slaves, freedmen, apartment fires and a concern with the grain supply: for instance, Emancipatus, Libertus, Incendium and Patelia.4 1 3 Such titles suggest that the plays, whatever their precise performance context, may have reflected issues and aspirations relevant to an audience of slaves and freedmen— the kind of people who would have been present at the Compitalia. Other titles of togata suggest the world of tabemae in the more restricted sense that I have been using it: for example, Cinerarius and Fullonia. The fabula tabemaria, performed at the ludi Compitales and elsewhere, may, then, have been closely associated with tabemae and their attendant culture. And the fragments, however miserable they may be, offer some indication of social comment geared towards such an audience, although clearly such fragments need to be used with extreme caution. In Titinius’ Barbatus, for example, an embroiderer has given up her job, leaving the needle and thread to her master and mistress {Barbatus 1-2 Daviault); and interestingly she speaks of her membership in a collegium (5-6 Daviault). And in 4 7 2 Cf. Daviault 1981: 151 n. 2 pointing out that in the prologue of the Compitalia, Afranius, in defending himself against charges of imitating Menander, affirms the value of a national tradition of poetry. See Williams 1968: 253-4. Daviault 1981: 151 notes that a fragment of Naevius’ Tunicularia (Ribbeck 100) also refers to the Compitalia. Note that in this palliata, it seems as if the painter working at the compitum is being mocked for his artistic pretensions. 4 7 3 Note also the play Auctio: see the previous chapter for auctions at the compita. Fragment 5 of Afranius’ Compitalia may support this hypothesized setting. The fragment reads: praeterea nunc corpus meum pilare primum coepit (Daviault, Afranius 34). This reference to the depilation of the body may refer to the pilleus, a cap designed to fit close to the head and, according to Lewis and Short, shaped like half an egg; the pilleus was given to a slave upon his being freed and would be worn at festivals such as the Saturnalia. Furthermore, we noted above the pilae which represented the slaves at 245 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Setina, Titinius portrays a suitor who has doubts about marrying outside of his class (107-109 Daviault), while elsewhere Titinius stages a quarrel between fullers and weavers (Fullones 16-22 Daviault).4 7 4 I would be tempted, then, to relatcfabula tabemaria with the kind of dramatic performances carried out at the ludi compitales, performances held before an audience in which tabemarii were prominent.4 7 5 That the tabemaria may have had a very pronounced social character is not altogether surprising. Other forms of Roman drama seem to have been geared to a particular section of society. For instance, praetexta was associated with Roman magistrates, a celebration of their imperium.4 7 6 And one might compare how the apparently short-lived genre fabula trabeata— invented, according to Suetonius (Gramm. 32), by Maecenas’ freedman Melissus— was probably produced for a primarily equestrian audience, the equites being the wearers of the toga trabeata. If such a social context is allowed for at least some performances of tabemaria, this might help explain an interesting detail recorded in Donatus: that while in palliata poets were allowed to portray masters as more foolish than their slaves, this was not permitted in togata.4 7 7 It is usually assumed that this reflects the fact that Roman authorities were more sensitive about Roman masters in a Roman setting being publicly ridiculed than Greek masters in a Greek setting. As Conte, commenting on this passage, remarks: "A drama that directly brought onto the stage Roman characters needed to be still more controlled and prudent" (1994: 126). However, extra force the Compitalia and served to appease the Lares. The line could thus refer to the emancipation of a slave, although this is of course far from certain. 4 7 4 See here Beare 1940. 4 7 5 For a very different interpretation, see Rawson 1991c. She connects togata with the area south of Rome, since several titles refer to locations in this area; she feels, however, that the genre was later taken up in Rome (479-481). 4 7 6 See especially Zorzetti 1980. 246 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. would lie behind the injunction if one of the major venues for fabula togata was a festival which was attended primarily by slaves and freedmen and which seems to have been a focus of identity for this element of the city population. I would also suggest that the building of a permanent stone theater by Pompey in 55BC may in part have been an attempt to take the steam out of local street theater, a theater associated with the most politically active and often violent segment of the urban plebs. Rome’s antipathy to building a permenent theater is well-known. Earlier projects in the second century had been abandoned amid controversy, and Cicero in the pro Flacco, delivered in the early 50s, makes it clear that such theaters were seen as a breeding ground for sedition, as occurred in the Greek theaters where political assemblies were held (Flacc. 16).4 7 8 Cicero preferred the Roman populace to stand up at such meetings, and Augustus was later to enforce a dress code.4 7 9 Yet despite such concerns and in the face of opposition from his seniores (Tacitus Annals 14.20), in 55 Pompey finally built his stone theater in Rome, offering a permanent venue for theater and other shows. Given the background and the disturbances that had been occurring at the Compitalia, I would raise the possibility that this new construction was an early attempt to deal with a problematic local culture. Just as in 64 the Senate abolished the collegia which put on the Compitalia, so too in 56 a decree was passed against political clubs and caucuses. As Cicero says, it was determined that sodalitates decuriatique secederent (ad Quint, fratr. 2.3.5), with decuriati here surely refering to Clodius’ bands (cf. Sest. 34: cum vicatim homines conscriberentur, decuriarentur...). And in 55 Pompey’s fellow consul Crassus passed a law de sodaliciis, although this was 4 7 7 Donatus on Terence Eun. 57: concessum est in palliata poetis comicis servos dominis sapientiores fingere, quod item in togata non fieri licet. See e.g. Fitzgerald 2000: 10-11. 4 7 8 For earlier plans to build a permanent theater, see Taylor 1966: 124 n. 24. See also Rumpf 1950. For a vivid impression of the stage context of Roman plays see Goldberg 1998. 247 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. probably aimed at upper-class groups rather than Clodiani.4 8 0 Frezouls 1981 connected the building of Pompey’s theater with these measures against collegia and, by extension, the dramatic activity held at the compita. But he saw the new theater as a means of compensating the plebs for the removal of their games. It seems better to see Pompey’s actions as a whole-scale appropriation of street theater, with performances on a lavish scale and of an exotic character, devoid of the political character that may have been associated with the smaller performances at the ludi Compitales— m attempt to contain theatrical and political energies in a magnificent setting, beneath the new Temple of Venus Victrix, where aristocratic munificence might be more clearly felt. We may see here an early attempt to appropriate popular culture within a system in which aristocratic munificence was necessary for its fulfilment; Pompey here, as elsewhere, can be seen as anticipating Augustus.4 8 1 This anxiety of the Roman elite concerning popular theater continues in the Augustan era and is a particular preoccupation of Horace.4 8 2 This concern is made clear in the central section of the Ars Poetica, where Horace gives an account of how a Satyr Play should be composed.4 8 3 In this passage anxieties about poetry and drama produced at both crossroads and tabemae are clearly revealed. According to Horace, writers of Satyr plays should avoid both an excessively high and an excessively low style; with a possible swipe at fabula tabemaria, he says that such dramatists should not place gods, who were just now decked in purple, in tabemae with their lowly 4 7 9 See next chapter on condones. 4 8 0 See previous chapter for this legislation. 4 8 1 An objection to this hypothesis is that Plutarch says that Pompey was inspired by the theater in Mytilene during his return to Italy after the Eastern wars; he is said to have made sketches and to have planned to build a similar theater in Rome, albeit one that was peT^ov Se koci o e p v o T E p o v {Pomp. 42.4). However, as Frezouls 1981 points out, this has not been confirmed by archaeology. 4 8 2 See Habinek 1998 chapter four, discussing the Letter to Augustus (Ep. 2.1). 248 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. speech, humilis sermo ( . . .ne quicumque deus, quicumque adhibebitur heros, / regali conspectus in auro nuper et ostro, / migret in obscuras humili sermone tabemas . . . Ars 227-9).4 8 4 Horace goes on to tell how the writer of such Satyr plays should avoid making the Fauns sound like people found at a crossroads (trivia) or in the Forum48 5 : silvis deducti caveant me iudice Fauni, ne velut innati triviis ac paene forenses aut nimium teneris iuvenentur versibus umquam aut immunda creperent ignominiosaque dicta: offendunt enim, quibus est equus et pater et res, nee, si quid fricti ciceris probat et nucis emptor, aequis accipiunt animis donantve corona. (Ars Poetica 244-50.) In my judgement, when the Fauns are led out of the woods, they should beware that they do not seem to have been bom at the crossroads or to be almost forum-idlers, or that they do not ever delight too much in soft words or rattle off coarse and disreputable sayings. For they offend in this way those who have a horse, a father or possessions, who will not receive the performance with patient minds or present it with a gift, regardless of whether the buyers of roasted chickpeas or nuts approve. In this extraordinary passage, which clearly distinguishes the taste of the knights, the free and the wealthy (quibus est equus et pater et res) from that of the rest of society (including slaves and liberti), Horace very firmly locates the despised popular culture, which he is distancing his own plays from, at the crossroads and in the Forum. What emerges from Horace’s discussion is that it is precisely poetic craft— ars poetica— which raises his poetry above the culture of the tabemae, the crossroads and of the Forum crowd. And yet Horace has to admit that the play he would write would be dangerously similar to the less cultivated fare: the play he writes will seem familiar to all (ex notofictum carmen, 240). This passage on the Satyr Plays immediately follows Horace’s description of how the changes in the Roman theater caused by the growth of 4 8 3 See Wiseman 1988 arguing for the real existence of Satyr Plays in the Late Republic and claiming for them a plebeian character. 4 8 4 Cf. Rudd 1989 adloc. 4 8 5 For the Forum, see the next chapter. 2 4 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the Roman Empire had led to greater license for rhythms and music in theatrical performances-and such changes allow Horace to cast his critique of Satyr plays in aesthetic terms, as a call for generic purity. But if Wiseman is right to associate Satyr plays at Rome with plebeian culture, then Horace’s purist plea for a genuine satyr play, free from contamination by elements of popular culture, takes on political significance. Once more we see an instance of Augustan appropriation of a source of competing cultural authority, an attempt to replace the generically mixed Satyr Plays with a purer, state-sponsored form.4 8 6 Wiseman suggests that at Rome, Satyr Plays in part arose out of the satyristai who took part in the procession at the ludi Romani. These satyristai, like the soldiers with their ioci militares at triumphs, accompanied the procession with mocking jests (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7.72.10-12). Such license was associated with the Fescennine Verse, and this type of verse was associated by the Romans with the origins of drama.4 8 7 In the Letter to Augustus Horace reveals a certain anxiety about this aspect of Roman popular culture. It is interesting that he explicitly associates Fescennine verses with libertas; he tells how such peasant jests had become unrestrained lampoon, slandering honorable families and leading to a law against malicious verses: Fescennina per hunc inventa licentia morem versibus altemis opprobria rustica fudit, libertasque recurrentis accepta per annos lusit amabiliter, donee iam saevus apertam in rabiem coepit verti iocus et per honestas ire domos impune minax. doluere cruento dente lacessiti; fuit intactis quoque cura condicione super communi; quin etiam lex poenaque lata, malo quae nollet carmine quemquam 4 8 6 Such a project runs alongside Horace’s concern in the Letter to Augustus to emphasize literary activity-and to construct an ‘“imagined community’ of readers, not the all too visible community of spectators” at the theater (Habinek 1998: 100). 4 8 7 E.g. Horace Ep. 2.1.139ff and Livy 7.2. 2 5 0 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. describi: vertere modum formidine fustis ad bene dicendum deleetandumque redacti. (Ep. 2.1.145ff) In this manner, Fescennine licence came about and it poured out rustic Insults in alternate verses. And freedom, welcomed throughout the returning years, played amiably, until the joking, now savage, began to be turned into open madness and to go threateningly amid honorable houses without fear of punishment. Those who were provoked by the blood stained tooth grieved; and even those who were unharmed were concerned for the common cause. As a result a law and a penalty were introduced, which allowed nobody to be attacked in an evil song. They changed their ways, led back by fear of the cudgel to speaking well and in a pleasing way. As this passage shows, insulting verse became a concern at Rome; and the law Horace describes was probably part of the Twelve Tables.4 8 8 Livy in his account of the development of drama tells how the Fescinnine license was in part removed as a result of the professionalization of the theater, with the rise of the histriones (7.2.6-7). In Horace it is above all the conquest of Greece and the attendant civilizing process at Rome (Graecia capta ...) which helped to mollify the boorish strain in Italian culture (Ep. 2.1. 156-7) and to drive out the grave virus (2.1.158). It is important, however, to note that Horace states that this vims was not erased completely and that elements remained: sed in longum tamen aevum / manserunt hodieque manent vestigia ruris (2.1.160). It was in part these remnants, which could be observed in Satyr plays and in the general popular culture— including activity at compita and in tabemae and in tabemaria— which Horace appealed to Augustus to remove.4 8 9 His project for the theater is a part of this plan and the allusion in the Ars Poetica to the culture and speech of the crossroads, the tabemae and the Forum are designed to help Horace in this project. 4 8 8 See e.g. Cicero de Rep. 4.10.12L: si quis occentavisset sive carmen condidisset quod infamiam faceret flagitiumve alteri. See Roman Statutes no. 40 table 8.1, with discussion at 677-679. 4 8 9 Elsewhere I look at anxieties and concerns over Triumph Songs, focusing in particular on Plautus’ Amphitryo. 251 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. We have moved away somewhat, in this discussion of theater, from tabemae, although I hope that the connections between these aspects of Roman life are clear. To return to tabemae, I will conclude this chapter simply by pointing to the many times that we see a denigration of tabemae in our sources. We have already observed Cicero’s and Seneca’s comments on the kind of livelihood which shopwork represented, and we think of Catullus’ salax tabema (37.1) where Lesbia is portrayed as a prostitute entertaining her clients. In the later Historia Augusta’s , Life of Heliogalabus, when the emperor plays out his slumming fantasies one of the jobs he takes on is shopkeeping. Here the tabemarii are associated with confectioners, perfumers, cooks and pimps: pinxit se ut coppedinarium, ut seplasiarium, ut popinarium, ut tabemarium, ut leonem (30.1). The famous epigram of Hadrian, a response to a poem by Floras, typically brings out the low associations of tabemae and popinae: ego nolo Florus esse, / ambulare per tabemas, /latitare perpopinas, / culices pati rutundos (Carmina fr. 1.1-4). Moreover, a shop-owning ancestor is used against various figures. For instance, Antony is said to have insulted Augustus’s ancestry by saying that his great-grandfather had a perfume shop (Suet. Aug. 4). We hear that Pertinax’s father owned a cloth-maker’s shop (Hist. Aug. Pertinax 3.3). Valerius Maximus 3.4.4 in a chapter de his qui humile loco nati clari evaserunt tells how a certain Varro was consul despite his father owning a butcher’s shop: miro quoque gradu Varro ad consulatum ex macellaria patris tabema conscendit. Moreover, Tacitus at Annals 15.34 tells how Vatinius, one of the foulest prodigies at court, was the product of a shoemaker’s shop, with a mis-shapen body and scurrile wit.4 9 0 And Seneca at Dialogi 2.13.4 tells how he will not get upset if one of the 4 9 0 Of course, the scurra was associated with the lowest form of comedy and was associated with gossip (see Plautus, Trinummus 199-222). 252 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. wretched men from the slave shops fails to call him by his name, again suggesting an elite disdain for shops, shopowners and the kind of activity that takes place there. Finally, Horace’s hostility against traders and shoplife includes an attack on the Tusci turba impia vici (Sat. 2.3.228). With this example, we have come full circle, and see again the interrelatedness of the aspects of popular culture I have been discussing: an attack on the tabemae is an attack on the vicus. 2 5 3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The Politics of the Forum 1. Introduction Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in an account of Tarquin’s beautification and improvement of Rome, makes it clear that for him the significance of the Forum lay in its role in the judicial and political life of the city: Trjv t e ayopocv, ev fj 8iK&£ouai Kat EKKAr|aid£ouai k q i t & s aAAa$ TroAmK&s ettiteAo u o i trpd^Eis, ekeivos EKOoprjGEu . . . .(“He beautified the Forum, in which they hold judgments, carry out assemblies and perform other political activities ...3.67.4). Modem scholars, of course, are no longer satisfied with seeing the Forum as simply the primary location of Roman government. Instead, much research has focused on the symbolic significance of the topography of the Forum; indeed in this respect scholars draw on the example of C. Gracchus, who in a speech of 125 against Hypsaeus, described the Forum as the “mirror of the Republic,” noting that Rome had a single Forum for all, unlike at Capua where there was one for the aristocrats and one for theplebs (Val. Max. 9.5.4 ext. 4).4 9 1 Recently, scholarly attention has also highlighted the actual physical 4 9 1 The basic study of the relationship between topography and political and social institutions is, of course, Coarelli 1983-5. On the significance of Coarelli’s work, see Purcell 1989, usefully emphasizing our lack of knowledge about much of the most basic topography of the Forum (159) and stressing the importance of defining the changing space of the Forum in different periods (157). See also Purcell 1995, an extremely valuable account of the Forum and its significance in the Republican and Imperial periods. Also Richardson 1992: 170-4. Patterson 1992: 190-4 is a usual discussion of recent work on the Forum. Note his comment at 194, summing up the basic results of Coarelli and his followers: “The history of the Forum, then, is in microcosm the history of the Late Republic: the transitional symbolic unity of the Senate and People as expressed in the relationship between Curia, Comitia, and the related monuments; the populist reforms of the second half of the second century BC, leading to a greater importance for the whole Forum area; the Sullan reaction, and the preeminence he gave to the Senate; the aristocratic competition of the final years of the Republic; Caesar’s Dictatorship, Octavian’s victory in civil war and Augustus’ settlement which divided power between himself and the Senate: all are reflected in the monuments of the Forum.” Of earlier work, particularly important is Taylor 1966, which includes discussions on the practical use of the space of the Forum for contiones and for the tribal assembly. 254 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. consequences of the Forum in Roman politics; in particular this has been central to the arguments of Fergus Millar in his reevaluation of the “democratic element” of the Roman constitution.4 9 2 Millar has excellently evoked the significance of the Forum in the political life of the City, and indeed our sources bring out the excitement that must often have been felt. In his speech de lege Manilla, Cicero tells how in 67 the Forum had been packed for Gabinius’ proposal to give Pompey the command against the Pirates (44)4 9 3 Similarly, at the start of the pro Milone, Cicero describes how every vantage point looking onto the Forum has been taken (3), and the atmosphere at this time is confirmed by Asconius who tells how on the last day of Milo’s trial there was as much quiet as was possible in any Forum: post tantum silentium totoforofuit quantum esse in aliquoforo posset (p41 Clark).4 9 4 Millar is right to emphasize the Forum crowd and the physical context of the Forum as a space wherein public opinion became more than an abstract concept (1998: 70). However, I argue in this section against his use of the Fomm to support his hypothesis of a democratic constitution. The Forum was indeed a contested space, a site for both real conflicts over specific issues and a site for meta-struggle, a struggle over whose authority should count in specific issues. However, as far as constitutional activity was concerned, the Fomm and the workings of Roman politcal institutions offered as a rule distinct advantages to the Senate, 4 9 2 Millar 1998; also his earlier articles on the topic. An important, more specialized work, is Thommen 1995, discussing the operation of space for tribunician activity in the Forum. At 365 Thommen uses the topography of the Forum to oppose Millar’s argument. Thommen is excellent on the limited space available for various political activities and on the practicalities of politicians filling the Forum with their supporters. 4 9 3 Millar 1998: 224 estimates that some 20000 may have crammed into the Forum on this occasion. Note that Thommen 1995: 364 calculates the capacity of the central area of the Forum, where voting would be held, to be around 6000. 255 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. allowing the Roman aristocracy to maintain governance of the city and to keep in check the democractic element that undoubtedly existed. In Althusserian terms, institutions such as the contio were apparatuses where aristocratic ideology could be performed and reproduced. I argue, then, that Millar’s attempt to seek democracy in the political institutions of the Forum is misplaced. Rather, it is primarily in activities and actions that took place outside of the constitutional mechanisms that the Forum truly became a democratic space. Such a conclusion parallels some of the conclusions which I have been drawing with respect to circuli, compita and tabemae. And indeed, as in a sense the crossroads of Rome, the Fomm was the supreme locus for the kind of social interaction I have been discussing elsewhere. Moreover, the particular kind of crowd (forensis turba, contionalis plebecula etc4 9 5 ) that became associated with the Fomm was, I suggest, largely identical with the element of the Roman plebs that I have been concentrating on in earlier chapters: predominantly freedmen, involved in the life of the vici and including many tabemarii. The emphasis here is primarily on the late Republic. If much of my material is drawn from Livy’s first decade, this is because I see in his account, written probably during the triumviral period, a particularly dramatic and informative reflection (both his own and that of his sources) of first century popular politics. Narrative patterns and details that we find in Livy’s account of the Stmggle of the Orders have much to tell us of the anxieties and preoccupations of politicians during Rome’s most turbulent period.4 9 6 4 9 4 Cf. Phil. 3.32: videtisne refertum Forum, populumque Romanum ad spem recuperandae libertatis erectum? For earlier excitement in the Forum cf. Livy 2.54.8: igitur iudicii die, cum plebs inforo erecta exspectatione staret.... 4 9 5 See below for such terms. 4 9 6 See introduction. In general Ogilvie in his commentary on books 1-5 is alert to late Republican themes, parallels and terminology. By reading Livy in this way, I make no claims about the historicity of his narrative; though, in general I share the scepticism of, for instance, Wiseman 1987a. Millar 1989 is a useful sceptical but constructive discussion of what can be accepted of the early 256 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2. The Forum as Democratic Space In a great scene in the eighth book of Livy, the quarrel between the dictator of 325, L. Papirius Cursor, and his Master of the Horse, Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus, arrives in Rome. Fabius had fought successfully against the Sabines against the orders of the dictator, who had been delayed in Rome attempting to obtain favorable auspices; rather than welcoming Fabius’ victory, Papirius was enraged at his junior colleague’s disobedience. Papirius is portrayed by Livy as eager for punishment, citing the example of Torquatus’ treatment of his disobedient son (avidum poenae.. .altemis paene verbis T. Manli factum laudantem, 8.30.13; cf. 8.34.2 for the Manliana imperia). However, in a striking passage, which would seem to support Millar’s vision of a sovereign populus, Fabius’ father, in a meeting of the Senate, tells Papirius that he should respect his provocatio before the people, which has more power than even the dictatorship, the highest magistracy in the Republic: . . .tribunosplebis appello et provoco ad populum eumque tibi, fugienti exercitus tui, fugienti senatus iudicium, iudicemfero, qui certe unus plus quam tua dictatura potest polletque (“I call on the tribunes of the people and I appeal to the people, and I make it a judge for you who flee the judgment of your army and of the senate; it alone is certainly more powerful and stronger than your dictatorship.” 8.33.7-8). Here then the theoretical power of the populus Romanus is stated, and it seems as though popular opinion will conquer the will of the Dictator. However, Livy’s subsequent narrative shows how magisterial authority maintains a clear upper hand over the popular will. Fabius’ speech leads at once to the calling of a contio (ex curia tradition of Rome. It is surely obvious that a historical narrative can teach us about the history of both the period it describes and the period in which it was written: Mommsen’s Romische Geschicte 257 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. in contionem itur), with the dictator taking his stand on the rostra and Fabius being ordered to stand on the ground beneath him {deduci eum de rostris Papirius in partem inferiorem iussit).4 9 1 We will see that Papirius’ position above the crowd will prove to be significant. An altercatio follows and then there is a speech by Fabius’ father. Livy tells how the majesty of the Senate, the favor of the People, the awcilium of the Tribunes and the memory of the absent army (senatus maiestas, favor populi, tribunicium awcilium, memoria absentis exercitus) were all on the side of the Fabii (8.34.1). However, the dictator proceeds to make a defiant speech, after which the tribunes were struck dumb and embarrassed: stupentes tribunos et suam iam vicem magis anxios quam eius cui auxilium ab se petebatur (“the tribunes were struck dumb and more anxious now for their own account than his for whom their awcilium was being sought,” 8.35.1). It seems, then, that, contrary to the elder Fabius’ words and in the face of the democratic element in the Roman constitution, the dictator’s auctoritas was in fact stronger than the will of the populus as expressed through its tribunes. The people now turn from reliance upon their tribunes to begging their dictator for mercy; indeed the tribunes, who were meant to be sovereign, join in the general beseeching: tribunos .. .liberavit onere consensus populi Romani, ad preces et obtestationem versus, ut sibi poenam magistri equitum dictator remitteret. Tribuni quoque inclinatam rem in preces subsecuti orare dictatorem insistunt ut veniam errore humano, veniam adulescentiae Q. Fabi daret. (8.35.1-2) The consensus of the whole people freed the tribunes of their burden, as they turned to prayers and supplication, begging that the dictator should remit for their sake the penalty of the Master of the Horse. The tribunes too, in accordance with the situation that had turned to prayers, began to plead with the dictator to grant pardon to human error, to grant pardon to the youth of Fabius. is, perhaps, the most famous example (see the earlier discussion). 4 9 7 For contiones in general, see Taylor 1966 chapter two, Pina Polo 1996 and Holkeskamp 1995, especially 26-30 and 32-35. Also Millar 1995: 111-113. 258 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Finally the Fabii throw themselves at Papirius’ knees in complete capitulation before the dictator’s authority: iam ipse adulescens, iam pater M. Fabius, contentionis obliti procumbere ad genua et iram deprecari dictatoris (“now the youth himself, now his father M. Fabius, forgetful of the strife, fell to their knees and prayed that the anger of the dictator might cease,” 8.35.3). Now that his authority has prevailed in the face of initial defiance, the dictator shows mercy; he stresses that military authority had won the day but that Fabius is being saved as a favor to the Roman people and for the sake of the tribunicia potestas, which had not been able to offer him iustum auxilium: Turn dictator silentio facto ‘bene habet’ inquit, ‘Quirites. Vicit disciplina militaris, vicit imperii maiestas, quae in discrimine fuerunt an ulla post hanc diem essent. Non noxae eximitur Q. Fabius, qui contra edictum imperatoris pugnavit, sed noxae damnatus donatur populo Romano, donatur tribuniciae potestati precarium non iustum auxilium ferenti. Vive, Q. Fabi, felicior hoc consensu civitatis.’ (8.35.4-5) Then the dictator, when there was silence, said: ‘It is well, citizens. Military discipline has conquered, the majesty of command has conquered, which had been in danger of not existing after this day. Q. Fabius is not removed from guilt, he who fought against the edict of a commander. Condemned with guilt, he is given to the Roman People, he is given to tribunician power, which offered him auxilium that was not justly entreated. Live, Fabius, more happy by this consensus of the state.’ At first, then, it seemed as though this episode would offer an example of the sovereignty of the Roman people, gathered in the Forum and represented by their tribunes. Indeed the elder Fabius was doubtless correct to state that the populus was theoretically sovereign over all other aspects of the constitution. And yet Livy’s account shows how the auctoritas of the magistrate, addressing from high on the rostra the people below him, was able to reduce this theoretical popular sovereignty to inconsequentiality. It is true that Papirius finally yields to the popular will, but he does so from a position of complete control and there seems little doubt that had he so wished he could have delivered Fabius up to the lictors to be killed. Papirius’ 2 5 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. dementia in this case reinforces his power over the city. In this contio, the magistrate, albeit an exceptional magistrate, clearly has power over the populus Romanus4 9 * And Livy’s dramatic presentation of this confrontation between Papirius and the gathered crowd helps illustrate Cicero’s comment on the theatrical nature of such speeches before the people: in scaena, id est in contione {de Am. 97) 4 9 9 Indeed the theatrical element of Roman politics seems to be a factor in reproducing the populus' accustomed deference towards those in office. This tremendous scene exemplifies, I would suggest, Andrew Bell’s thesis concerning the visual power of Roman magistrates and the need for this to be considered in discussions of Roman politics. As Bell says: By virtue of his elevated physical station the Roman orator could be understood to belong to an order of political existence superior to that of the multitude constituting his audience . . . A 4 9 8 See Livy 9.16 where Papirius is seen as a possible match for Alexander, had the Macedonian invaded Italy. See Pina Polo 1996 for contiones tending to serve the interests of the aristocracy. With the display of the auctoritas of the Magistrate here, cf. how, before the Leges Tabellariae introduced the Secret Ballot, the people were forced to announce orally their vote at elections to a prominent Roman (a rogator), another example of elite auctoritas undermining the democratic element. Even after the ballot laws, there were custodes who handed the ballot from the pontes to the voter to mark (see Taylor 1966: 76-77), perhaps maintaining an element of pressure on the voter. See Jehne 1995: 6 n. 28 and 1983: 593-613. 4 9 9 Cf. C/m. 93. See Millar 1998: 43, 47 and 57-8. Note also Cic. de Or. 2.338 where the contio is described as the maxima scaena for an orator. Also Cic. Brutus 203 on Sulpicius Rufus, the tragicus orator. However, Sulpicius’ gestures and movements are said to have been more suited to the Forum than the stage (... ad Forum, non ad scaenam institutus videretur). Following the recent approach of Wiseman (1995 and 1998), one could easily imagine the dramatic nature of this episode between Papirius and Fabius as reflecting a dramatic presentation of these events, possibly a performance at the ludi plebeii in a play taking a stance on the contested issue of plebeian competency to hold imperium\ e.g. Livy 7.3 and elsewhere for the importance of this issue. But such reconstructions are, of course, extremely hypothetical. See Vasaly 1999: 520-526 for discussion of the speech of Quinctius Capitolinus in Livy 3.67ff, a speech stern in nature but approved of because of the auctoritas of the speaker (note 3.69.1: raro alias tribuni popularis oratio acceptiorplebi quam tunc severissimi consulis fuit). Vasaly describes how the Quinctii narratives in the first pentad show the power of rhetoric (performed primarily at contiones) to create concordia, even if such rhetoric can be harmful in the wrong mouths. 260 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. contio effectively dramatized the seeming naturalness of such distinct political statuses. (2)5 0 0 Much of what is nowadays hailed as political ‘power’ in the late Republic, however, is best apprehended in the visible, ritualized dialogues that invoked and thus defined the Populus as a political agent, whilst also dramatically articulating the fact that some citizens were more powerful than others. If then the Populus Romanus had any great power, it was qualified by how much it realized, when gazing up at die dignity and hearkening to the handsome words of a notable orator, its sovereign right to refuse to legitimate ‘an existing order’s unintempted discourse about itself, its laudatory monologue.’ (2)5 0 1 The fact that the Roman crowd did, on the whole, legitimate this “laudatory monologue” was largely a result of the respect it accorded to magisterial authority. This auctoritas was fundamental to the working of the Republic, as Mommsen saw when he began the Staatsrecht with the Roman magistrates.5 0 2 Cicero in the de Legibus described magistrates as “speaking law” and the law as a “silent magistrate” (vereque did potest magistratum legem esse loquentem, legem autem mutum magistratum. De Legibus 3.2); and of course law, for Cicero in this treatise, is seen as part of the natural order of things: nam et hie [mundus] deo paret, et huic oboediunt maria terraeque, et hominum vita iussis supremae legis obtemperat (“for the universe obeys god, seas and lands obey the universe, and human life is subject to the supreme law,” de Legibus 3.3). It is only natural, then, that humans should obey magistrates. As Cicero goes on to say, it is not enough for the people to obey the magistrates but 5 0 0 Cf. Gunderson 1996 on the ideological positioning (or interpellating) of social roles brought about by the workings of the arena. 5 0 1 Bell’s quotation is from Debord, Society o f the Spectacle 1983: 24. See also Marshall 1984, on the symbolic significance of the fasces in Roman political life. Note 140: “In a society governed with a minimum of bureaucracy, the citizen’s perception of authority was as important as the abstract principles of constitutional law so painstakingly extrapolated by modem scholars.” Marshall is able to show, like Bell, the importance of spectacle and “showmanship” (120) in Roman life. It is true that this might not always be effective: the people could fail to respect the fasces, and if so the lictors would be little match for a large crowd (see Livy 2.29 for a lictor repulsed by the crowd; cf. Marshall 38 for a list of instances where the fasces are broken). 2 6 1 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. they should cherish and love them: nec vero solum ut obtemperent oboediantque magistratibus, sed etiam ut eos colant diligantque, praescribimus, ut Charondas in suisfacit legibus; noster vero Plato Titanum e genere statuit eos, qui, ut illi caelestibus, sic hi adversentur magistratibus (“I lay it down, as Charondas does in his laws, that the people should not only obey the magistrates and carry out their instructions, but should also cherish and love them. Indeed, our friend Plato held that citizens who oppose the magistrates are descended from the Titans, who themselves opposed the gods,” de Legibus 3.5). Thus lack of respect for magistrates is accorded cosmic significance and seen as perverting the course of nature.5 0 3 As will be seen, the performance and visual nature of the contio was such that it contributed towards according the presiding magistrate the respect that Cicero deemed essential. The magistrate presiding over a contio was not, of course, always as successful as Papirius in maintaining his auctoritas. Indeed, Cicero often speaks of contiones which were seditious and turbulent.5 0 4 But Cicero, facing the people, was, of course, usually successful, even when the circumstances might seem to have been against him. For instance, in the second speech de lege agraria, Cicero, in a dazzling rhetorical tour deforce, manages to portray himself as the true popularis, looking out for the people’s pax and otium.5 0 5 As a result Rullus’ land bill was defeated. As Bell says: .. .Cicero’s power to doom a piece of (possibly worthy) legislation speaks volumes on the question of where power lay in the late Republic. In political practice, ‘democratic’ constitutional prerogatives notwithstanding, it would seem that the notable big men had the 5 0 2 Cf. Linderski 1995f: 288. 5 0 3 Note Sest. 105 where Cicero says that even in the heyday of the populares, from the Gracchi to Saturninus, the people, while they often voted against and generally opposed the boni, nevertheless would be influenced by their authority in matters of the greatest importance: Ac tamen, si quae res erat maior, idem ille populus horum auctoritate maxime commovebatur. 5 0 4 For seditious contiones, from the pro Cluentio alone see 1, 93, 95, 103 and 130. See also Clu. 110. See the discussion below. 5 0 5 E.g. leg. agr. 2.9; see tabemae chapter. 262 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. capability to activate habits of deference in a free citizenry, even if Cicero had to impersonate a man of the people for his arguments and eloquence to accomplish their business, {de leg agr. 2.16) The importance of the wider visual and symbolic elements of Roman power is well brought out by Livy’s account of how the consuls, caught by the Sabines in the Caudine Forks, were forced to exit under a humiliating truce, without their military cloaks ipaludamenta) and without their lictors. Livy tells how the soldiers could not bear this “unspeakable sight,” and the consuls, whose maiestas has been debased, now inspire not auctoritas but pity: miserationem fecit, ut suae quisque condicionis oblitus ab ilia deformatione tantae maiestatis velut ab nefando spectaculo averteret oculos (“It caused such pity that each, forgetting his own condition, turned his eyes away from the deformation of so great a majesty as if from an unspeakable sight,” 9.6). Regardless of the historicity of this episode and the true feelings of the soldiers, the passage reveals how closely bound up was the apparatus of power with magisterial auctoritas.5 0 6 When the magistrate’s apparatus is removed, so too is the auctoritas that accompanied it. For Livy and his audience, it is doubtless comforting to think of the removal of this auctoritas as inducing pity among the soldiers; but it is likely that there was also a concern that more threatening attitudes might arise when authority is lost. In his speech pro Flacco, Cicero shows an awareness of the dangers, from the aristocratic perspective, of seditiosa oratio at contiones. But he also makes clear the 5 0 6 Cf. Livy 7.1 where the tribunes are upset at the increased number of patrician curule magistrates, presumably fearing that the plebs will feel awe and deference at the sight of these magistrates dressed in the praetexta and sitting on their official chairs: nisi quod non patientibus taciturn tribunis, quod pro consule uno plebeio tres patricios magistratus curulibus sellis praetextatos tamquam consules sedentes nobilitas sibi sumpsisset, praetorem quidem etiam iura reddentem et collegam consulibus atque iisdem auspiciiis creatum.... Alfody 1935 is a magisterial account of the significance of imperial dress and insignia under the Principate. Also cf. Aldrete 1999 for the importance of gesture in securing the authority of a speaker. 263 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. restraining influence that the visual element of the occasion provided, with the curia overlooking and moderating the rostra. Cicero here compares what he views as the wild Greek assemblies, which had accused Flaccus of misgovemment, with the contiones at Rome: Quo loco etiam atque etiam facite ut recordemini quae sit temeritas multitudinis, quae levitas propria Graecorum, quid in contione seditiosa valeat oratio. Hie in hac gravissima et moderatissima civitate, cum est Forum plenum iudiciomm, plenum magistratuum, plenum optimorum virorum et civium, cum speculator atque obsidet rostra vindex temeritatis et moderatiix officii curia, tamen quantos fluctos excitari contionum videtis! Quid vos fieri censetis Trallibus? An id quod Pergami? (57) Here, again and again make sure that we recall the rashness of the multitude, the unique irresponsibility of the Greeks, the power of seditious speech in their contiones. Here in this most serious and moderate state, where there is a Fomm full of courts, full of magistrates, full of the best men and citizens, where the Senate House, the avenger of rashness and the moderator of duty, looks out upon and guards the rostra, yet how great are the waves of the contiones that you see stirred up! What do you think happens at Tralles? What was it like at Pergamum? Here Cicero focuses on the sight of the curia as restraining the temeritas multitudinis and seditiosa oratio which took place at contiones.5 0 1 But we have seen that the auctoritas of the magistrates themselves was equally important, and a clear statement of Roman recognition of this is found in Livy. During the Bacchanalian episode of 184, the consul Postumius, in a passage we have met before, stresses the unRoman nature of Bacchanalian cells and emphasizes the need, long realized by the maiores, for an authorized person to be in charge of all meetings and assemblies: Maiores vestri ne vos quidem, nisi cum aut vexillo in arce posito comitiorum causa exercitos eductos esset, aut plebi concilium tribuni 5 0 7 Cf. Millar 1998: 226. Perhaps as much a disincentive to sedition as the sight of the curia were the associations of the Forum with punishment. See for instance Purcell 1989: 159 -160, noting that the tribunician subsellia lay between the praetor’s tribunal, the Tarpeian Rock and the Career. For punishment in the Forum, see e.g. Livy 7.19.3 where the men of Tarquinii are scourged in the Forum. Cf. Hinard 1987: 116-9. The Forum was also the site of gladiator shows, shows which in part served the function of social control by reminding the audience of what might befall a non-citizen. 2 6 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. edixissent, aut aliquis ex magistratibus ad contionem vocasset, forte temere coire voluerant; et ubicumque multitudo esset, ibi et legitimum rectorem multitudinis censebant esse debere. (39.16) Your ancestors did not wish that you should assemble fortuitously and rashly, without good reason: they did not wish you to assemble except when the standard was set up on the citadel and when the army was called out for anelection, or when the tribunes had proclaimed a council of the plebs, or one of the magistrates had summoned you to a contio-, and they held that, whenever a large number collected, there should also be a legitimate director of it. Throughout this dissertation, we have noted a concern expressed over speech that took place without authorization and official control. While contiones were often unpredictable and problematic from the point of view of the established order, nevertheless they offered the Roman rulers a distinct advantage because of the auctoritas of the magistrate in charge. This auctoritas was religious as well as political and was displayed in the opening prayer the magistrate delivered at the start of the contio.5 0 8 Moreover, at a contio there was, crucially, no right for anyone in the audience to speak. Unlike in an Athenian assembly, a citizen could only express an opinion at a contio if called upon to do so by the presiding magistrate (producere in contionem)-, and usually the only people chosen to speak would be ex-magistrates.5 0 9 Livy tells of a contio in 171 in which the centurion Sp. Ligustinus addressed the audience. But it is interesting to note that in this instance his speech sided with the consul and explicitly reasserted senatorial authority. We are told that former army officers were opposing the will of the consul that veterans enlist for campaign at a 5 0 8 Pina Polo 1996: 19, citing Livy 39.15.1 (contione advocata cum sollemne carmen precationis, quod praefari, priusquam populum adloquantur, magistratus solent, peregisset consul). Pina Polo notes in this context that the rostra was also called a templum (e.g. Livy 8.14.12: rostraque id templum appellatum). 5 0 9 Pina Polo 1996: 19-20 associates this with the religious nature of the contio: “Die Annaherung an das Heilige was nur dem Magistraten moglich; er allein bestimmte, wer wiirdig war, an diesem geweihten Ort seine Stimme erklingen zu lassen.” 265 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. lower rank than they had fought in the past. Ligustinus is said to have asked the consul and tribunes if he could speak, and they agreed. He then spoke in favor of the consul, telling his fellow centurions to respect the authority of the Senate and the magistrates. As a result, the other centurions withdrew their appeal (Livy 42.34).5 1 0 If the power to decide who would speak gave the presiding magistrate enormous influence, he was also advantaged by the physical situation of himself and the crowd, a situation which visualized and made more majestic his auctoritas. We have noted that the magistrate spoke from a raised position. Indeed even those he allowed to address the contio often had to speak from a lower position (ex inferiore loco) than the presiding magistrate.5 1 1 This raised position was a stark contrast with Greek assemblies where the speaker spoke ev peocp, which symbolized the ioriyopia upon which certain Greek cities prided themselves.5 1 2 The Roman magistrate’s physical superiority was emphasized further by the fact that the audience was expected to stand at assemblies. This was again in stark contrast to Greece where the people at an assembly were seated, usually in theaters, and that the people at contiones remained standing doubtless induced an extra level of respect and deference in the audience for the presiding magistrates.5 1 3 As well as being forced to stand, the crowd was also 5 1 0 See Holkeskamp 1995: 34-5 on this episode, stressing its unusual nature: “In aller Regel kamen die Akteure in den Contionen, ob Magistrate oder privati, eben nicht aus dem Volk” (35). 5 1 1 Pina Polo 1996: 34 (citing as an example Catulus, called to speak by the praetor Caesar in 62, Cic. Att. 2.24.3). Even when contiones met at other places rather than the rostra (e.g. at the Temple of Castor, the Capitol and the Circus Ftaminius), the magistrate would speak from a raised position. Pina Polo 1996: 25. 5 1 2 Pina Polo 1996: 25. 5 1 3 See Cic. Flacc. 15: Graecorum autem totae res publicae sedentis contionis temeritate administrantuur. For Roman anxieties about building a permanent theater and its association with the issue of standing at assemblies, cf. Taylor 1966: 30 and 124 n. 24. Cicero also makes it clear that one of the advantages of Roman assemblies, as opposed to those in Greece, was that the contio did not make any decisions. It was only an audience, which would then be dismissed so that the people could form into centuries or tribes to vote in a comitium: quae scisceret plebes aut quae populus iuberet, 266 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. expected, at least in tradition, to dress formally at contiones, Suetonius (Aug 40) tells how Augustus rebuked a crowd of men wearing dark clothing (pullatorum turba5 1 4 ) at an assembly (pro contione) by quoting Virgil’s line: Romanos, rerum dominos, gentemque togatam (Aen. 1.282). Suetonius goes on to tell how Augustus ordered the aediles not to allow anyone to appear in the Forum or its surrounding area unless with a toga and a cloak (negotium aedilibus dedit, ne quern posthac paterentur in Foro circave nisi positis lacemis togatum consistere). Consistere is a verb meaning to stand and is particularly used of an audience at a contio,5 1 5 and so in this order we see a desire that the contio crowd should both stand and dress formally. It is true that the fact that Augustus made this order suggests that people were no longer behaving with the respect that the Roman elite felt was appropriate. But the order also suggests that Augustus felt that the traditional attitude to contiones was such that he could expect to be obeyed. All of these factors did not, of course, preclude tribunes and magistrates from using contiones to stir up the crowd. For example, Cicero informs us that Appius Claudius Pulcher, brother of Clodius and praetor in 57, used contiones to interrogate the crowd, in the manner of the Greeks, asking whether it wanted Cicero restored; Cicero tells how hired men said they did not, whereupon Appius proclaimed that the populus Romanus had spoken (Sest. 126). In the previous year we hear of contiones held every day (cotidiani contiones, Sest. 40 and 42) by Clodius and involving Pompey, Caesar and Crassus, designed to demonstrate how the three dynasts were opposed to summota contione, distributis partibus, tributim et centuriatim discriptis ordinibus, classibus, aetatibus, auditis auctoribus.... (Flacc. 15). 5 1 4 For the class associations of the pulla see Richlin forthcoming and the circulus chapter. 5 1 5 See OLD p416 col. 3. 267 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Cicero.5 1 6 Of course, these were exceptional circumstances, and Cicero considers that the crowd at these contiones was hired (conductas.. .contiones), corrupted by bribery and rewards (pretio ac mercede, Sest. 104).5 1 7 Also exceptional were the events of 52, when, after Clodius’ death, Munatius Plancus and a fellow tribune used a contio to stir up the people’s invidia against Milo, leading to the burning down of the curia (Asconius p33 Clark).5 1 8 But rival tribunes and other magistrates always had the opportunity to call their own contio and so to put the other side and to display their auctoritas. Indeed Cicero {Milo 58) tells how M. Cato managed to calm down the turbulent contio after Clodius’ death {in turbulenta contione, quae tamen huius auctoritate placata est).5 1 9 In turbulent periods, contiones were certainly problematic for the ruling elite, especially when that elite was starkly divided.5 2 0 But the worst situation, from the point of view of the Roman rulers, was for a “free for all” to take place, with all expressing their views and without the presence of a legitimus rector— as in the Greek assemblies Cicero attacks in the pro Flacco. In general, contiones 5 1 6 Cf. Sest. 28 where, in fury that the Senate is meeting in mourning to support Cicero, the consul Gabinius leaves the Senate {exanimatus evolat ex senatu) and advocat contionem. Cicero says that not even Catiline, had he been successful, would have delivered such a speech {habet orationem talem consul, qualem numquam Catilina victor habuisse). He said that the Senate was now powerless, he attacked the equites and expeled L. Lamia, Cicero’s friend, from Rome. Note also Cicero’s indignation that, in the turmoil associated with Fabricius’ attempt to pass a law recalling Cicero in January 57, the magistrates were, amid other indignities, thrown off the rostra (templum) by Clodius’ mob (Sest. 75). 5 1 7 At Sest. 106 Cicero suggests that all the genuine contiones in the last few years had shown their support for him and discounts all those held by Clodius: Habitae sunt multae de me a gladiatore sceleratissimo, ad quas nemo adibat incorruptus, nemo integer; nemo ilium foedum vultum aspicere, nemofurialem vocem bonus audire poterat. Erant illae contiones perditorum hominum necessario turbulentae. At 107-8 Cicero contrasts the genuine contio held by the consul Lentulus Spinther in 57 with Clodius’ contio opposing this measure. 5 1 8 Indeed in the Empire the younger Pliny refers to the licentia contionum (Ep. 3.20.4). 5 1 9 Note how the tribune Apuleius called a contio to attempt to exonerate Cicero of the rumor, spread by Antony, that he was planning to come to the Forum armed with the, fasces (Phil. 14.16). 5 2 0 For instance, Pansa is said to have stirred up the people at a contio (inflammatus populus, Phil. 12.15). And note Cicero’s remark on the various contiones held in 57 supporting Clodius’ attempt to be elected aedile: contiones turbulentae Metelli, temerariae Appi, furiosissimae Publi (Att. 4.3.4). 268 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. provided a convenient, non-reciprocal way for the Senatorial aristocracy to communicate with the population.5 2 1 Despite occasional problems, this was clearly in the Senate’s interest, as Cicero demonstrated in his use of contiones to fashion public opinion against the Catilinarians in 63.5 2 2 Several episodes in Livy illustrate the Senate’s desire for political discussion to be restricted to contiones over which they retain some control and its alarm at occasions when the people meet on their own with no magistrates to control and influence proceedings. At 2.23ff, Livy gives an account of the turmoil in Rome, caused mainly by the issue of debt, which led eventually to the first secession and the creation of tribunes. War with the Volsci was threatening, and there was serious discord as people muttered (fremebant se, 2.23.25 2 3 ), complaining of their debts. An old man, in a wretched state, throws himself into the Forum (se in Forum proiecit, 2.23.3); he turns out to be an old soldier, who displays his war scars to passers-by. The people inquire 5 2 1 Pina Polo 1996: 21: “Jahrhundertelang waren die contiones fiir das romische Volk der Ort, an dem es sich liber die fiir die Gemeinschaft wichtigen Ereignisse informierte, aber es waren die Magistrate und der Senate, die entschieden, was wichtig war, und so lemte der populus, dass seine Rolle die eines Zuhorers war.” Cf. 22: “Als Teil der institutionellen Maschinerie der Republik waren die contiones einerseits ein Mittel zur Selbstdarstellung der Elite und anderseits ein Kommunikationsweg; allerdings war es eine einseitige Kommunikation, die sich immer nur in eine Richtung vollzog: von der Elite zum Volke.” At 21, Pina Polo points out that those magistrates who asked an audience at a contio its opinion (interrogare contionem) were considered to be seditiosi. Holkeskamp 1995 sees contiones as the place where aristocratic governance, which rested on an ideology of service to the populus Romanus, had to be legitimated. The contio thus becomes a place of elite self-representation, “die grosste Biihne des nobilis als Redner” (32). See more generally Holkeskamp 1993. 5 2 2 Cf. Pina Polo 1996: 44-8 for Catiline being disadvantaged by not having access to such an audience. Note the reassuring words of Laelius in the de Amicitia: contio, quae ex imperitissimis constat, tamen iudicare solet, quid intersit inter popularem, id est assentatorem et levem civem, et inter constantem et verum et gravem (Am. 95). The ideal political situation, from the aristocracy’s point of view, was for the people to hang on the words of the Senate: as was the case with Cicero’s fourth Philippic, addressed to a huge crowd (frequentia vestra incredibilis, Quirites, contioque tanta quantam meminisse non videor, 4.1) immediately following his speech in the Senate. In this case Cicero’s speech helps cement the desired unity between Senate and people (numquam maior consensus vester in ulla causa fuit; numquam tarn vehementer cum senatu consociati fuistis, 4.12). 5 2 3 Fremo tends to be a significant word in Livy, often used to signify discontent; see the references in the circulus chapter. 269 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. of his condition, and, according to Livy, a crowd gathers that was “almost like a contio” (sciscitantibus unde ille habitus, unde deformitas, cum circumfusa turbaesset prope in contionis modum, 2.23.5). Here the fact that the crowd was like, but was not strictly speaking, a contio seems significant. The old soldier himself gets to speak to the audience and the people in the crowd ask questions of their own accord— something which would not occur at an official contio. The crowd dispersed from the Fomm, returning to the various parts of the city, and they then returned to the Fomm and turned on the consuls who had intervened in the disturbance. Livy tells how the consuls had lost their auctoritas, with the people demanding, with threats rather than in supplication, that they summon the Senate: postulare multo minaciter magis quam suppliciter ut senatum vocarent (2.23.11). The implication here seems to be that the people should beg if they have demands, as was the case with the audience at the contio which ended up supplicating the dictator Papirius, discussed earlier. Livy tells how the people pressed up against the curia to witness and to control the proceedings. However, fear had kept most senators from the Fomm, and so there was no quomm (frequentia). This increased the popular fury, and Livy says that not even the maiestas of the consuls would have restrained the anger of the people were it not for the eventual arrival of the senators, who were not sure whether it was more dangerous to stay at home or come to the Fomm: iam prope erat ut ne consulum quidem maiestas coerceret iras hominum, cum, incerti morando an veniendo plus periculo contraherent, tandem in senatum veniunt (2.23.14). Finally the consul Servilius, who was more popularis than his colleague (cui ingenium magis populare erat, 2.24.3), was urged by the Senate to address the people. This occasion was a formal contio (note 2.24.4 turn consul misso senatu in contionem prodit), unlike the informal contio at which the soldier spoke earlier. Livy tells how the consul offered 270 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. concessions and the men enlisted. At this formal contio, then, auctoritas is restored— the people listen and obey. The Senate makes concessions but retains its auctoritas and recovers the maiestas which had earlier been threatened and whose importance in Roman politics we have seen. Shortly afterwards, the Senate went back on its word over its concessions, and so the people took action to protect those in debt themselves, attacking creditors in the sight of the consuls and refusing to sign up for the levy, which had been called for the war against the Sabines (2.27). The consul Appius Claudius was determined, according to Livy, to stand up for the maiestas of the Senate (se unum et suae et patrum maiestatis vindicemfore, 2.27.11); therefore, he ordered the arrest of a man accused of being a “leader of sedition” {unum insignem ducem seditionum), one of the “daily multitude” who were gathered, presumably in the Forum, inflamed with license (cum circumstaret cottidiana multitudo licentia accensa, 2.21.12). As he was led off by the lictors, the man appealed (provocavit) to the people, an appeal which Appius would have ignored had it not been for the advice and authority of the Senate (consilio magis et auctoritate principum quam populi clamore'). Livy tells how the “evil” grew daily, not so much with open demonstrations as with “secession and secret gatherings.” These, he says, were much more dangerous: crescere inde malum in dies, non clamoribus modo apertis sed, quod multo pemiciosius erat, secessione occultisque conloquiis (2.27.13).5 2 4 In the new year, the plebs is said to have continued to hold coetus noctumos, not in the Forum but on the Esquiline and the Aventine.5 2 5 This was because the people realized that the Forum 5 2 4 Note that nightly meetings were prohibited in the Twelve Tables, suggesting that there really had been a problem with such meetings in the early fifth century. See Crawford Roman Statutes VIII. 14- 15. 5 2 5 See Syme 1979 for the popular character of the Aventine. 271 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. was a place where over-hasty action was too likely to occur (ne inforo subitis trepidaret consiliis et omnia temere ac fortuiti ageret, 2.28.1). Livy tells how the consuls saw this move as pemiciosam. It is striking that the plebs itself, according to Livy, realized that the Forum was not necessarily the place for activity that would best serve its political interests; and by contrast, it is clear that the Senate was nervous precisely because popular activity was no longer taking place in the Forum, where there was a better chance that they could exert some degree of control over it. Livy now offers a striking comment on the situation. The senators are said to have blamed the consuls, saying that there were no longer magistrates in the Republic: profecto si essent in re publica magistratus, nullum futurum fuisse Romae nisi publicum concilium; nunc in mille curias contionesque dispersam et dissipatam esse rem publicam (“if there were truly magistrates in the State, there would be no council in Rome except for the Council of the People; but now the state has been scattered and dispersed into a thousand senates and condones,” 2.28.3). The constitutional language used here to refer to the popular gatherings is, of course, ironic. But, apart from the concern over the non-constitutional nature of the gatherings, with no magistrate in charge of them, there is also alarm that such meetings are spread out all over the city (dispersam et dissipatam), not in the Forum under the watchful and restraining eye of the curia and its magistrates. We go on to learn how the consul from his tribunal called a military levy to which noone replied. Instead, in language very similar to that of 2.23.5, the people spontaneously formed an “unofficial” condo (in contionis modum), saying that the plebs would not be further deceived: cum ad nomen nemo responderet, circumfusa multitudo in contionis modum negare ultra decipi plebem posse (2.28.6). Once more, in this meeting that is like, but is not in fact, a condo, the plebs has a real voice and 272 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. demands freedom for the nexi before they will agree to fight.5 2 6 At 2.29.3-4, the breakdown of senatorial maiestas is confirmed, as the people repulse a lictor who attempts to arrest a man who is resisting the levy. Eventually, however, a certain amount of order is restored, and a dictator is appointed, who manages to organize a military campaign. But once the campaign is over, the Senate invents reasons to keep the men under arms, fearing that the soldiers would resume their secret and seditious meetings once they were discharged: timor inde patres incessit, ne si dimissus exercitus foret, rursus coetus occulti coniurationesque fierent (2.32.1). The subsequent anger of the people leads to the first plebeian secession to the Sacred Mount and to the people gaining their own magistrates, tribuni plebis, magistrates who, among other responsibilities, would be able to call their own contiones. In this episode, then, I have attempted to stress how the contio need not necessarily be seen as serving the “democratic element.” While its role in the theoretical sovereignty of the populus Romanus was crucial, I would suggest that it should also be seen as a locus for the display of elite authority and maiestas— an occasion for the positioning of Roman magisterial auctoritas both literally and symbolically above the people. Certainly this auctoritas could break down, but rarely was this the case.5 2 7 And in general terms, I would suggest that the democratic potential of the plebs was often more successfully expressed in its non-constitutional actions, in the Forum and elsewhere. 5 2 6 Cf. 2.38.2 and 34.48 for other Livian uses of the expression in contionis modum. 5 2 7 But there was always unpredictability whenever an orator addressed a crowd, whether a contio or a corona at a trial. Cf. Catullus 53, where, much to the poet’s amusement, nescio quem e corona began mocking Calvus during his speech at the Trial of Vatinius. Also Cicero Fam. 1.5b.1, on Pompey being abused during his speech on behalf of Milo. However, this may have been an exceptional instance since those abusing him may have been Clodius’ trained collegiati. Cf. also the tradition that Cicero was unable, because of heckling, to deliver the pro Milone. However, see here Settle 1963. 273 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. It is interesting to examine in this respect an occasion where popular action in the Forum undoubtedly served the interest of the governing class a whole: the story of the regijugium and the foundation of the Republic, as recounted at the end of book one of Livy. After her suicide in Collatia, Lucretia’s body was brought into the forum there where the sight of it caused indignation: elatum domo Lucretiae corpus in Forum deferunt, concientque miraculo, utfit, rei novae atque indignitate homines (Livy 1.59.3). In an unofficial assembly all complained of the King’s crime and of his vis, and Brutus urged them all to march on Rome. At Rome, Lucretia’s suicide had an equally powerful effect on the people, who flocked to the Forum from all directions: ergo ex omnibus locis in Forum curritur (1.59.7). Brutus then addressed this gathering, and with his oratory he enflamed the people to revolt against Tarquin.5 2 8 Perhaps the most striking aspect of this passage is that the assembly which Brutus addressed in the Forum, and which led to the foundation of the Republic, has been turned by Roman tradition into a formal contio, not a spontaneous gathering. Livy tells how Brutus called this assembly in his capacity as a magistrate, as tribune of the Celeres (or “knights”): quo simul ventum est, praeco ad tribunum celerum, in quo magistratu forte Brutus erat, populum advocavit (1.59.7).5 2 9 It seems likely that it was important for Roman aristocratic historical tradition to make this meeting, which caused the end of the monarchy, an official contio, presided over by a magistrate. It 5 2 8 See Ogilvie ad loc. for Brutus’ language here recalling the political language of the late Republic, and comparing the speeches of M. Brutus to the crowd in the aftermath of Caesar’s assassination. 5 2 9 Cf. Ogilvie ad loc.: “In Cicero, de Rep. 2.47 Brutus is a privatus. Both by its source and by the fact that a man who had been regarded as half-witted would not have been entrusted with any responsible command, that must be the original version. Later constitutionalists, however, anxious to prove even by legal fiction the legitimate development of the Roman constitution, accepted the equation of Celeres with equites and proposed a Tribunus Celerum as the precursor of the Magister Equitum. It would have been improper for a non-magistrate to hold a contio.” 274 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. would have been inappropriate for the founding act of the Republic to have been the consequence of a disorganized meeting of the people.5 3 0 Several of the above examples show how the Forum was a space that was contested. As Millar says: the Forum.. .was the place where the conflicting values and traditions shared by Roman citizens were argued out in public and where a very complex, ‘face-to-face’ political system with various diverse components functioned in the open air with the different elements operating literally in sight of each other and all under the gaze of whatever onlookers were present. (1998: 38) As we have seen, Millar’s focus is on what he sees as the democratic nature of the constitution, and as such he focuses on contiones, iudicia and comitia: “The central element in the political life of the late Republic, and the source from which rumor and the formation of public opinion started was the appearance of the orator before the populus in the Forum” (224). In this dissertation, I focus rather on other, non constitutional aspects of the Roman popular politics, and I try to challenge the notion that public opinion was necessarily dependent on the orator. But I do share the essential picture of the Forum as an arena where conflicting values could be expressed and argued out. This arena is figured by Livy’s use of the metaphor of a battle column, agmen, to describe both the Senators and the plebs in their attempts to gain control of the Forum. In Book Five, Livy tells how Camillus opposed the tribunes who had been advocating, in contiones, moving the city from Rome to Veii (haec propalam contionabundus in dies magis augebat iras hominum, 5.30.1). On the day of the vote, 5 3 0 On the regifugium, see also Cic. de Or. 2.198-9 where Antonius recalls his speech in defence of Norbanus in the 90s, when he showed, through a survey of the Republic, how seditiones had often been just and necessary; without them the kings would not have been driven out, there would have been no tribunes, no provocatio— the vindex libertatis and patrona of the civitas, and no consularis potestas limited by plebescita. 275 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Livy tells how Camillus urged the Senators to go to the Forum and fight for the gods of Rome. The Senators formed a line together in the Forum {agmine facto) and then, with tears in their eyes, scattered to their tribesmen to persuade them not to desert the city. Here, then, we again see the Senators using their maiestas and auctoritas to manipulate the politics of the Forum. But a similar expression is also used of the plebs. In the nexi episode discussed above, beggars are said to have come onto the streets {in publicum) to beg for the fide s of the Roman citizens. As Livy says: nullo loco deest seditionis voluntarius comes; multis passim agminibus per omnis vias cum clamore in Forum curritur (“in no place was there lacking volunteers to join in the seditio. Everywhere, in many columns, they ran through all the streets with a cry into the Forum,” 2.23.8). Similarly, in 336 BC, the endebted C. Publilius was flogged and threw himself onto the streets {in publicum), deploring the cruelty of the leaders. The people gathered in a column in the Forum {agmine facto) and forced the Senate to meet, begging them, successfully, to abolish debt-bondage (8.28).5 3 1 Here, then, we see military metaphors used of both the Senate and plebs in their struggle to control the Forum. This might suggest that the Forum was some kind of neutral territory, available to be fought over by both plebs and patricians. However, it is more likely that it was always thought of as a distinctly popular space. Without doubt, certain areas of the Forum were associated specifically with the plebs. We have seen elsewhere that the tabemae novae, on the north side of the Forum, were known as tabemae plebeiae; and the Statue of Marsyas was a monument replete with plebeian 3 3 1 Cf. Livy 2.54.9: after the people hear that the tribune Genucius has been found dead, suspected of being murdered by the Senators, they leave the assembly as if leaving battle upon the death of a leader {quod ubi in totam contionem pertulit rumor, sicut acies funditur duce occiso, ita dilapsi passim alii alio). For the Forum as an enclosed space see Purcell 1995: 326; cf. Dio 42.43.4 (the Forum barricaded in 48 by Dolabella’s supporters); App. BC 3.30 (Antony enclosing the Forum at his election). 276 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. associations.5 3 2 As Purcell says of the Forum, “this was not a managed civil space into which the plebs was allowed on sufferance and on their best behaviour-it was theirs in a more intimate way” (1995: 328). Not least, the Forum area was the place where many of the plebs lived; and this was why C. Gracchus moved his house from the Palatine to a location utto x f |v ayopav, a place described by Plutarch as 5 r |p o T iK c b T e p o v , being the home of the “humble and the lowly” (C. Gracchus 12.1), just as centuries before Publicola was said to have moved his house to the bottom of the Velian hill after causing resentment by beginning to build near the top (Cicero de Republica 2.53). All political activity at Rome took place in the open, before the gaze of the assembled people, with the sole exception of meetings of the Senate, which met in the enclosed curia.5 3 3 The Senate alone conducted business away from the gaze of the public, and just as the curia was identified with the aristocrats, initially the patricians, so the other spaces of political activity would have been identified with the rest of the city, the plebs.5 3 4 The one partial exception may have been the Campus Martius where the people met as the Comitia Centuriata\ originally this was an assembly of the army, the 5 3 2 On the popular associations of the Forum, see Thommen 1995 and Coarelli at e.g. 2.149. See Millar 1989: 147 on the statue of Marsyas. Also Wiseman 1988. However, Crawford 1974:1.377-8 rejects any connection between this statue and popularis ideology. Note more generally Purcell 1995: 328 for a “distinct plebeian consciousness which we can just discern through the hostility of the sources” (giving references). 5 3 3 Note that strictly speaking neither the comitium nor the curia were part of the Forum, but clearly together they all formed the most important political space of the city. Even in the Empire the ideology of publicity remained: see Pliny Pan. 51.5 and 83.1 for Trajan carrying out business in public where he can be exposed to the judgment of the people. See Riggsby 1997: 47-8. 5 3 4 Note also the ideology of public display. E.g. at 9.46 Livy tells how the aedile Cn. Flavius insisted on displaying on a whiteboard throughout the Forum (circa Forum in albo) the civile ius, which before had lain repositum in penetralibus pontificum. Cf. how in the inscription from Bantia dating from around the end of the second century, magistrates were to swear to abide by the law in front of the Temple of Castor, in the light of day, facing the Forum: pro aede Castorus (sic) palam luci in Forum vorsus (CIL 1.2.582 lines 16-17). See Taylor 1966: 28. See also Sherwin White 1982 for the emphasis accorded to publicity and public proceedings in C. Gracchus’ lex repetundarum. 277 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. people in arms, and, meeting outside the pomerium, it was subject to a different set of rules from those of the Forum.5 3 5 The word Forum is etymologically related to the adjective forensis, and forensis is a term that is directly opposed to the domestic sphere. For instance, Cicero says: verba tufingas, et ea dicas quae non sentias? Aut etiam, ut vestitum, sic sententiam habeas aliam domesticam, aliam forensem (“Do you make up words and say those things which you do not feel? Or do you even have, like an item of clothing, one opinion at home, another out of doors?” Fin. 2.77). The Forum too can be considered as a public space, opposed to the domestic sphere which was associated, as we have seen elsewhere, primarily with Roman elites.5 3 6 This division between the public activity of the Forum and the private activity of domus and the curia overlaps, I would suggest, with the public-private split we have already seen in the contrast of, for example, tabemae with domi, and circuli with convivia.5 3 1 And, as a public space, the people would have felt that the Forum was the place in which it was sovereign, the primary venue in which the populus Romanus could assert its rights. But as we have already seen, putting this sovereignty into practice proved much more complicated.5 3 8 5 3 5 Bonnefond 1983: 44. From the Second Century onwards, the Tribal Assembly moved to the Campus for elections, although it remained in the Forum for legislative and judicial activity. Given what seems to have been the essentially private nature of the curia, I would only partially accept the remarks of Dupont 1988: 44: “Because the places in which oratio is performed-the Forum, the Campus Martius, and the Senate— are public places, or places of the populus, the public discourse conducted in them reactivates the collective memory, whether mythical or historical, that is inscribed upon the topography of the city.” 5 3 6 Note Emout and Meillet 1959, stating that the word Forum was originally “l’enclos qui entoure la maison” (s.v. Forum). See Riggsby 1997: 48, citing Cicero ad Quint. Fratr. 1.1.25 where the domus is contrasted with the tribunal, “a traditional symbol of the State.” Riggsby (citing Sen. Ben. 7.9.5) argues that the “cubiculum, standing in, as it often does, for the entire house, might well come to represent the private by opposition with the community.” 5 3 7 See Riggsby 1997 for reflections on the public/private division at Rome. 5 3 8 How did Senators deal with this popular space? They could manipulate it. Cf. Mancinus displaying a painting of his victory, leading to his election as consul (Pliny NH 35.23); cf. Gruen 1996: 217-8. Cf. Cic. Sest. 93 for Gabinius displaying a picture of Lucullus’ luxurious house to an 278 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. But in the second half of the second century, measures were taken to try to assert p o p u la r control of the space of the Forum. We have seen how Cicero saw the physical presence of the curia as one means of maintaining the authority of the Senate over the people. The comitium was, of course, directly beneath the curia; thus, when in 145 C. Licinius Crassus famously turned on the rostra away from the comitium towards the Forum, this was an important symbolic gesture in the struggle to maintain the Forum as a popular space.5 3 9 Whatever exactly Crassus was doing, his turning his back on the Senate was undoubtedly significant.5 4 0 Plutarch may be wrong in claiming that it was C. Gracchus who first turned away from the comitium towards the Forum to address the crowd;5 4 1 however, his comments on the change in the relationship between the space of the comitium, rostra and Forum make it clear that something occurred which was seen as a democratic move: .. .k c u H E T eveyK obv T p o t r o v tiv c c t t |V -nroArraav e k x f js a p i o T O K p a T i a s e\$ T f)u SriuoKpcmav, COS TCOV outraged crowd in contionibus. They could engage in a petty yobbism: cf. Livy 7.6, where the patricians indulge in the worst kind of Schadenfreude, greeting the news of the plebeian consul’s defeat with taunts and jeers: his vocibus curia et Forum personat. They could use political theater to win sympathy; cf. Livy 2.54 for elite display of grief (sordidati). They could also try to by-pass the Forum altogether; see below for the gradual marginalization of the Forum. 5 3 9 In particular, Crassus may have been responding to the Senate’s decision to move some of its meetings to the Temple of Castor, away from the comitium (Thommen 1995: 363 with 366). See Bonnefond 1983. Also Bonnefond-Coudry 1989 chapter one. 5 4 0 Cic. de Am. 96: primus instituit in Forum versus agere cum populo, where agere cum populo should refer to holding the vote among the tribes after the contio (also Varro RE 1.2.9: primus populum ad leges accipiendas in septem iugeraforensia e comitio eduxit). See Taylor 1966: 22-25. 5 4 1 Plut. C. Gracchus 5. See Taylor 1966: 23. However, Coarelli 1983-5:11.158 believes that it may have been traditional practice before C. Gracchus to address contiones facing the comitium and curia, and so attempts to reconcile the two traditions, with Crassus making the change for the voting procedure and Gracchus for contiones. However, if magistrates did not address the crowd in the Forum from the rostra before 123, it seems hard to account for its being constructed where it was, on the edge of the comitium, overlooking both the assembly space and the Forum. Taylor 1966: 22-25 suggests that magistrates had addressed the crowd in the Forum in contiones from the time the rostra was built in 338. If C. Gracchus did not make this innovation, he was nevertheless well aware of the importance of the Forum. See above on his moving his house to a nearby location and note how he tore down seats set up to be sold to spectators for a gladiatorial show, allowing more people to watch the games for free (Plut. C. Gracchus 12). 279 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. tto A A c o v Seov, ou Tfj$ (3ouAfjs, aToxoc^eaSai t o u $ Aeyovra$ (“and bringing about in a certain fashion a change in the State from an aristocracy to a democracy, since it was necessary for those speaking to aim at the many, not the Senate,” C. Gracchus 5). 3. The Crossroads of Rome According to Richardson, “as the Forum was remarkable for the convergence of watercourses, so it was remarkable for the convergence of streets, roads that had originally followed the watercourses and others that had branched from these” (1992: 171). This “convergence of streets” reminds us of the compita. Indeed, in a sense the Forum was the central compitum of Rome, and the kind of cultural, social and political activity that occurred at compita took place on a larger scale in the Forum. The formal political activity of the Forum is obvious and has already been touched upon. But like compita, the Forum was also a site, indeed the supreme site, for interaction, social exchange, gossip and rumor. Indeed we saw earlier how the younger Pliny referred to the figure of a circulator inforo in ridiculing Regulus’ book in memory of his dead son which was being read out throughout the Empire (Ep. 4.7). And we also have noted how in the later Empire, Ammianus Marcellinus, in his account of the faults of the “lazy and indolent” Roman plebs, described them as forming circuli in the fora, at crossroads, in the streets and at meeting places (per fora et compita et plateas et conventicula, 28.4.30). As with the compita, we find a distaste for the kind of unauthorized political communication which took place in the Forum. For instance, Caelius, in a letter to Cicero, speaks scornfully of the subrostrani, who have spread a rumor in the Forum 280 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. that Cicero had been killed by Q. Pompeius: te a.d. ix kal. Iunii subrostrani (quod illorum capiti sit!) dissiparant periisse, ut in urbe ac foro toto maximus rumor juerit, te a Q. Pompeio in itinere occisum (Fam. 8.1.5).5 4 2 The term subrostrani is found only here, but it reminds one of other such terms that we find, for instance Livy’s cottidiana multitudo which we met earlier hanging about the Forum, enflamed with license (2.27.12). The term subrostrani clearly implies people who were accustomed to gather around the rostra, waiting for the scent of political news which they would then disseminate. Indeed these subrostrani might be involved in the kind of rumor- spreading process that Horace describes as spreading from the rostra into the neighborhoods: frigidus a rostris manat per compita rumor (Satires 2.6.50).5 4 3 Scholars have seen such people as tied to leading politicians, spreading rumors to further their cause and, occasionally, to bring about a mobilization of the people.5 4 4 Pina Polo, for example, feels that those involved in this rumor spreading would have included those whom Vanderbroeck terms “Intermediate Leaders” of the plebs, and he thinks that they may have consisted in the 50s of magistri vici.5 4 5 However, there is no 5 4 2 The same letter also refers to susurratores (8.1.4), people whispering about Caesar in Gaul. And Caelius also tells Cicero that he is sending him senatusconsulta, edicta, fabulae, rumores (8.1.1). 5 4 3 Pina Polo 1996: 100 cites Manutius, Comm. 325, explaining the term subrostrani thus: de hominibus infimi ordinis sub rostris versari solitis. As Pina Polo says: “Daraus wird deutlich, dafl es die Rostra sind, auf denen die Geriichte vor allem in Umlauf gebracht werden, und da|3 diejenigen, die sich in der Nahe der Rednerbiihne aufhalten, sie in der ganzen Stadt verbreiten” (1996: 100). 544 See Laurence 1994b; also Pina Polo 1996: 100: "Die Vermutung liegt nahe, da(3 diese susurratores und subrostrani zu bestimmten Gelegenheiten im Interesse des einen oder anderen Politikers handelten, da ihre soziale Stellung ihnen den direkten Kontakt zur plebs ermoglichte und sie so fur eine effiziente Verbreitung von Geruchten sorgen konnten. . . . Jedenfalls verbreiteten diese susurratores und subrostrani durch Mund-zu-Mund-Propaganda und durch Geriichte Ideen und Ziele der fiihrenden Politiker und trugen so zur Bildung einer bestimmten Meinung innerhalb der Bevolkerung bei, die unter Umstanden zu einer Mobilisierung des Volkes fiihren konnte." See in general Pina Polo 1996: 94-113. Purcell 1995: 328 associates subrostrani with the armchair generals rebuked at Livy 44.22 by Aemilius Paullus (not Aemilianus, as Purcell states). 5 4 5 See e.g. Vanderbroeck 1987: 100 for these Mittelmdnner. 281 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. evidence to suggest that subrostrani necessarily consisted of such people.5 4 6 In general, the cultural activity which we have been observing elsewhere might suggest a less organized spreading of rumor, provoking alarm precisely because it lay outside of traditional means of social control, such as patron-client relationships. Livy’s discussion of discontent in Rome in 211BC is significant in this context. Public business was on hold until Marcellus’ fellow consul arrived in the city to deal with charges against Marcellus, and, according to Livy, this leisure stirred up the rumors of the people: otium, ut solet, excitavit plebis rumores (26.26.10).5 4 7 This seems to be a fairly clear statement of rumor not being organized, but rather the result of increased social interaction due to increased otium. Purcell describes the Forum as a “talking- shop” (1995: 328); as such it would be unwise to relate gossip and rumor-spreading in the Fomm solely to politicians’ attempts to disseminate material and propaganda to the people.5 4 8 Loiterers in the Fomm are found frequently in our sources; and given Livy’s comment on otium causing rumores, it is little wonder that they seem not to have been approved of. A striking discussion of the kind of people found in the Fomm occurs in Plautus’ Curculio, where the choragus tells the audience where people of every variety can be found: qui periumm convenire volt hominem ito in comitium; qui mendacem et gloriosum, apud Cloacinae sacmm, ditis damnosos maritos sub basilica quaerito. ibidem emnt scorta exoleta quique stipulari solent, symbolamm collatores apud Fomm piscarium. in foro infimo boni homines atque dites ambulant, in medio propter canalem, ibi ostentatores meri; 5 4 6 Although Caelius Rufus tells Cicero that susurratores, whom Pina Polo associates with subrostrani, spread rumors about Caesar which are not spread vulgo, but inter paucos, quos tu nosti, palam secreto narrantur (Cic. Fam. 8.1.4). 5 4 7 For the thought that rumores might cause problems, cf. the final stanza of Catullus 51. 5 4 8 As Laurence 1994b in particular attempts to do. 282 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. confidentes garrulique et malevoli supera laeum, qui alteri denihilo audacter dicunt contumeliam et qui ipsi sat habent quod in se possit vere dicier. sub veteribus, ibi sunt qui dant quique accipiunt faenore. pone aedem Castoris, ibi sunt subito quibus credas male. in Tusco vico, ibi sunt homines qui ipsi sese venditant, vel qui ipsi vorsant vel qui aliis ubi vorsentur praebeant. (470-483) Whoever wants to meet a perjurer, let him go to the comitium,-, whoever seeks a liar and a boaster, let him seek him at the Shrine of Cloacina, and for rich, spendthrift husbands, look under the basilica. In the same place are fully-developed harlots and those who are used to bargaining for them; carriers of dinner tokens are at the fishmarket. In the lower Fomm, the great and the wealthy stroll about; in the middle near the canal, there are the undiluted show-offs. The brash, the garrulous and the malevolent are above the lake, those who insult others brashly for no reason, while they themselves have plenty which could in all truth be spoken against them. By the old shops, there are those who offer and accept money at interest. Behind the Temple of Castor, there you find the type which you would do well not to trust too quickly. In the Tuscan neighborhood, there are the men who would sell themselves, both those who themselves would do the turning and those who would offer to others the chance to turn.5 4 9 It is probably wise not to take the precise association of specific activities with specific locations too seriously, though doubtless there is some truth to them.5 5 0 More important is the lively picture of otium and negotium of all kinds taking place. It is tempting to read this early second century description of the activity of the Fomm together with the anecdote, recorded in Pliny (NH. 19.23-4), in which the Elder Cato is said, in typical fashion, to have wished that the Fomm were paved with sharp stones. Cato’s words are hardly to be taken too seriously, but they do indicate a concern about the popular nature of the space of the Fomm and a desire to get rid of those who 5 4 9 See Duckworth 1955 on this passage, especially the vexed question of the basilica that it refers to. Note Goldberg 1998 on the performance venue for the Pseudolus\ it is tempting to imagine the Forum itself or a location nearby as the venue for the Curculio. Cf. Plautus Captivi 813-7 for subbasilicani who are forced into the Forum by the stench of the fish market. Note also Cicero pro Caelio 21: nam quae sit multitudo in foro, quae genera, quae studio, quae varietas hominum, videtis. 5 5 0 Note, for instance, how behind the Temple of Castor are found the more disreputable moneylenders. Presumably better conduct was demanded of those who operated in the heart of the Forum, who were more visible to the people. 283 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. congregated there.5 5 1 As Dupont says, "le Forum est le lieu de la souverainete populaire parce qu'il est celui de la sociabilite urbaine" (197).5 5 2 The Forum was, then, like the compita, a space of social interaction, although this interaction had greater political consequences. It also, like the compita, offered a venue for cultural activities, albeit again on a greater scale. We saw earlier how Martial associated the Fomm and the compita together as places where the libellus will be read: o quantum tibi nominis paratur! o quae gloria! quam frequens amator; te convivia, te Fomm sonabit aedes compita porticus tabemae. uni mitteris, omnibus legeris. (7.97.9ff) O how great a name is being prepared for you! O what glory! How many lovers you will have! Banquets and the Fomm will make you resound, and the temples, the compita, the porticos and the shops. You will be sent to one, but you will be read by all. Horace too tells of literary performances in the Fomm (and Baths), and, again, they are seen as something to be avoided (Sat. 1.4.73-6). Particularly interesting is Horace Epistle 1.19, where, surely referring to the Fomm, the poet compares popular poetry recitations to the activity of a petitor, forced to canvass for votes in an election campaign: Non ego ventosae plebis suffragia venor impensis cenarum et tritae munere vestis; Non ego, nobilium scriptomm auditor et ultor, grammaticas ambire tribus et pulpita dignor: hinc illae lacrimae. (1.19.37-41) 5 5 1 Stambaugh 1988: 111 feels that Cato’s anxiety was a response to the new building projects in the Forum: “all this tended to make the Forum a more pleasant, convenient place in which to be, and an alarmed Cato was moved to argue that it should be paved with sharp stones in order to discourage people from loitering there.” But this seems unlikely as there was plenty of plebeian activity in the Forum before the rebuilding. Indeed the great age of plebeian activity in the Forum may have been the fourth century BC, before the provisions shops were removed (see tabemae section). 5 5 2 Dupont 1989: 198 is also useful, albeit somewhat impressionistic, on afternoon encounters in the Forum strengthening the Romans’ sense of community. 284 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. I do not hunt the votes of the fickle plebs at the expense of dinners and with gifts of worn out clothes; nor do I, as a listener and avenger of noble writings, deem it worthy to canvass the tribes and platforms of the professors. Hence those tears. The distaste for poets who do seek popularity in the Forum perhaps reminds us of Livy’s obvious distaste for Appius Claudius’ electoral tactics (ipse medius.. .in foro .. .se plebi venditare, 3.55). And Horace’s poetic stance, determining to avoid the popularity contests of the Fomm, perhaps recalls the political stance of Scipio Aemilianus, who, as Polybius famously recounts, avoided the Fomm where his fellow youths sought popularity, and went hunting instead (31.29.8). Under the Principate, the Roman literary elite tended to shun, like Horace, the Fomm crowd, a crowd described by Wiseman as “a tough proposition” (1987b: 255). We leam from Seneca (Cont. 4 pref. 2) how instead Pollio began the practice of holding recitations in private homes, thus avoiding the multitudo; such recitations were also held in “more genteel” public spaces, like the Palatine library.5 5 3 Wiseman also draws attention to Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ discussion of Thucydides, where he tells how Greek professors of his day argued about whether Thucydides’ difficult style was designed only for the educated few, those who had studied philosophy and rhetoric, rather than “the people of the agora, shopmen and artisans and those without a liberal education” (On Thuc. 50).5 5 4 As Wiseman says, “the very existence of the controversy shows that that was not what you would normally expect in an historian” (1987b: 255). In other words, most historians would have written to be understood by 5 5 3 Wiseman 1987b: 255. See 254 for references to literary performances in various locations at Rome and elsewhere. Cf. Dupont 1998. Also Wiseman 1987c and White 1978. See below on how noble domi became private fora. 5 5 4 Dion. Hal. On Thuc. 50: ou y a p ay o p ai'015 dvOpcbtrois 0O8’ ETriSicppiois rj xeip°TE X v aiS ou8e to R aAAois oi jaf] pexeoxov dycoyfjj eAeuOepiou x au x a s KaxaaKEud^saSai xa$ ypaq>as, aAA’ av S p aai 81a xcov eyKUKAlcov paSriudxcov etti pnxopucriv xe kqi <piAoao<p(av sAr|Au06aiv, oR ouSev (pavf|OExai xouxcov £evov. 285 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the people in the Forum.5 5 5 However, we have already seen that many writers wrote in a way designed precisely to distance themselves from this Forum crowd, although they could do little ultimately to prevent their works being read outside of their own circle. More significant, then, is this passage’s contrast between the cultural competency of the agora crowd, consisting of the Greek equivalent of tabemarii and opifices, and that of the cultured elite. It is clear that there was a substantial non-elite literary culture, and once more it is viewed at a distance by those who want to keep the fruits of their education to themselves. 4. The Forum Crowd We have just seen Dionysius contrasting the “educated few” with “the people of the agora, shopsmen and artisans.” If we are entitled to apply this passage to Rome, then it provides an interesting association between the crowd of the Forum and tabemarii and opifices, the kinds of people this dissertation has in general been dealing with. Several Latin expressions are found in our sources which seem to refer to a specific segment of the population that was associated with the Forum. For instance, in a letter to Quintus, Cicero tells his brother that Pompey should take care not to be crushed, since he is facing hostility from several different elements of the city: contionario illo populo a se prope alienato, nobilitate inimica, non aequo senatu, iuventute improbo (Quint. Fratr. 2.3.4). And again, in one of his more memorable expressions, Cicero refers to ilia contionalis hirudo aerarii, misera ac ieiuna plebecula (“that contio- assembling, treasury-draining, wretched and starveling little rabble,” Att. 1.16.11). In 5 5 5 Cf. Lucian How to Write History 5, urging the historian to avoid myth and panegyric, which will earn the support of the “common rabble” but the contempt of the “discerning few” (Wiseman 1987b: 286 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. this letter of 61, Cicero is writing to Atticus about how he stands with various segments of the city. He says that his position with the boni is the same as before and that it has improved apud sordem urbis etfaecem. He goes on to say that the contionalis plebecula thinks he has no rival for Pompey’s favor. It is difficult to decide here whether the contionalis plebecula is the same as the sordem urbis etfaecem or a different element of the city. A parallel passage from the pro Flacco where the contio crowd is described as the dregs of the city perhaps suggests the former as more likely. Here, in his description of a Greek contio, Cicero states that the rich and influential (locupletis et gravis) are frightened while the poor and unimportant (egentis et levis) are lured with free gifts. He adds that it is easy to stir the workmen and the shopmen “and all that dregs of the city” {opifices et tabernarios atque illam omnemfaecem civitatum quid est negotii concitare, 18). In this case, the part of the audience that gets involved in and excited by the contio is again marked as distinct, and it is seen as a middling element of the city, neither the rich nor the poorest elements of the city, whose political allegiances were perhaps owed to the aristocratic patrons on whom they may have relied. A further indication of the contio crowd’s middling status and its connection with tabemarii and opifices is the passage from Cicero’s Academica, discussed in the previous chapter: quid me igitur Luculle in invidiam et tamquam in contionem vocas, et quidem ut seditiosi tribuni solent occludi tabemas iubes? quo enim spectat illud cum artificia tolli quereris a nobis nisi ut opifices concitentur? Qui si undique omnes convenerint, facile contra vos incitabuntur. Expromam primum ilia invidiosa, quod eos omnis, qui in contione stabunt, exsules servos insanos ess dicatis. (144) Why, therefore, Lucullus do you call me into disfavour and as it were to a contio, and indeed order the shops be closed, as seditious tribunes are accustomed to do? For what else is the point of your complaining that handicrafts are being removed except so that the artisans might be 255-6). 287 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. summoned? If they all came together from all sides, they would easily be incited against you. First I would expound those hateful things, how you say all those who are standing in the contiones are exiles, slaves and mad. This passage shows how it was typical to describe the usual audience of contiones as slaves or exiles; such terminology recalls how Cicero described Clodius’ supporters as servi and latrones, whereas in fact they were largely respectable liberti. That the contio crowd and the Clodiani are abused in a similar way again suggests that those associated with contiones were basically the same kind of people as Clodius’ followers: predominantly the freedmen population of the city, men who worked in tabemae or ojficinae. The notion of a plebs contionalis was developed by Christian Meier, and, although this precise phrase is not found in our sources, it is a useful way of referring to the crowd that was distinctly associated with the Fomm.5 5 6 Cicero makes it clear that this crowd is not, as far as he is concerned, the real populus. For instance, he says that C. Alfius Flavius failed in 57 to become praetor because, as a moderately popularis tribune in 59, he had mistaken the contio crowd with the populus Romanus: et quod ilium esse populum Romanum, qui in condone erat, arbitrabatur .. . (Sest. 114). For Cicero, the hue populus was that present at the gladiatorial Games in the Fomm in 57, where it showed its support for him by cheering the arrival of Sestius. The contio crowd which approved of Cicero’s exile is described as an alius populus, made up of wicked people alone: tantus est ex omnibus spectaculis usque a Capitolio, tantus ex fori cancellis plausus excitatus, ut numquam maior consensio aut apertior populi Romani universi fuisse ulla in causa diceretur. Ubi erant turn illi 5 5 6 Meier 1966: 114-5. Cf. 114: “An dem taglichen populariter agere hat vermutlich nur ein Bruchteil der stadtischen Masse teilgenommen, die plebs contionalis.” Meier is followed by Vanderbroeck 1987: 86-93. 288 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. contionum moderatores, legum domini, civium expulsores? Aliusne est aliquis improbis civibus peculiaris populus, cui nos offensi invisique fuerimus? {Sest. 124-5) So much applause arose from all the spectacle seats right down from the Capitol, so much from the barriers of the Fomm, that never was there said to have been in any cause a greater or more apparent consensus of the whole Roman People. Where then were those moderators of the contiones, those masters over the laws, those expellers of the citizens? Or is there some other People peculiar to wicked citizens, to whom we have caused offense and proved hateful.5 5 7 This gathering displayed, more than any other, the judgment of the whole Roman people {maximum vero populi Romani iudicium universi, Sest. 124), and Cicero goes on to compare it to the contiones held by the praetor Appius Claudius, Clodius’ brother, where the half-dead voices of hired men (semivivis mercennariorum) had the audacity to proclaim that it, the populus Romanus, opposed Cicero’s return.5 5 8 It is a measure of Clodius’ success in causing trouble and subverting the usual order of government that here Cicero praises extra-constitutional activity and condemns the contiones held under the auctoritas of Appius Claudius in 57. The Fomm crowd, then, consists largely of the element we have considered elsewhere in discussing tabemae and compita. Its most influential members were probably tabemarii and opifices, most of whom would be liberti and collegiati. Cicero perhaps hints at their libertine status when he refers to the Fomm crowd as barbarian, perhaps reflecting, if it is not simply a 5 5 7 Likewise, Cicero makes it clear that the crowd assembled as a result of the closing of the shops is not the genuine Roman people. Cf. Dom. 89, telling how he had always been honored by the populus Romanus: an tu populum Romanum esse putas ilium, qui contione ex iis, qui mercede conducuntur? Qui impelluntur ut vim adferant magistratibus, ut obsideant senatum: optent cotidie caedem, incendia, rapinas? quern tu tamen populum nisi tabernis clausis frequentare non poteras, cui populo duces Lentidios, Lollios, Plaguleios, Sergios praefeceras. O speciem dignitatemque populi Romani quam reges, quam nationes exterae, quam gentes ultimae pertimescant, multitudinem hominum et servis, ex conductis, ex facinerosis, ex egentibus congregatam (89). See Vanderbroeck 1987: 87. 5 5 8 Note Cic. Sest. 127: videtisne igitur, quantum intersit inter populum Romanum et contionem. 2 8 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. gratuitous slur, the foreign origin of many freedmen: haec turba et barbaria forensis (de Orat. IM S ).5 5 9 The political role of this section of the population is stressed in the Commentariolum Petitionis, where Cicero is told first to pursue Senators, Equites and active and influential (navos . . . et gratiosos) men of other orders. Many of the latter are clearly freedmen, active in the Forum: multi homines urbarii industrii, multi libertini inforo gratiosi navique versantur (29). Then Cicero is instructed to canvass the collegia, pagi and vici, which presumably included the same kind of people as those influential in the Forum (30).5 6 0 Also in an electoral context, Caelius singles out the so-called columnarii (cf. his reference to subrostrani at 8.1.5) as rejecting, along with the optimi, the candidacy of Favonius for the praetorship (Fam. 8.9.5); again, this suggests both their specific identity as a group in Roman political life and their electoral siginificance. We also hear of the Forum crowd as being important in the election of Aemilianus to the censorship. Plutarch tells us that Aemilianus was accompanied in the Forum by men who were of low birth or recently had been slaves; such men were frequenters of the Forum (dyopocious) and were able to bring about a crowd and to force measures of all kinds through by their zeal and shouts (... dvSpcoTTOus dyevvels kcu SeSouAeukotocs, dyopouous 5e kcu 5uvapevou<; oyAov auvayayEW kcu cnTouSapxia kcu Kpauyq nrdvTa TrpdypccTa (3idaaa0ai pEya (Soqaag, Aemilius Paullus 38). Scipio’s competitor in the election, Appius Claudius, is said by Plutarch to have rebuked Scipio for relying on such men, 5 5 9 See Vanderbroeck 1987: 90. See also Att. 2.1.8, where, in 60, Cicero explains to Atticus that they need the support of the Equites because the alternative is serving freedmen and slaves (an libertinis atque servis serviamus?). 5 6 0 See also Comm. Pet. 17 for the importance of forensis fama, which, according to “Quintus,” comes from domesticis auctoribus (namfere omnis sermo adforensem famam a domesticis emanat auctoribus), that is from a politician’s vicini, tributes, clientes, liberti and servi. 290 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. reminding him that his father, Aemilius Paullus, had won popular support without siding with the people against the Senate in political matters. Again the impression we receive is of a distinct Fomm crowd of a largely libertine nature, and it is interesting here to note that Plurarch implies that its electoral influence came about more as a result of its non-constitutional activity rather than because of its actual votes— not surprising given the wealth-based distribution of voting units at the Comitia Centuriata.5 6 1 Many of these people may have turned against Aemilianus following Tiberius Gracchus’ murder. Aemilianus was asked by a tribune at a contio about the death of Gracchus and replied that Gracchus had been justly killed (iure caesus). The people in the crowd shouted out in anger and Aemilianus then famously called them “not children but stepchildren of Italy.” Use of this insult may be intended to suggest that many in the plebs contionalis were freedmen and slaves, that is of foreign origin.5 6 2 In the Empire this plebs contionalis seems to have become the section of society most dependent on the Princeps and grain doles. These grain doles were distributed throughout Roman society but they came to be primarily associated with the middling level of Roman society, probably largely the tabemarii and opifices whom we have largely been dealing with in this dissertation.5 6 3 Tacitus at Histories 1.4 distinguishes between the pars populi Integra et magnis domibus adnexa and the plebs sordida et circo ac theatris sueta, simul deterrimi servorum, aut qui adesis bonis per dedecus Neronis alebantur, maesti et rumomm avidi. This plebs sordida probably consisted largely of the same kind of people who formed Cicero’s/aex 5611 would contest the position of Yakobsen 1999: 16 on the election of Marius, where he insists that Marius’ crowd of supporters (opifices and agrestes, Sail. lurg. 73) at his election for the consulship were important for their actual votes rather than for the pressure and physical force that they could exert. 5 6 2 Plut. Paullus 38; also Veil. Pat. 2.44; Val. Max. 6.23 and de vir. ill. 58. See Taylor 1960: 18. 5 6 3 Rickman 1980: 188 for the qualifications necessary to be eligible for the dole in the principate. 291 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. civitatis, while the pars populi integra may have largely corresponded to Cicero’s egentes et leves, people so destitute that they were dependent on aristocratic favors.5 6 4 As with Augustus’ reforms at the compita, we see that the most troublesome sector of the population in the late Republic is invested with an interest in the new regime and is made dependent on the princeps for its position and welfare. Relevant here is Livy’s account of Appius Claudius Caecus’ actions as censor in 312. At 9.46.10-11, Livy tells how Cn. Flavius, a scribe who was the son of a freedman (scriba, patre libertino humili fortuna ortus), was elected aedile in 304. Livy tells how he was elected thanks to the. forensis factio, which had become powerful in the censorship of Appius, who had distributed the humiles throughout all the tribes, thus corrupting the Forum et campum.5 6 5 As a result, the state was divided in duas partes: aliud integer populus, fautor et cultor bonorum, aliud forensis factio tendebat (9.46.13). This division reminds us of Cicero’s distinction, noted earlier, between the Forum crowd and the true populus. Here, as Taylor points out, the phrase integer populus is probably used to refer to ingenui, citizens of free birth, many of whom would have received grants of land in the preceding years; the workmen and craftsmen in the city would thus have been primarily freedmen and probably, along with freedmen in the country, formed the humiles who were distributed in all the tribes by Appius.5 6 6 Livy tells how Appius’ reforms, which seem to have given real electoral influence to the humiles, did not last long; in 304 Flavius cooperated with the new censors in dividing the forensis turba into the four urban tribes, where their significance would be 5 6 4 On this passage, see e.g. Yavetz 1988: 143-8. Also see introduction. 5 6 5 On this episode, see especially Taylor 1960: 132-136 and 11. 5 6 6 Taylor 1960: 135. At 135 n. 12 Taylor points out that the opificum . . .vulgus et selluarii, minime militiae idoneum genus called out for military service in the emergency of 329 were mainly freedmen. Cf. Nicolet 1961: 696-701 on Roman traditions of the city being divided into two. The passage from Tacitus’ Histories (1.4) just discussed is building on this tradition. 292 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. drastically reduced (9.46.14). One of these censors was Q. Fabius, and the aristocracy thought that the negation of Appius’ reform was sufficiently important to allow this Fabius to assume the cognomen Maximus for his role in bringing this about.5 6 7 Much of the significance of this episode was unpacked by Nicolet. In particular, Nicolet insisted on the distinction between Livy’s expressions, forensis factio and forensis turba: “lafactio, c’est 1 ’organization des partisans autour d’ Appius— composes en partie de la ‘foule urbaine’ (forensis turbo)” (1961: 704).5 6 8 Nicolet also makes it clear that forensis carries a specific, precise significance. It is not merely a synonym for urbanus (705), nor does it refer simply to the space of the Forum: “Forensis peut avoir un sens purement topographique: mais nous pencherions plutot pour un sens politique” (707). He points to a Pompeian inscription with the expression liForenses rog[ant]” (CIL 4.783), an expression he translates as “partisans du Forum.” If the sense of Livy's forensis turba is the same, then this would make it refer to the same element of the city as Cicero’s contionalis plebecula, or contionarius populus. Plutarch (Pop. 7) is the only source to connect Appius’ measure specifically with freedmen; Livy’s expression for the beneficiaries of Appius’ reform is 5 6 7 Livy 9.46 and Val. Max. 2.2.9 (describing the measure as a salubre factum). See Staverley 1959: 433 emphasizing the long-lasting signifcance of this decision. This was the same Fabius who was Papirius’ magister equitum in the scene described earlier. See Taylor 1960: 138 for the similar action of, probably, Q. Fabius Maximus (later Cunctator) as censor in 230 in response to a later redistribution of the freedmen in the tribes (though the only evidence is Livy Per. 20 which does not name who took the action). As Taylor says: “He bore the cognomen that his ancestor had won for the purification of the tribes.” 5 6 8 Cf. Staverley 1959: 413 on the wealth that the forensis factio would have required, since at first Appius is said to have brought about their adlection to the Senate (Livy 9.46.10-11 where Appius brings libertinorum filii into the Senate). See Nicolet 1961: 701-713 on the forensis factio. He points to Livy Per. 84 for the distinction between factio and partes. 293 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. humiles.5 6 9 However, Livy’s statement that the humiles were enrolled by Appius throughout all the tribes cannot but suggest, given the first century struggles over the confinement of freedmen in the four urban tribes, that the forensis turba consisted primarily of liberti.5 1 0 Some scholars have been sceptical about whether there would have been sufficient numbers of liberti in the late fourth century, but as Treggiari points out (1969: 38), in 357 the vicesima libertatis was introduced (Livy 7.16.7), a tax on manumissions suggesting that freedmen were increasing in this period. Of course, Livy’s account here is full of anachronisms, and it is clear that the first century debates over the distribution of the liberti are reflected in the historical tradition of Appius’ censorship.5 7 1 But, whatever the truth of Appius’ measure in 312, it is precisely because it reflects first century concerns that Livy’s narrative is valuable for the purpose of this study. Like Cicero, Livy can be read as mirroring serious anxieties about the increasing part that the Forum crowd, the people this dissertation is primarily concerned with, were playing in Roman life, and his account reveals a nervousness about the consequences of the liberti being allowed to play a full part in Roman constitutional procedures.5 7 2 5 6 9 Cf. Diodorus Siculus 20.36.4 where Appius is said to have given citizens (TroXrrocis) the right to enrol in whatever tribe they wisehed. 5 7 0 See the compita chapter. 5 7 1 Note e.g. Vanderbroeck 1987: 89: “The distribution of the urbani humiles over all the tribes, as stated by Livy, therefore, is a projection of the author’s contemporary experiences onto the early Republic.” See also Staverley 1959: 413. 5 7 2 It should be clear that I disagree with Millar who resolutely refuses to see this confinement of the liberti into the four urban tribes as a limitation of democracy at Rome. See e.g. 1998: 23, 36 and 48: “ .. .no biasing in terms of social class marked the comitia tributa, except for the rule that libertini should be confined to one of the four tribus urbanae. What served to limit participation was thus not class but distance, a factor that should be interpreted as having given all the more power to the plebs urbana" (especially as people often remained in their rural tribes after moving to Rome; cf. Taylor 1960: 149 pointing out that the introduction of subsidized and then free grain would have encouraged ex-farmers to move to Rome). Cf. Millar 1998: 208, where debates over the enrolment of liberti into rural tribes “presuppose the more fundamental principle that they were citizens, and could vote.” Cf. Millar 1995b: 101. I would suggest, however, that the practicalities of Roman block voting, where 294 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. We have noted that the Forum shared many similarities with compita and that the “Forum crowd” probably consisted of the same element of the plebs that played a role in compita cult and politics. Can we, then, say anything more about the relationship between compita and the Forum? We saw earlier Horace’s description of a rumor spreading from the rostra to the compita: frigidus a rostris manat per compita rumor (Sat. 2.6.50). It is tempting to see this inter-penetration of the Forum and compita as lurking beneath certain accounts of street politics in our sources. For instance, in the nexi episode from Livy book two, discussed earlier, we hear how, after the old soldier had stirred up the crowd, the tumultus no longer stayed within the Forum, but rather spread throughout the whole city: ad haec visa auditaque clamor ingens oritur. Non iamforo se tumultus tenet, sed passim totam urbem pervadit (2.23.7). Livy then tells how beggars appeared (in publicum) and the people, now increased in number, returned per omnis vias (perhaps refering to the vici5 7 3 ) into the Forum: nullo loco deest seditionis voluntarius comes; multo passim agminibus per the four urban tribes were much more crowded than the other tribes seriously undermined this “fundamental principle” and seriously limited the effectiveness in constitutional politics of a great proportion of precisely those people who, on Millar’s definition, represented the populus Romanus. See Millar 1984: 19: “.. .the ever-available crowd consisting of whoever was already there, or whoever turned up. It was this crowd which, however imperfectly, symbolized and represented the sovereignty of the Roman People.” Cf. Millar 1998: 212-214. See Cicero Sest. 109 for the small numbers which might be present in a rural tribe at a vote or an election and for these tribes being supplemented by men from the urban tribes. See Millar 1995b: 103, citing Treggiari 1969: 37ff for such redistributions. See ILS 6046 for a Flavian inscription possibly indicating the numbers of those in the tribes eligible for the grain dole; those in the four urban tribes are an average of 45 times more numerous than those in the two rural tribes that are preserved. See Taylor 1960: 149: “The disparity may have been much greater at a time when the vote still counted.” That illegitimate sons were also confined to the four urban tribes illustrates the prejudice that seems to have existed towards these tribes (Taylor 1960: 11). Taylor 1960: 147 points out that in Republican inscriptions, freedmen do not name their tribe, which, she suggests, may be a sign of scorn for the urban tribes to which they were limited. Note, however, Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ remark that the centuriate assembly was controlled by the respectable classes, whereas the tribal assemblies were composed of homeless artisans (4.16-21; 7.59; 8.6). 2 9 5 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. omnis vias cum clamore in Forum curritur (2.23.8). Here it is plausible to see this movement as reflecting a strategic retreat to the vici by the incensed crowd in order to spread the news about what was taking place in the Forum and to gather extra strength for the protest. Similarly, at 2.56 the tribune Laetorius is attempting to force through Volero’s measure that plebeian magistrates should be elected at the tribal assembly. The day before, the lictors had been mocked and violated, their fasces broken, and the Senators driven to the curia (2.55.9). Now Appius Claudius confronts Laetorius, and Livy tells how the tribune was only saved because of the people’s support and the arrival of men in the Forum from the whole city who had been stirred to help: ni et contio omnis atrox coorta pro tribuno in consulem esset, et concursus hominum in Forum ex tota urbe concitatae multitudinis fieret (2.56.14). Again, it is tempting here to see some kind of organization between the Forum crowd and the compita, from which men would arrive to support whatever actions might be taking place. Finally, in the imaginary, intellectual contio that Cicero describes in the passage from the Academica quoted earlier, the opifices, summoned to attend by the tribunes who have ordered the shops to be closed, arrive from all over the city (undique, Acad. 144). Once more this might reflect a typical organization between vici and the Forum, with communication networks existing to alert the neighborhoods of what was going on in the Forum and to summon support if necessary. 5 7 3 See the compita chapter for viae used of vici. Note in particular the use of viae at Aeneid 8.714-7 discussed above, where Virgil also uses the phrase totam per urbem, paralleling Livy’s totam urbem pervadit in this passage. 296 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5. Conclusion In this chapter I have attempted to see the Forum as a space with popular associations, but I have suggested that it was primarily in its potential for non-constitutional popular political action that the Forum and the Forum crowd provoked concern among the Roman ruling class. Its theoretical sovereignty in Roman politics was, I suggest, generally able to be kept in check by magisterial auctoritas. As Cicero says in de Legibus the freedom given to the people through its tribunes and prerogatives was given in such a way that they were led by many excellent regulations to acquiesce in the aristocrats’ authority (3.25). But what did the Roman elite do about this space with popular associations, where there was always a danger that its auctoritas might be ignored? In the section on tabemae, we have looked at certain architectural developments which drew much of the daily popular activity away from the Forum to other locations and turned the Forum into a place of dignified public buildings.5 7 4 For instance, the Temple of Julius Caesar was built in the middle of the east end of the Forum, taking up much of the space near the Temple of Castor and the gradus Aurelii, both of which had seen much popular activity during the period of Clodius’ ascendency.5 7 5 And as Purcell says of Augustus, "[i]n the maturity of his power, he was to realize that the [Forum Romanum] could never be fully converted, and could only be marginalized; which makes the imperial history of the [Forum Romanum] a very different story, as Caesar Augustus intended" (1995: 335).5 7 6 This 5 7 4 Cf. Purcell 1995: 327 on the late fourth century development of the Forum, associated above all with Maenius: "From this moment, the [Forum Romanum] started to become a show-place for the past of the city, a place of record for an increasingly proud warrior aristocracy; but it is probably no more a coincidence that the changes followed the constitutional upheavals that the Roman tradition linked with the year 366BC and the Licinian-Sextian legislation.” Cf. Coarelli 1983-5: II. 140-9. 5 7 5 See e.g. Cic. Sest. 34. For this part of the Forum, see Millar 1998: 41-3. 5 7 6 Cf. 1995: 339: "The [Forum Romanum] was reduced to being a venerable and grand forecourt to the new heart of the city." 297 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. marginalization of the Forum was accompanied by a retreat on the part of Roman aristocrats into the domestic sphere, with distinguished Romans turning houses into their own fora, where, for instance, statues were put on display. As Pliny says of the Roman nobles’ personal collections of portrait statues: mox Forum et in domibUs privatis factum atque in atriis (“soon a Forum was made even in private houses and halls,” NH 34.17). If I am correct about the opposition between private and public, discussed earlier, then there is surely a great deal of force behind this description of the private domus as a Forum. Certainly, the great Romans wanted their houses to be visible and aimed to impress the Fomm crowd.5 7 7 But they may increasingly have had less stake in the Forum itself.5 7 8 As for the people, they may at times have won control of the Forum in the late Republic, but, under the Emperor, their attentions were diverted to other aspects of city life, as the old political life of the Forum was eviscerated.5 7 9 5 7 7 Cf. Wiseman 1987d. 5 7 8 See Bonnefond-Coundry 1989 chapter one for locations other than the Curia where the Republican Senate met. 5 7 9 For the Forum as a place of spectacle, cf. Suet. Galba 11 where people are described as viewing the spectacle of Galba’s death from whatever vantage point they could find; a far cry, surely, from when the people assumed every conceivable vantage point to hear the debate on Pompey’s command against the Pirates or to attend Milo’s trial. 2 9 8 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Conclusion Sociability itself connives at injustice by pretending that in this chill world we can still talk to each other. Theodor Adomo Minima Moralia 1.5 In an addendum to a book review published in his collected essays, Jerzy Linderski writes that ''[I]t is perhaps too much to expect to put to rest the spectre of democracy haunting Rome ..." (1995f: 654). In this dissertation, I have not put to rest this spectre; indeed I have attempted to keep it alive. However, the search for democracy and for a democratic culture has taken us in different directions from more typical enquiries into Roman democracy. My hope is that I have broadened the debate somewhat away from the Roman political institutions where democracy has usually been sought. I argued that this focus by Roman historians on political institutions reflects a nineteenth-century historiography that was closely bound up with the goals and aspirations of German liberalism. To end, I will briefly mention one of the historical and historiographical traditions which liberalism and liberal historiography effaced: Republicanism. Republicans put their faith in the active participation in political affairs by everybody within the body politic, and Republican theorists were not inclined to restrict that involvement to constitutional politics. The most famous Italian Republican was Macchiavelli, and it is not surprising that he turned his attention to the Roman Republic as a guide to political life in the Italian city-states. One of the most striking aspects about Machiavelli’s Discourses on the First Decade of Livy is his lively and sympathetic interest in a wide range of popular political activities and practices, by no means restricting his attention to people’s constitutional role and indeed stressing how 299 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. political institutions arise precisely because of non-constitutional politics. One extended quotation from book four will suffice: I must say that it appears to me that those who condemn the disturbances between the nobles and the plebeians condemn those very things that were the primary cause of Roman liberty, and that they give more consideration to the noises and cries arising from such disturbances than to the good effects they produced; nor do they consider that in every republic there are two different tendencies, that of the people and that of the upper class, and that all of the laws which are passed in favour of liberty are bom from the rift between the two, as can easily be seen from what happened in Rome, since from the time of the Tarquins to that of the Gracchi, a period of more than 300 years, the disturbances in Rome rarely led to exile, and even more rarely to bloodshed. . . Nor can one in any way reasonably call a republic disorganized where so many examples of exceptional ability occur, for good examples arise from a good training, good training from good laws, and good laws from those disturbances that many people thoughtlessly condemn, and anyone who carefully examines the goals of these laws will find that thay did not lead to exile or to violence against the common good, but instead brought forth laws and institutions for the benefit of civic liberty. And suppose someone were to say: the means were extraordinary and almost barbarous - see how all the people are crying out against the senate, the senate against the people; how are they running wildly through the streets, closing the shops; and how all the plebeians of Rome are leaving the city together - events which terrify even those who read about them; I will respond that every city must possess its own methods for allowing the people to express their ambitions, especially those cities that intend to make use of the people in important affairs. Among these cities, the city of Rome had such a method, for when the people wanted a new law, either they did some of the things mentioned above, or they refused to sign up to go to war, so that to placate them it was necessary to give them some measure of satisfaction. The desires of free peoples are rarely harmful to liberty, because they arise either from oppression or from the suspicion that they will be oppressed. Clearly, should these opinions prove to be in error, there is the remedy of public assemblies where some worthy man may arise and, making a speech, demonstrate to the people that they are mistaken, for as Cicero declares, the people, although ignorant, can grasp the truth, and they readily yield when they are told the truth by a trustworthy man. (1997: 29-30).5 8 0 5 8 0 Cf. Machiavelli 1997 book one chapter eight on slander and 44 on the importance of public opinion, rumor and gossip. 3 0 0 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. It is striking that the Romans themselves at times saw their past in these terms. For instance, Cicero portrays Antonius recalling his speech defending Norbanus in the mid. 90s, a speech in which he presented the seditiones of the past as an affliction but nevertheless as just and necessary: without them, there would still be Kings, there would be no tribunate, there would be no provocatio, described as the vindex libertatis and as the patrona of the state, and there would have been no plebescita to limit consularis potestas (de Or. 2.198-9). And if boni thought in this way, there is no doubt that popularis historiography, for instance the history of Licinius Macer, would have presented struggles in a similar fashion. This dissertation is by no means designed as a call for a revival of a ‘republican’ tradition of historiography or as a dismissal of a ‘liberal’ historiography. All traditions of writing bring their own insights and it is surely in Ancient History’s interests to embrace a variety of approaches. But it is my hope that the present study, with its emphasis on plebeian cultural practices, may help to deepen our understanding of the Roman plebs as a political actor. Moreover, I hope to have shown that the definition of what constitutes the political sphere, and what constitutes democratic action, might usefully be expanded. 301 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Works Cited Accame, S. 1942. “La legislazione Romana intomo ai collegi nel 1 secolo A.C.” Bullettino del Museo dell’ Impero Romano 13: 13-48. Adorno, T. 1981. In Search o f Wagner. Manchester: New Left Books. Africa, T.W. 1971. “Urban Violence in Ancient Rome.” Journal o f Interdisciplinary History 2: 3-21. Aldrete, G. 1999. Acclamations in Ancient Rome. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Alfody, A. 1935. “Insignien und Tracht der romischen Kaiser.” MDA1 50: 1-171. . 1973. Die zwei Lorbeerbaiime des Augustus. Bonn. Althusser, L. 1972. “Ideological State Apparatuses.” Lenin and Philosophy, and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press. 127-186. Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined Communities. London: Verso. Ando, C. 1997. “Tacitus, Annales VI: Beginning and End.” AJP 118: 285-303. . 2000. Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Atridge, H.W. 1978. “The Philosophical Critique of Religion under the Early Empire.” ANRW 2.16.1. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. 45-78. Badian, E. 1958. Foreign Clientelae 264-70BC. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 1964. Studies in Greek and Roman History. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 1972. “Ennius and his Friends.” In O. Skutsch ed. Ennius. Entretiens Fondation Hardt, vol. 17: 151-208. . 1972b. “Tibeius Gracchus and the Beginnings of the Roman Revolution.” ANRW 1.1. Berlin: de Gruyter. 668-731. Baehr, P. 1998. Caesar and the Fading o f the Roman World: a Study in Republicanism and Caesarism. New Bruswick and London: Transaction. Balsdon, J.P.V.D. 1960. 'Auctoritas, Dignitas, Otium.” CQ 10: 43-50. . 1969. Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome. New York: McGraw- Hill. 3 0 2 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Barton, C. 1993. The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bartsch, S. 1994. Actors in the Audience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bauer, R. and D. Gleicher. 1953. “Word of Mouth Communication in the Soviet Union.” Public Opinion Quarterly 17: 297-310. Bauman, R. A, 1990. “The Suppression of the Bacchanals: Five Questions.” Historia 39: 334-348. Beard, M. and M. Crawford. 1985. Rome in the Late Republic. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Beard, M, J. North, and S. Price. 1998. Religions of Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beare, W. 1940. “The Fabula Togata.” Hermathena 55: 35-55. Beesly, E.S. 1924. Catiline, Clodius, and Tiberius. New York: G.E. Stechert and co. Beik, W. H. 1977. “Searching for Popular Culture in Early Modem France.” Review Article. Journal of Modem History 49: 266-281. Bell, A. 1997. “Cicero and the Spectacle of Power.” JRS 87: 1-22. Benning, H. 1987. Die Politik des P. Clodius Pulcher: Untersuchungen zur Denaturierung des Clientelwesens in der ausgehenden romischen Republik. Historia Einzelschriften, Heft 50. Stuttgart: Steiner. Beranger, J. 1970. “Ordres et Classes d’apres Ciceron.” In C. Nicolet and C. Leroy eds. Recherches sur les Structures Sociales dans VAntiquite Classique. Paris. 225-242. Berger, S. 1997. The Search for Normality: National Identity and Historical Consciousness in Germany since 1800. Providence: Berghahn. Berghahn, V. 1997. “Demographic Growth, Industrialization and Social Shange.” In M. Fulbrook ed. German History Since 1800. London and New York etc: Arnold. 168-180. Blackboum, D. and Eley, G. 1984. The Peculiarities o f German History: Bourgeois Society and Politics in Nineteenth- Century Germany. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bloch M. ed. 1975. Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society. London: Academic Press. 3 0 3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Bloomer, W.M. 1997. Latinity and Literary Society at Rome, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bomer, F. 1981. Untersuchungen iiber die Religion des Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom. Part One. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. First published 1957. Bonnefond, M. 1983. “Espace, Temps, et Ideologie: le Senat dans la Cite Romaine Republicaine.” Dialoghi di Archeologia, 3rd Series, 1: 37-44. Bonnefond-Coudry, M. 1989. Le Senat de la Republique Romaine: de la Guerre d ’ Hannibal a Auguste. Rome: Ecole Frangaise. Booth, A.D. 1980. “Allusion to the Circulator by Persius and Horace.” Greece and Rome 27: 166-169. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. . Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bowen, J. 1989. “Education, Ideology and the Ruling Class: Hellenism and English Public Schools in the Nineteenth Century.” In G.W. Clarke ed. Rediscovering Hellenism: the Hellenic Inheritance and the English Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 161-186. Bowman, A and Woolf, G. eds. 1994. Literacy and Power in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boyance P. 1950. "Properce aux Fetes de Quartier." REA 52: 64-70. Boyle, A.J. 1986. The Chaonian Dove. Brill: Leiden. Bradley, K. 1984. Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: a Study in Social Control. Brussels. Bremmer, J.N. 1990. “Hermann Usener.” In W.W. Briggs and W.M. Calder eds. Classical Scholarship: a Biographical Encyclopaedia. New York and London: Garland. 462-478. Brennan, T. 1988. Public Drinking and Popular Culture in Eighteenth-Century Paris. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Briscoe J. 1973. A Commentary on Livy, books 31-33. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . A Commentary on Livy, books 34-37. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Broughton, T.R.S. 1951-2. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Volumes one and two. New York. 3 0 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. . 1986. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Appendices and Index of Careers. Atlanta: Scholars Press . Brunt, P. A. 1971. Italian Manpower. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 1974 “The Roman Mob.” In M.I. Finley ed. Studies in Ancient Society. London: Routledge. 74-102. . 1978. Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic. London. . 1982. “ Nobilitas and Novitas.” JRS12: 1-17. . 1988. The Fall of the Roman Republic. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 1989. “Philosophy and Religion in the Late Republic.” Philosophia Togata. Ed. M Griffin and J Barnes. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 175-198. . 1990. Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bucher, G.S. 1987. “The Annales Mcucimi in the Light of Roman Methods of Keeping Records.” AJAH 12: 3-61. Burckhardt, L. 1990. “The Political Elite of the Roman Republic: Comments on Recent Discussions of the Concepts nobilitas and homo novus.” Historia 39: 77-99. Calder, W.M. 1998. “How did Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Read a Text?” Men in Their Books: Studies in the Modem History of Classical Scholarship. Hildesheim: Weidmann. 167-176. . 1994. “Credo gegen Credo, Arbeit gegen Arbeit, Anschauung gegen Anschauung: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff contra Eduard Meyer.” In W.M. Calder and A. Demandt eds. Further Letters of Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. Hildesheim: Weidmann. 105-137. Cameron, A. 1976. Circus Factions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Canetti, E. 1978. Crowds and Power. New York: Seabury. Carcopino, J. 1940. Daily Life in Ancient Rome: the People and the City at the Height of the Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press. Carr, E.H. 1964. What is History? London etc: Penguin. Coarelli, F. 1983-1985. II Foro Romano. Two volumes. Rome: Quasar. . 1985. “Iside Capitolina, Clodio e i Mercanti di Schiavi.” In N. Bonacasa and A. di Vita eds. Alessandro a il Mondo Ellenistico-Romano: Studi in Onore 3 0 5 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. di Achille Adriani. Rome. 461-475. __. 1997. “La Consistenza della Citta nel Periodo Imperiale: Pomerium, Vici, Insulae.” La Rome Imperiale: Demographie et Logistique. Ecole Frangaise de Rome: Rome. 89-109. Cohen, D. 1991. Law, Sexuality, and Society: the Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conroy, D.W. 1995. In Public Houses: Drink and the Revolution of Authority in Colonial Massachussets. Chapel Hill: Univeristy of North Carolina. Conte, G.B. 1994. Latin Literature: A History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Cornell, T.J. 1995. The Beginnings of Rome. London and New York: Routledge. Craig, G.A. 1980. Germany, 1866-1945. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Crawford, M. 1974. Roman Republican Coinage. Two Volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1985. Coinage and Money under the Roman Empire. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. D’Arms, J.H. 1991. “Slaves at Roman Convivia.” In W. J. Slater ed. Dining in a Classical Context. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. 171— 183. . 2000. “Three New Inscriptions form the Collegium of the Augustales.” JRS 90: 126-144. Daremberg, C. and E. Saglio 1877 Dictionnaire des Antiquites Grecques et Romaines d'apres les Textes et les Monuments. Paris: Hachette. Daube, D. 1951. “ Ne quid infamandi causa fiat: The Roman Law of Defamation.” Atti del Congresso Intemazionale di Diritto Romano e di Storia del Diritto, 1948. Milan. Daviault, A. 1981. Comoedia Togata: Fragments. Paris. Davidson, J. 1997. “A Ban on Public Bars in Thasos?” CQ 47: 392-395. De Certeau, M. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. De Coulanges, F. 1956. The Ancient City: a Study on the Religion, Laws and Institutions of Greece and Rome. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. De Ruyt, C. 1985. Macellum: Marche Alimentaire des Romaines. Louvain. 3 0 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Demandt, A. 1990. “Theodor Mommsen.” In W.W. Briggs and W.M. Calder eds. Classical Scholarship, a Biographical Encyclopaedia. New York and London: Garland. 285-309. Develin, R. 1985. The Practice of Politics at Rome, 366-167BC. Collection Latomus 188. Brussels: Latomus. Dodge, H. 1999. "Amusing the Masses: Buildings for Entertainment and Leisure in the Roman World.” In D.S. Potter and D.J. Mattingley eds. Life, Death and Entertainment in the Roman Empire. Michigan. 205-255. Dondin-Payre, M. 1987. "Topographie et Propogande Gentilice: le Compitum Acilium et l’Origine des Acilii Glabriones.” In L ’Urbs: Espace Urbain et Histoire. Collection de l’Ecole Frangaise de Rome, 98: 87-109. Dover, K. 1994. Marginal Comment. London: Duckworth. Dubourdieu, A. and E. Lemirre. 1997. “La Rumeur dans 1 ’Affaire des Bacchanales.” Latomus 56: 293-306. Duckworth, G.E. 1955. “Plautus and the Basilica Aemilia.” In P. de Jonge ed. Ut Pictura Poesis. Brill, Leiden. 58-65. Dupont, F. 1993. Daily Life in Rome. Oxford: Blackwell. . 1997. “ Recitatio and the Reorganization of the Space of Public Discourse.” In T.N. Habinek and A. Schiesaro eds. The Roman Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 44-59. DuQuesnay, I.M. 1995. “Horace, Odes 4.5: Pro Reditu Imperatoris Caesaris Divi Filii Augusti.” In S.J. Harrison ed. Homage to Horace. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 128-187. Duthoy, R. 1978. "Les Augustales.” ANRW 2.16.2. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. 1254-1309. D utoit, E. 1960. “Le Vocabulaire de la Vie Politique chez Tite-Live.” In Hommages a Leon Herrmann. Collection Latomus vol. XLIV. Bmssels: Berchem. 330-338. Dyck, A. 1996. A Commentary on Cicero, De Officiis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Earl, D.C. 1967. The Moral and Political Traditions of Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Eckstein, A.M. 1995. Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 3 0 7 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Eder, W. 1991. “Who Rules? Power and participation in Athens and Rome.” In A. Molho, K.Raaflaub and J. Emlen eds. City States in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Italy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 169-196. Edwards, C. 1993. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Faraone, C.A. 1990. “The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding Spells.” In C.A. Faraone and D. Obbink eds. Magika Hiera, Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. New York. 3-32. Favory, F. 1976. “Classes Dangereuses et Crise de L’Etat dans le Discours Ciceronien: d’apres les Ecrits de Ciceron de 57 a 52.” In Texte, Politique, Ideologie: Ciceron. Annales Litteraires de L'Universite de Besan?on, 187. Paris. 111-233. Feeney, D. 1992. “Si licet etfas est: Ovid’s Fasti and the Problem of Free Speech under the Principate.” In A. Powell ed., Roman Poetry and Propoganda in the Age of Augustus. London: Duckworth. 1-25. Feig Vishnia, R. 1996 State, Society and Popular Leaders in mid-Republican Rome 241-167 BC. London and New York: Routledge. Feldherr, A. 1998. Spectacle and Society in Livy’ s History. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Ferrary, J.-L. 1982. “Le Idee Politiche nell’Epoca Repubblicana.” In L. Firpo ed. Storia dellle idee Politiche, Economiche e Sociale. Turin. 723-795. Ferrary, J.-L. 1988. Philhellenisme et Imperialsime. Rome: Ecole Franfaise. Fine, J. 1932. "A Note on the Compitalia." CP 27: 268-273. Finley, M.I. 1983. Politics in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Firebaugh, W.C. 1972. The Inns o f Greece and Rome, and a History o f Hospitality from the Dawn of Time to the Middle Ages. New York: Benjamin Blom. First published 1923. Fitzgerald, W. 1995. Catullan Provocations, Lyric Poetry and the Drama of Position. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. . 1996. “Labor and the Laborer in Latin Poetry: the Case of the Moretum.” Arethusa 29: 389-418. Fitzgerald, W. 2000. Slavery and the Roman Literary Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3 0 8 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Flaig, E. 1995. “Entscheidung und Konsens: zu den Feldem der politischen Kommunikation zwischen Aristokratie und Plebs.” In M. Jehne ed. Demokratie in Rom. Historia Einzelschriften, 96. Stuttgart: Steiner. 77-127. Flambard, J.-M. 1977. "Clodius, les Colleges, la Plebe et les Esclaves. Recherches sur la Politique Populaire au Milieu du ler Siecle." MEFRA 89: 115-156. . 1981 "Collegia Compitalia." Ktema. 6: 143-166. Fordyce, C.J. 1977. Aeneis VII-VIII. Oxford. Fortnightly Review. 1865-1870. Microfdm. London: Chapman and Hall. Fox, A. 1997. “Rumor, News, and Popular Opinion in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England.” Historical Journal 40: 597-620. Franklin, J. 1991 “Literacy and the Parietal Inscriptions of Pompeii.” In Literacy in the Roman World. JRA supp. series no. 3. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. 77-98 Fredericksen, M. 1959. “Republican Capua: A Social and Economic Study.” PBSR 14:80-130. Frezouls, E. 1981. “La Construction du Theatrum Lapideum et son Contexte Politique.” In H. Zehnacker ed. Theatre et Spectacles dans L ’ Antiquite. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 5-7 Nov 1981. 193-214. . 1983. “Le Thedtre Romain et la Culture Urbain.” In La Citta Antica come Fatto di Cultura. Atti Convegno / Bellagio. 105-130. Friedlander, L. 1910. Darstellungen aus der Sittengechichte Roms in der Zeit von August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine. Leipzig. Frier, B.W. 1977. “The Rental Market in Early Imperial Rome.” JRS 67: 27-37. Frisch, H. 1948. "The First Catilinarian Conspiracy." Classica etMediaevalia 9:10- 36. Gabba, E. 1984. “The Collegia of Numa: Problems of Method and Political Ideas.” JRS 14: 81-6. Gager, J.G. ed. 1992. Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gallini, C. 1970. Protesta e Integrazione nella Roma Antica. Bari: Laterza. Gelzer, M. 1969. The Roman Nobility. New York: Barnes and Noble. 3 0 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Giddens, A. 1974. “Elites in the British Class Structure.” In A. Giddens and P. Stanworth eds. Elites and Power in British Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-21. __ . 1983. “Four Theses on Ideology.” Canadian Journal o f Political and Social Theory 7: 18-21. Gildea, R. 1996. Barricades and Borders: Europe 1800-1914. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Goldberg, S. 1998. “Plautus on the Palatine.” JRS 88: 1-20. Goodman, M. 1997. “The Roman World, 44BC-AD180.” London: Routledge. Gossman, L. 1983. Orpheus Philologus, Bachofen versus Mommsen on the Study of Antiquity. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 73 part 5. Grandsen, K.W. 1976. Virgil: Aeneid VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grafton, A. 1983. “ Polyhistor into Philolog: Notes on the Transformation of German Classical Scholarship, 1780-1850.” History of Universities 3: 159-191. . 1997. The Footnote, a Curious History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grieve, L. 1985 “The Reform of the Comitia CenturiataC Historia 34: 278-309. Griffin, M. 1991. “Urbs Roma, Plebs and Princeps.” In. L. Alexander ed. Images of Empire. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 122. Sheffield: JSOT press. 18-46. . 1997 “The Composition of the Academica: Motives and Versions.” In B. Inwood and J. Mansfeld eds. Assent and Argument: Studies in Cicero’s Academic Books. Leiden: Brill. 1-27. Gruen, E. 1974. The Last Generation o f the Roman Republic. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. . 1990. ‘The Bacchanalian Affair.” Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy. Leiden: Brill. 34-78. . 1991. “The Exercise of Power in the Roman Republic.” In A. Molho, K. Raaflaub and J. Emlen eds. City States in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Italy. Eds. A. Molho, K. Raaflaub and J. Emlen. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 251-268. . 1992. Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 310 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. . 1996. “The Roman Oligarchy: Image and Perception.” In J. Linderski ed. Imperium Sine Fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic. Historia Einzelschriften 105. Stuttgart: Steiner. 215-234. Gunderson, E. 1996. ‘The Ideology of the Arena.” Classical Antiquity 15: 113- 151. Habinek, T. and A. Schiesaro. Eds. 1997. The Roman Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Habinek, T. 1998. The Politics of Latin Literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press. . 1998b. “Singing, Speaking, Making, Writing: Classical Alternatives to Literature and Literary Studies.” Stanford Humanities Review 6: 65-76. . 2000. “Seneca’s Renown: Gloria, Claritudo, and the Replication of the Roman Elite.” CA 19: 264-303. Harmon, D.P. 1978a. “The Public Festivals of Rome.” ANRW 2.16.2. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1440-1468. . 1978b. “The Family Festivals of Rome.” ANRW 2.16.1. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1592-1603. Harris, T. 1995. “Problematizing Popular Culture.” In T. Harris ed. Popular Culture in England cl500-1850. London: MacMillan. 1-27. Harris, W.V. 1988. “On the Applicability of the Concept of Class in Roman History.” In T. Yuge and M. Doi eds. Forms of Control and Subordination in Antiquity. Leiden: Brill. . 1989. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. . 1990. “On Defining the Political Culture of the Roman Republic.” CP 85: 288-295. Harrison, R. 1959. “E.S. Beesly and Karl Marx.” International Review of Social History 4: 22-58 and 208-238. . 1960. “Professor Beesly and the Working-Class Movement.” In A. Briggs and J. Saville eds. Essays in Labour History. 205-241. London: Macmillan. Hartog, F. 1988. Le XIXe siecle et I’ histoire - le cas Fustel de Coulanges. Paris: Presse Universitaire de France. Heaton, J.W. 1939. Mob Violence in the Late Roman Republic, 133-49BC. Urbana: University of Illinois. 311 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Hearder, H. 1988. Europe in the Nineteenth Century, 1830-1880. London and New York: Longman. Herbert-Brown, G. 1994. Ovid and the Fasti. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hermansen, G. 1974 “Roman Inns and the Law.” In J.A.S. Evans ed. Polis and Imperium: Studies in Honor o f E.T. Salmon. Toronto. 167-181. Heuss, A. 1956. Theodor Mommsen und das 19. Jahrhundert. Kiel: Hirt. Hinard, F. 1987. “Spectacle des Executions et Espace Urbain.” In L ’Urbs: Espace Urbain et Histoire. Collection de l’ecole frangaise de Rome 98: 111-125. Hobsbawm, E. 1965. Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the 19th and 20th Centuries. New York: Norton. Hoggart, R. 1957, The Uses of Literacy: Changing Patterns in English Mass Culture. Fair Lawn, New Jersey: Essential. Holkeskamp, K.J. 1993. “Conquest, Competition and Consensus: Roman Expansion in Italy and the Rose of the Nobilitas.” Historia 42: 12-39. . 1995. “Oratoris Maxima Scaena: Reden vor dem Volk in der politischen Kultur der Republik.” In M. Jehne ed. Demokratie in Rom? Die Rolle des Volkes in der Politik der romischen Republik. Historia Einzelschriften, 96. Stuttgart: Steiner. 11-49. Hopkins, K. 1978. Conquerors and Slaves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1983. Death and Renewal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1991. “From Violence to Blessing: Symbols and Rituals in Ancient Rome.” In A. Molho, K. Raaflaub and J. Emlen eds. City States in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Italy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 479- 498. Horsfall, N. 1989. “The Uses of Literacy and the Cena Trimalchionis.” Greece and Rome 36: 74-89 and 194-209. . 1996. La Cultura della Plebs Romana. Barcelona. Huenin, Y. 1996 "Lorsque la Population d'llle-et-Vilaine S'exprimait par des Rumeurs au XIXe Siecle." Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de I'Ouest 103: 69-98. Iggers, G.G. 1983. The German Conception of History. Middletown: Wesleyan. Jeffreys, M.J. 1974. The Nature and Origin of the Political Verse.” Dumbarton 3 1 2 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Oaks Papers 2 8 : 1 4 1 -1 9 5 . Jehne, M. 1983. “Geheime Abstimmung und Bindungswesen in der Romischen Republik.” HZ 257: 593-613. . ed. 1995. Demokratie in Rom? Die Rolle des Volkes in der Politik der romischen Republik. Historia Einzelschriften, 96. Stuttgart: Steiner. Jones, E. ed. 1967. Notes to the People. Volume One. London: Merlin. Joshel, S. 1992. Work, Identity and Legal Status at Rome. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma University Press. Kampen, N. Boymel. 1981. Image and Status: Roman Working Women in Ostia. Berlin. . 1982. “Social Status and Gender in Roman Art: the Case of the Saleswoman.” In N. Broude and M.D. Garrard eds. Feminism and Art History, Questioning the Litany. New York: Harper and Row. 63-77. Kapferer, N.J. 1990 Rumors: Uses, Interpretations, and Images. New Brunswick and London: Transaction. Raster, R. 1988. Guardians of Language. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Krieger, L. 1977. Ranke: the Meaning of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kuhnert, B. 1991. Die Plebs Urbana der Spdten Romischen Republik: ihre Okonomische Situation und Soziale Struktur. Abhandlungen der Sachsischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse 73.3. Berlin: Akadamie. Kuczynski, J. 1978. Theodor Mommsen: Portrat eines Gesellschaftswissenschaftlers. Studien zu einer Geschichte der Gesellschaftswissenschaften. Volume 9. Berlin: Akademie. Laclau, E. and C. Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso. Lanciani, R. 1967. “The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome.” New York: Bell. First published 1897. Langewiesche. D, 1992. ‘The Nature of German Liberalism.” In G. Martel ed. Modem Germany Reconsidered, 1870-1945. London and New York: Routledge. 96-116. . 2000. Liberalism in Germany. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 3 1 3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Latte, K. 1960. Romische Religionsgeschicihte. Munich: Beck. Laurence, R. 1994 Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. London: Routledge. . 1994b. "Rumour and Communication in Roman Politics." Greece and Rome 41: 62-74. . 1995. “The Organization of Space in Pompeii.” In T.J. Cornell and K. Lomas eds. Urban Society in Roman Itlay. London: UCL press. 63-78. Liebeschuetz, J. 1979. Continuity and Change in Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Linderski, J. 1992. Review of Bonnefond-Coudry 1989. A J P 113: 125-128. . 1995a. “Si vis pacem, para bellum: Concepts of Defensive Imperialism.” Roman Questions. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. 1-31. . 1995b. “Mommsen and Syme: Law and Power in the Principate of Augustus.” Roman Questions. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. 42-53. . 1995c. “Der Senat und die Vereine.” Roman Questions. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. 165-203. . 1995d. “Ciceros Rede Pro Caelio und die Ambitus- und Vereinsgesetzgebung der Ausgehenden Republik.” Roman Questions. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. 204-217. . 1995e. “Suetons Bericht iiber die Vereinsgesetzgebung unter Caesar und Augustus.” Roman Questions. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. 217- 223. . 1995f. “Review of T.N. Mitchell, Cicero the Ascending Years.” Roman Questions. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. 287—289. Ling, R. 1990. “A Stranger in Town: Finding the Way in an Ancient City.” Greece and Rome 37: 204-214. Lintott, A.W. 1967. “P. Clodius Pulcher: Felix Catilina?” Greece and Rome 14: 157-169. . 1968. Violence in Republican Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 1970. “The Tradition of Violence in the Annals of the Early Roman Republic.” Historia 19: 12-29. . 1987. “Democracy in the Middle Republic.” Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftungfiir Rechtsgeschichte, Romantische Abteilung 104: 34-52. 3 1 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. . 1990. “Electoral Bribery in the Roman Republic.” JRS 80: 1-16. .1999. The Roman Constitution. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lo Sascio, E. 1979. “Carbone, Druso e Gratidiano: la gestatione della res nummaria a Roma tra le lex Papiria e la lex Cornelia.” Athenaeum 57: 215-238. McGlew, J.F. 1986. “Revolution and Freedom in Theodor Mommsen’s Romische Geschichte.” Phoenix 40: 424-445. McKibbin, R. 1990. Social Relations in Britain 1880-1950. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 1998. Classes and Culture; England 1918-1951. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Machiavelli, N. 1997. Discourses on Livy. Translated by Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella. Oxford: Clarendon Press. MacMillan’s Magazine. Microfilm. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. MacMullen, R. 1963 “A Note on Roman Strikes.” CJ 58: 269-271. . 1966. “A Note on Sermo HumilisC Journal of Theological Studies 17: 108-112. . 1974. Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. to A.D. 284. New Haven: Yale University Press. . 1980. “How Many Romans Voted?” Athenaeum 58: 454-457. . 1989. “History in Classics.” In P. Culham and L. Edmunds eds. Classics: a Discipline and Profession in Crisis? Lanham, New York and London: University Press of America. 243-250. . 1992. Enemies of the Roman Order. London and New York: Routledge. . 1993. “The Unromanized in Rome.” In. S.J.D. Cohen and E.S. Frerichs eds. Diasporas in Antiquity. Brown Judiac Studies 288. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. 47-64. Malcovati, E. 1976-1979. Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta Liberae Rei Publicae. Volumes One and Two. Turin etc: Paravia. Mankin, D. 1995. Horace: Epodes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mann, T. 1993. Buddenbrooks. Trans. J. E. Woods. New York: A.A. Knopf. 3 1 5 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Marchand, S.L. 1996. Down From Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750-1970. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Marco Simon, F. and F. Pina Polo. 2000. “Mario Gratidiano, los compita y la religiosidad popular a fines de la republica.” Klio 82: 154-170. Marshall, A.J. 1984. “Symbols and Showmanship in Roman Public Life: the Fasces.” Phoenix 38: 120-141. Marshall, B.A. 1985. An Historical Commentary on Asconius. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. . 1985b. “Catilina and Gratidianus’ Execution.” CQ 35: 124-133. Marx, K. and F. Engels. 1978. In R. Tucker ed. The Marx-Engels Reader. Norton: New York and London. Mau, A. 1982. Pompeii: its Life and Art. New Rochelle, New York: Caratzas. First published in 1899. Meier, C. 1966. Res Publica Amissa. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Meslin, M. "La Fete des Kalendes de Janviers dans l'Empire Romain." Coll. Latomus 115. Brussels. Meuli, K. 1955. "Altromischer Maskenbrauch." Museum Helveticum 12: 206-235. Meyer, E. 1922. Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompejus: Innere Geschichte Roms von 66 bis 44 v. Chr. Stuttgart and Berlin: J.G. Cotta’sche. Third Edition. Michels, A.K. 1967. The Roman Calendar. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Millar, F. 1984. “The Political Character of the Classical Roman Republic.” JRS 74: 1-19. . 1986. “Politics, Persuasion and the People Before the Social War (150-90 BC).” JRS 76: 1-11. . 1989. “Political Power in Mid-Republican Rome: Curia or Comitium?” JRS 79: 138-150. . 1995a. “Popular Politics at Rome in the Late Republic.” In I. Malkin and Z.W. Rubinsohn eds. Leaders and Masses in the Roman World, Studies in Honor ofZvi Yavetz. Leiden: Brill. 80-113. . 1995b. “The Roman Libertus and Civic Freedom.” Arethusa 28: 99-104. . 1998. The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic. Ann Arbor: University of 3 1 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Michigan Press. Miller, P.A. 1996. “The Bodily Grotesque in Roman Satire: Images of Sterility.” Arethusa 31: 257-283. Millington, B. 1984. Wagner. London: Dent. Momigliano, A.D. 1994. Studies on Modem Scholarship. Eds. G.W. Bowersock and T.J. Cornell. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Mommsen, T. 1843. De Collegiis etSodaliciis Romanorum. Kiel. . 1898. The History of Rome. Translated by W.P. Dickson. 5 Volumes. New York: Charles Scribner. . 1905. “Rede bei Antritt des Rektorates.” Reden undAufsatze. Berlin: Weidmann. 3-16. . 1952. Romisches Staatsrecht. 5 volumes. Graz. Third Edition 1887. . 1965a. “Die Aufgabe der historischen Rechtswissenschaft.” In B. Kubler ed. Gessammelte Schriften. Volume Three. 580-591. . 1965b. “Die Rechtsfrage zwischen Caesar und dem Senat.” In O. Hirschfeld ed. Gessammelte Schriften. Volume Four. 92-145. . 1996. A History of Rome Under the Emperors. London: Routledge. Mommsen, T. and Jahn, O. 1962. Theodor Mommsen, Otto Jahn: Briefwechsel 1842-1868. Ed. Lothar Wickert. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann. Mommsen, W.J. 1995. Imperial Germany, 1867-1918: Politics, Culture and Society in an Authoritarian State. London and New York etc: Arnold. Morel, J.-P. 1987 “la Topographie de l’Artisinat et du Commerce dans la Rome Antique.” In L ’Urbs: Espace Urbain etHistoire. Rome: collection de l’ecole fran^aise de Rome, 98. 127-155. Munzer, F. 1999. Roman Aristocratic Parties and Families. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. Nicolet, C. 1961. “Appius Claudius et le double Forum de Capoue.” Latomus 20: 683-720. . 1966. L ’Ordre Equestre a TEpoque Republicaine, 312-43 av. J.-C. Bibl. des Ecoles d’Ath. et de Rome, vol. 207. Paris. . 1980. The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 317 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. _ _ . 1982. “II Pensiero economico dei Romani.” In L. Firpo ed. Storia delle idee politiche economiche e sociali. Volume One. Turin. 877-960. Niebling, G. 1956. "Laribus Augustis Magistri Primi." Historia 5: 303-331. Nietzsche, F. 1997. “The Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life.” Untimely Meditations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 57-123. Nimis, S. 1984. “Fussnoten: das Fundament der Wissenschaft.” Arethusa 17: 105- 134. Nippel, W. 1984. “Policing Rome.” JRS 74: 20-29. . 1995. Public Order in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nock, A. D. 1972. Essays on Religion and the Ancient World. Ed. Z. Stewart. Oxford: Clarendon Press. North, J. 1977. “Religious Toleration in Republican Rome.” PCPhS 25: 85-103. . 1986. “Religion and Politics from Republic to Principate.” JRS 76: 251- 258. . 1990 "Politics and Aristocracy in the Roman Republic." Classical Philology 85: 277-287. Oakley, S. 1998. A Commentary on Livy: Books VI-X. Volume II, books 7-8. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ogilvie, R.M. 1965. A Commentary on Livy: Books 1-5. Oxford: Clarendon Press. O’Neill, K. 2000. “Propertius 4.2: Slumming with Vertumnus?” AJP 121: 259-277. Oliensis, E. 1991. "Canidia, Canicula, and the Decorum of Horace's Epodes". Arethusa 24: 107-135. . 1995. “Life After Publication: Horace, Epistles 1.20.” Arethusa 28: 209-224. Palmer, L.R. 1988. The Latin Language. London: Faber and Faber. Parke, H.W. 1988. Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity. London and New York: Routledge. Patterson, J.R. 1992. “The City of Rome: from Republic to Empire.” JRS 82: 186- 215. 3 1 8 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Pauly, A.F. von and Wissowa, G. 1894f. Real-encyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Penny Magazine. 1832-1835. London: Charles Knight. Peter, H. 1967. Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae. Two volumes. Second Edition 1914-16. Stuttgart: Teubner. Picard, L. 1997. Restoration London. London: St. Martins. Pina Polo, F. 1996. Contra Arma Verbis: Der Redner vor dem Volk in der spdten romischen Republik. Stuttgart: Steiner. Pirson, F. 1997. “Rented Accommodation at Pompeii: The Evidence of the Insula Arriana Polliana V I6.” In R. Laurence and A. Wallace-Hadrill eds. Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series, 22. Portsmouth, RI. 165-181. Pocock, J.G.A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Potter, D.S. and D.J. Mattingley. Eds. 1999. Life, Death and Entertainment in the Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Poulantzas, N. 1973. Political Power and Social Classes. London: NLB. Purcell, N. 1983. “The Apparitores: a Study in Social Mobility.” PBSR 51: 125- 173. . 1989. “Rediscovering the Roman Forum.” JRA 2: 156-166. . 1994 “The City of Rome and the Plebs Urbana in the Late Republic.” Cambridge Ancient History. Second Edition. Volume 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 644-688. . 1995. “Forum Romanum (Republican Period)” and “Forum Romanum (the Imperial Period).” Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae II (D-G). Ed. E.M. Steinby. Rome: Quasar. 325-342. . 1995b. “Literate Games: Roman Urban Society and the Game of Alea.” Past and Present 147: 3-37. . 1996. “Rome and Its Development under Augustus and his Successors.” Cambridge Ancient History. Second Edition. Volume 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 782-811. Raaflaub, K.A., ed. 1986. Social Struggles in Archaic Rome: New Perspectives on the Conflict of the Orders. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 3 1 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Rawson, E. 1991a. “Lucius Crassus and Cicero: the Formation of a Statesman.” In Roman Culture and Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 16-33. . 1991b. “Religion and Politics in the Late Second Century BC at Rome.” Roman Culture and Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 149-168. . 1991c. “Theatrical Life in Republican Rome and Italy.” Roman Culture and Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 468-487 Reid, J.S. 1885. M. Tulli Academica. London: MacMillan. Richardson, L. 1977. Elegies, I-V, Propertius. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press. . 1992. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Richlin, A. 1992. The Garden ofPriapus. Oxford. . Forthcoming. “Emotional Work: Lamenting the Roman Dead.” Rickman, G. 1980. The Com Supply o f Ancient Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Riepl, W. 1972. Das Nachrichtenwesen des Altertums, mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die Romer. Hildesheim: Olms. Riggsby, A. 1997. “’Public’ and ‘Private’ in Roman Culture: the Case of the CubiculumC JRA 10: 36-56. Rowe, G. 1997. Omnis spesjutura patemae stationis: Public Responses to the Roman Imperial Succession. D. Phil, dissertation: Oxford. Rudd, N. 1966. The Satires of Horace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1989. Epistles II and Ars Poetica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rude, G. 1959. The Crowd in the French Revolution. Oxford. . 1966. The Crowd in History, 1730-1848. New York: John Wiley. . 1971. Paris and London in the Eighteenth Century. New York: Viking. Rumpf. A. 1950. “Die Entstehung des romischen Theaters.” M D AI3: 40-50. Ste Croix, G.E.M. de 1981. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Schatzmann, I. 1974. “Tacitean Rumours.” Latomus 33: 549-578. 320 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Scheid, J. 1985. Religion et Piete a Rome. Paris. Schiesaro, A. 1998. “The Boundaries of Knowledge in Virgil’s Georgies.” In A. Schiesaro and T. Habinek eds. The Roman Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 63-89. Schultze, C. 1986. “Dionysius of Halicarnassus and his Audience.” In IS . Moxon, F.D. Smart and A. J. Woodman eds. Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 121-141. Scobie, A. 1986. “Slums, Sanitation, and Mortality in the Roman World.” Klio 68: 399-433. Schorske, C.E. 1998. “Burckhardt’s Basel.” Thinking with History. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 56-70 Scullard, H.H. 1973. Roman Politics 220-150BC. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 1981. Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Seager, R. 1964 "The First Catilinarian Conspiracy." Historia 13: 338-347. . ed. 1969. The Crisis of the Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1972. “Cicero and the Word Popularise CQ 22: 328-338. . 1977. “ Populares in Livy and the Livian Tradition.” CQ 27: 377-390. Selden, D. 1990. “Classics and Contemporary Criticism.” Arion (New Series) 1: 155-178. Settle, J.N. 1963. “The Trial of Milo and the Other Pro Milone.” TAPA 94: 268- 280. Shackleton Bailey, D. 1960. “Sex. Clodius— Sex. Cloelius.” CQ 10: 41-2. . 1981. “Ecce Iterum Cloelius.” Historia 30: 383. , 1986. “Nobiles and Novi Reconsidered.” AJP 107: 255-260. Shaw, B. 1984. “Bandits in the Roman Empire.” Past and Present. 105: 3-52. . 1984b. Review of Ste Croix 1981. Economy and Society. 13: 208-249. Sherwin-White, A.N. 1956 “Violence in Roman Politics” JRS 46: 1-9. 3 2 1 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. . 1966. The letters of Pliny: a Historical and Social Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 1982. “The Lex Repetundarum and the Political Ideas of Gaius Gracchus.” JRS 72:18-31. Stalleybrass, P. and A. White. 1986. The Politics and Poetics of Transgression. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Stambaugh, J.E. 1988. The Ancient Roman City. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Starr, R J. 1987. “The Circulation of Literary Texts in the Roman World.” CQ 37: 213-223. Staverley, E.S. 1959. “The Political Aims of Appius Claudius Caecus.” Historia 8: 410-433. Stevens, C.E. 1963. "The Plotting of BC 66-65." Latomus 22: 397-435 Store, C.F. 1937. Review of W. Weber’s Princeps: Studien zur Geschichte des Augustus. Classical Review 51: 29-30. Stray, C. 1998. Classics Transformed: Schools, Universities, and Society in England, 1830-1960. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Syme, R. 1939. The Roman Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 1958. Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 1979. “Sejanus on the Aventine.” In E. Badian ed. Roman Papers I. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 305-314. . 1986. The Augustan Aristocracy. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tatum, .W. J. 1999 The Patrician Tribune : Publius Clodius Pulcher. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. Taylor, L.R. 1937. “The Opportunities for Dramatic Performance in the Time of Plautus and Terence.” TAPA 68: 284-304. . 1960. The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic. Rome: American Academy. . 1961. “Freedmen and Freeborn in the Epitaphs of Imperial Rome.” AJP 82: 113-132. . 1962. “Forerunners of the Gracchi.” JRS 52: 19-27. 3 2 2 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. . 1966. Roman Voting Assemblies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Tebbutt, M. 1995 Women’ s Talk? A Social History o f ‘Gossip’ in Working-Class Neighborhoods, 1880-1960. Aldershot: Scolar Press. Teuffel, W.S. and L. Schwabe. 1890. Geschichte der Romischen Literatur. Leipzig: Teubner. Theweleit, K. 1987-9. Male Fantasies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Two volumes. Thomas, R, Hinton. 1951. Nationalism and the German Intellectuals (1822-1841): an Analysis of the Academic and Scientific Conferences of the Period. Cambridge: Heffer. Thomas, R. 1988. Georgies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Two Volumes. Thommen, L. 1995. “Lex Lieux de la Plebe et de ses Tribuns dans la Rome Republicaine.” Klio 77: 358-370. Thompson, E.P. 1964. The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Pantheon. Thompson, P. 1999. Rum Punch and Revolution: Tavemgoing and Public Life in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Toner, J.P. 1995. Leisure and Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Polity. Toynbee, A.J. 1965. Hannibal's Legacy: the Hannibalic War's Effects on Roman Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Treggiari, S. 1969. Roman Freedman During the Late Republic. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 1980 “Urban Labour in Rome: Mercenarii and Tabemarii.” In P. Gamsey ed. Non-Slave Labour in the Greco-Roman World. PCPh Soc supp. vol. 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 48-64. Turner, F. 1993. Contesting Cultural Authority: Essays in Victorian Intellectual Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turner, R. Steven. 1983. “Historicism, Kritik, and the Prussian Professoriate, 1790- 1840.” In M. Bollack and H. Wismann eds. Philologie und Hermeneutik im 19. Jahrhundert II. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. 450-489. Turner, P. 1993. I Heard it through the Grapevine. Berkeley and Los Angeles: 3 2 3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. University of California Press. Usener, H. 1913. “Italische Volksjustiz.” KleineSchriften volume 4. Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner. 356-382. Vance, N. 1997. The Victorians and Ancient Rome. Oxford: Blackwell. VanderbrOeck, PJ.J. 1987. Popular Leadership and Collective Behavior in the Late Roman Republic. Amsterdam: Gieben. Vasaly, A. 1999. “The Quinctii in Livy’s First Pentad: The Rhetoric of Anti- Rhetoric.” CW 92: 513-530. Versnel, H.S. 1994 Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion II: Tradition and Reversal in Myth and Ritual. Leiden: Brill. Veyne, P. 1984 Writing History: An Essay on Epistemology. Middletown: Wesleyan. . ed. 1987. A History o f Private Life, vol. I. From Pagan Rome to Byzantium. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. . 1990. Bread and Circuses. London: Penguin. Walbank. F.W. 1957-1979. A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Walde, A. 1910. Lateinisches Etymologisches Worterbuch. Heidelberg. Wallace Hadrill, A. 1998. “ Mutatio Morum: The Idea of a Cultural Revolution.” In T.N. Habinek and A. Schiesaro eds. The Roman Cultural Revolution. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. 3-22. Waltzing, J.P. 1968. Etude Historique sur les Corporations Professionnelles chez les Romains depuis les Origins jusqu’ a la Chute de TEmpire d ’Occident. Bologna: Fomi. Originally published 1895-1900. Ward, Cyrenus Osbome. 1899. A Labor Catechism of Political Economy: a Study for the People. Washington D.C: Press of the Author. . 1907. The Ancient Lowly: a History of the Ancient Working People from the Earliest Known Period to the Adoption of Christianity by Constantine. Chicago: Charles W. Kerr. Fourth Edition. Two volumes. Warde Fowler, W. 1916 The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic. London: MacMillan. Weinstock, S. 1971. Divus Julius. Oxford: Clarendon Press. White, P. 1978. “ Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in Early Imperial Rome.” 3 2 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. JRS 68: 74-92. . 1997. “Julius Caesar and the Publication of Acta in Late Republican Rome.” Chiron 27: 73-84. Whitfield, J.H. 1971. “Machiavelli’s Use of Livy.” In T.A. Dorey ed. Livy. Toronto. 73-96. Whitman, J. 1988. “The Last Generation of Roman Lawyers in Germany.” In A.C. Dionisotti, A. Grafton and J. Kraye eds. The Uses of Greek and Latin: Historical Essays. London: Warburg. 211-225. . 1990. The Legacy of Roman Law in the German Romantic Era: Historical Vision and Legal Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Whittaker, C.R. 1993. “The Poor.” In A. Giardina ed. The Romans. Chicago: University of Chicago. 272-299. Wiedermann, T. 1996. “Mommsen, Rome and the German Kaiserreich.” In Mommsen 1996. 36-47. Wickert, L. 1969-80. Theodor Mommsen, Eine Biographie. Frankfurt: Klostermann. Volumes 3 and 4. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U. von. 1982. History o f Classical Scholarship. Translated by Alan Harris. Ed. H. Lloyd-Jones. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. Wilkins, A.S. 1888. Q. Horati Flacci Epistulae. London: MacMillan. Williams, G. 1968. Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Williams, R. 1958. Culture and Society 1780-1950. New York: Harper and Row. . 1961. The Long Revolution. London: Chatto and Windus. Wirszubski, Ch. 1954 “Cicero’s cum Dignitate Otium: a Reconsideration.” JRS 44: 1-13. . 1968. Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiseman, T.P. 1971. New Men in the Roman Senate, 139BC-AD 14. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 1974. Cinna the Poet, and Other Roman Essays. Leicester: Leicester University Press. . 1985a. Catullus and His World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3 2 5 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. . 1985b. “Competition and Cooperation.” Roman Political Life. Ed. T.P. Wiseman. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. 3-19. . 1987a. "The Credibility of the Roman Annalists." Roman Studies. Liverpool: Francis Cairns. 293-6. . 1 987b. “Practice and Theory in Roman Historiography.” Roman Studies. Liverpool: Francis Cairns. 244-262. . 1987c. “Pete Nobiles Amicos: Poets and Patrons in Late Republican Rome.” Roman Studies. Liverpool: F. Cairns. 263-284 . 1987d. “Conspicui postes tectaque digna deo: The Public Image of Aristocratic and Imperial Housing in the Late Republic and early Empire.” In L ’Urbs: Espace Urbain et Histoire. Collection de l’ecole frangaise de Rome, 98: 393- 413. . 1987e. “Looking for Camerius: the Topography of Catullus 55.” Roman Studies. Liverpool: F. Caims. 176-186. . 1987f. “The Definition of ‘Eques Romanus’ in the Late Republic and Early Empire.” Roman Studies. Liverpool: F. Caims. 57-93. . 1988. “Satyrs in Rome? The Background to Horace’s Ars Poetica.” JRS 78: 1-13. . 1989. “Roman Legend and Oral Tradition.” JRS 79: 129-136. . 1994. Cambridge Ancient Histoiy. Volume Nine. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 327-423. . 1995. Remus: a Roman Myth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1998. Roman Drama and Roman History. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. . 1999. “Democracy alia RomanaP Review of Millar 1998. JRA 12: 537-540. . 2000. “Liber: Myth, Drama and Ideology in Republican Rome.” In C. Braun ed. The Roman Middle Republic: Politics, Religion, and Historiography c.400- 133 B.C. ” Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae vol. 23. Rome. 265-299. Wissowa, G. 1971. Religions und Kultus. Munich: Beck. Wood, A.W. 1993. "Hegel and Marxism.” In F.C. Beiser ed. The Cambridge Comapnion to Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 414-444. Woolf, G. 1990. “Food, Poverty and Patronage: The Significance of the Epigraphy of the Roman Alimentary Schemes in Early Imperial Italy.” PBSR 58: 197- 3 2 6 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 2 8 . Wucher, A. 1956. Theodor Mommsen: Geschichtshreibung undPolitik. Gottingen: MuSterschmidt. Yakobson, A. 1992. “Petitio et Largitio: Popular Participation in the Centuriate Assembly.” JRS 82: 32-52. . 1999. Elections and Electioneering in Rome: A Study in the Political System of the Late Republic. Historia Einzelschriften 128. Stuttgart: Steiner. Yavetz, Z. 1958. “The Living Conditions of the Urban Plebs” Latomus 17: 500-517. . 1963. “The Failure of Catiline’s Conspiracy.” Historia 12: 485-499. . 1965. “Plebs Sordida.” Athenaeum. 43: 295-311. . 1970. “Fluctuations Monetaires et Condition de la Plebe a la Fin de la Republique ” In C. Nicolet and C. Leroy eds. Recherches sur les Structures Sociales dans TAntiquite Classique. Paris. 133-157. . 1974. "Existimatio, Fama, and the Ides of March." HSCP 78: 35-65. . 1976. “Why Rome? Zeitgeist and Ancient Historians in Early Nineteenth Century Germany.” AJP 97: 276-296. . 1983. Julius Caesar and his Public Image. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. . 1988. Plebs and Princeps. Second edition. New Brunswick and London: Transaction. Zanker, P. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age o f Augustus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Zorzetti, N. 1980. La Pretesta e il Teatro Latino Arcaico. Naples: Liguori. 3 2 7 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Nne (Negro Nonstandard English) Grammatical Items In The Speech Of Negro Elementary School Children As Correlates Of Age, Grade, And Social Status
PDF
Generals and particulars in Thucydides
PDF
Cultural practice, ideology and irony in Tacitus' Claudian Annals
PDF
A cut above: Fashion as meta -culture in early -twentieth -century Russia
PDF
Ascent imagery in the ancient Mediterranean and early Christianity
PDF
Husbands, fathers, sons, and lovers: Plutarch and the moral male
PDF
An investigation of the relationship between measures of social, academic and global self-concept