Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:44:18.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rumour and Communication in Roman Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2009

Ray Laurence
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recently there has been considerable debate about the nature of popular politics in the Roman Republic. This debate has demonstrated that the Roman citizen was actively involved in voting, and made conscious decisions about which candidate he should vote for at elections, and whether to vote for or against a bill at the meetings of the comitia. The results of elections and voting assemblies would seem to have been dependent upon the attendance and voting behaviour of Roman citizens. These two factors would vary according to the views and opinions of the individual citizen. This paper addresses the issue of how these views and opinions were formulated, with particular reference to the participation of Roman citizens in popular politics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , April 1994 , pp. 62 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Millar, F., JRS 74 (1984), 1–19Google Scholar and JRS 76 (1986), 1–12Google Scholar; Brunt, P., The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays (Oxford, 1988)Google Scholar; North, J., Past and Present 126 (1990), 3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Plut, .T.G. 13 gives a detailed account of the incidentGoogle Scholar.

3. App.B.C. 1.15. Austin, A. E., Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford, 1967), p. 218Google Scholar notes the problems of reconstructing the events in these circumstances. See also Bernstein, A. H., Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus: Tradition and Apostacy (London, 1978), pp. 219–25Google Scholar, and Stockton, D., The Gracchi (Oxford, 1979), pp. 75–7Google Scholar.

4. Plut., F.G. 18Google Scholar. Compare with rumours that Caesar was seeking kingship in 44 B.C., documented by Yavetz, Z., Julius Caesar and his Public Image (New York, 1983), pp. 201–9Google Scholar.

5. Rosnow, R. L. and Fine, G. A., Rumour and Gossip: the Social Psychology of Hearsay (New York, 1976)Google Scholar. Compare with Turner, R. H. and Killiam, L. M., Collective Behaviour (London, 1987)Google Scholar and Paine, R., Man 4 (1967), 278–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For rumour in Athenian politics, see Hunter, V., Phoenix 44 (1990), 299–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Rosnow and Fine, op. cit., p. 36.

7. Compare with the conception of rumour in Latin literature, e.g., Ovid, , Met. 12.39–68Google Scholar and Virgil, , Aen. 4.175–86Google Scholar.

8. Hor. Sat.2.6.50.

9. Cic. Fam. 8.1.5. In the Empire rumours continue to originate from the rostra (Hor., Sat. 2.6.50)Google Scholar. For other rumours of death abroad, Sen., Contr. 5.2Google Scholar invents the case of a father rumoured to be dead overseas. His son believing his father to be dead, married the daughter of his father's enemy. Rumours about the emperor were the most lurid when the emperor was away (Tac., Ann. 4.11)Google Scholar.

10. Plut., C.G. 1.3Google Scholar.

11. Quint.5.3.1 observes the role of rumour in the case for the prosecution and the defence: ‘Famam atque rumores pars altera consensum civitatis et velut publicum testimonium vocat, altera sermonem sine ullo certo auctore dispersum, cui malignitas initium dederit, incrementum credulitas; quod nulli non etiam innocentissimo possit accidere fraude inimicorum falsa vulgantium.’

12. Cic., Flac. 6Google Scholar.

13. Cic., Cael. 29–30Google Scholar.

14. Cic., Sest. 39, Cael. 32, Mil. 13, Planc. 86Google Scholar.

15. Cic., Off 2Google Scholar.49 observes how important the law courts were in forming public opinion.

16. Cicero could expect to be well informed of events in Rome via letter, when he was in Cilicia in 51 (Cic., Fam. 2.8)Google Scholar.

17. For example, Hor., Sat 2.6.51–8Google Scholar. Horace as a friend of Maecenas was expected to know about future actions.

18. After all the elite held office, made speeches, and took part in political debate whereas most citizens only voted upon issues or for candidates.

19. E.g., Taylor, L. R., Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley, 1966), pp. 42–5Google Scholar.

20. Brunt, op. cit., pp. 430–1. On other factors see Millar, , JRS 74 (1984), 1–19Google Scholar and JRS 76 (1986), 1–12Google Scholar and North, Past and Present 126 (1990), 3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. See Saller, R. P., Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wallace-Hadrill, A. in Wallace-Hadrill, (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society (London, 1989), pp. 63–88Google Scholar, and also other papers in that volume; and Brunt, op. cit.

22. For example, White, P., HSCP 79 (1975), 265–300Google Scholar fails to identify a group of friends around Martial, Pliny, and Statius.

23. Croix, G. E. M. de Ste, British Journal of Sociology 5 (1956), 33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see especially p. 41.

24. Mart.1.108 and 2.5.

25. Wolf, E. in Banton, M., The Social Anthropology of Complex Societies (London, 1966), p. 17Google Scholar.

26. Wallace-Hadrill, op. cit., p. 63 cites the example of Cic., Orat. 3.133Google Scholar: the nobles of an earlier generation were approached upon questions of marriage, cultivation, social obigations, and business as well as the law. Cf. Barnes, S. T., Patrons and Power: creating a Political Community in Metropolitan Lagos (London, 1962), pp. 10–11Google Scholar, who details the need for people to have patrons to enable them to acquire jobs, housing, schooling, loans, etc.

27. Comm. Pet. 36–7; Cic., Mur. 69Google Scholar; Juv. 1.4.5; Liv. 5.32.8.

28. Sen., Ben. 6.34Google Scholar.

29. Saller in Wallace-Hadrill, (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society, p. 5 7 notes that everyone knew their place, which defined their status in the eyes of the patronGoogle Scholar.

30. It is no coincidence that the side-walk outside some Pompeian houses forms a raised platform at the entrance to the house. Presumably this was used to make public addresses.

31. Scott, J. C., American Political Science Review 66, 1 (1972), 91–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar documents the explicit use of the patronage system in determining the outcome of an election (p. 95). The candidate utilizes a core of 100 clients to form a larger action set to win the election.

32. There is a general consensus in the sources that Cicero, a novus homo, won the election because there was a rumour about Catiline's intentions as consul: Sail., Cat. 23.4Google Scholar; Plut., Cic. 10–11Google Scholar; App.B.C. 2.2. See Comm. Pet. 9–12 on Catiline's character and reputation. P. Brunt, op. cit., pp. 428–9 considers that these fears caused others to back Cicero and that patron-client relations were unimportant to Cicero's election. Cf. Rawson, E., Cicero, a Portrait (Bristol, 1975), p. 58Google Scholar and Stockton, D., Cicero, a Political Biography (Oxford, 1971), pp. 81–3Google Scholar.

33. Comm. Pet. 17.

34. Comm. Pet. 4.

35. Comm. Pet. 41. For example, Brunt points to Cicero canvassing in Cisalpine Gaul in 65 B.C. Brunt, op. cit., p. 428 places strong emphasis upon the opinion of the voter. For Cicero in Cisalpine Gaul, see Cic, Att. 1.1.2Google Scholar.

36. Comm. Pet.3.

37. Comm. Pet. 19,16, 32.

38. Comm. Pet. 20, 38. Their support might include spreading Cicero's reputation through their information network.

39. Comm. Pet. 30.

40. E. Rawson, op. cit., p. 58.

41. Cic., Mur. 45Google Scholar.

42. Such rumours may be reflected in Cicero's second speech against Catiline.

43. For example, Cic., Leg. Agr. 2.10–19Google Scholar suggests Rullus' agrarian law would deprive the people of their libertas. On libertas as a slogan see Vanderbroeck, P.J., Popular Leadership and Collective Behaviour in the Late Roman Republic (Amsterdam, 1987), pp. 104–12Google Scholar.

44. Cic., Leg.Agr. 2.1–10Google Scholar.

45. Suet, Jul. 20Google Scholar. Annual records of the acts of magistrates were recorded upon the Capitol. These records were important testimony of political action. Their importance is highlighted in 56 B.C., when Cicero removed the tablets recording Clodius' tribunate; Dio 39.21; Plut., Cat. 40 and Cic. 34Google Scholar.

46. Cic., Att. 2. 20.4Google Scholar and 2.21.4; Suet, Jul. 49Google Scholar. See Taylor (n. 19), pp. 145–8 and Vanderbroeck (n. 43), pp. 110–12.

47. Suet., Jul. 49Google Scholar; cf. Calvus fr.17.

48. On literacy, see Best, E. E., Historia 23 (1974), 428–38Google Scholar.

49. This broadly agrees with the views of Vanderbroeck, op. cit., pp. 139–40. However, Vanderbroeck tends to see these events in terms of patronage rather than in terms of communication and the availability of political information to the urban plebs.

50. Cic., Pis. 8–9Google Scholar; Asc.7C.

51. Cic., Dom. 54Google Scholar and Sest. 34. On these collegia see Laurence, R. in Herring, E., Whitehouse, R., and Wilkins, J. (eds.), Papers of the Fourth Conference of Italian Archaeology Vol. 1 (London, 1991), pp. 145–51Google Scholar. Cf. Flambard, J. M., Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de 1'École Française de Rome 89 (1977), pp. 115–56Google Scholar and Ktema 6 (1981), 143–66Google Scholar.

52. Cic., Dom. 40Google Scholar.

53. App., B.C. 2.120Google Scholar.

54. The registration of members of each vicus into collegia provided data about who should receive the grain distribution. This data replaced the official census that was lost following Clodius' destruction of the temple of the Nymphs; Nicolet, C., Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions el Belles-Lettres (1976), 29–51Google Scholar.

55. Cic., Dom. 54Google Scholar, Sest. 26, Pis. 23.

56. For other examples, see Vanderbroeck, op. cit., pp. 241–4. On violence see Lintott, A. W., Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford, 1968)Google Scholar and Nippel, W., JRS 74 (1984), 20–30Google Scholar.

57. Plut., Cic. 33 and Pomp. 49Google Scholar.

58. Cic., Dom. 75Google Scholar.

59. Cic., Dom. 14 and Att. 4.1.6–7Google Scholar.

60. For details see Vanderbroeck, op. cit., pp. 249–51.

61. Cic., Dom. 10–12Google Scholar; Plut., Pomp. 49 states that Clodius accused Pompey of precipitating this food crisis to gain a substantial commandGoogle Scholar.

62. In 58 B.C. Clodius had led a physical attack upon Pompey (Plut., Pomp. 49)Google Scholar. From the end of 56 B.C. Clodius was reconciled with Pompey in opposition to Milo.

63. Plut., Pomp. 49Google Scholar.

64. Cicero and Clodius agree that this was the cause of the food crisis: Cic., Dom. 10–12Google Scholar and Plut., Pomp. 49Google Scholar.

65. Cic., Dom. 13Google Scholar.

66. Cic., Att. 43Google Scholar.

67. Cic., Att. 4.3.2Google Scholar, Cael. 78, Mil. 87; Dio 39.20.3. Vanderbroeck, op. cit., p. 251.

68. Cic., Att. 4.3.3. Vanderbroeck, op. cit, p. 251Google Scholar.

69. Cic., Att. 4.3.3Google Scholar, Sest. 85, Mil. 38; Dio 39.20.3. Vanderbroeck, op. cit, p. 252.

70. Cic., Att. 43Google Scholar. Cicero's letter is dated to the 23rd November. We do not know how long Milo continued to observe the heavens. In December the Senate debated whether the elections or the trials should take precedence. See Vanderbroeck, op. cit, p. 252 for details of the riot staged by Clodius.

71. For example, Bibulus remained in his house in 59 B.C. and Pompey was kept at home because of his fear that Clodius would have him murdered in 58 B.C.

72. Cic., Cael. 27Google Scholar.

73. Cic., Q.F. 2.3Google Scholar.

74. Dio 39.18–19.

75. Plut., Pomp. 48Google Scholar.

76. Cic., Q.F. 2.3.2Google Scholar.

77. Cic., Sest. 39Google Scholar, Cael. 32, Mil. 13, Planc. 86.

78. Cic., Mil. 7Google Scholar.

79. Cic., Mil. 65Google Scholar.

80. Cic., Mil. 64Google Scholar. Cf. Cicero in 64 B.C. discrediting his opponents in the consular elections (Plut., Cic. 10)Google Scholar.

81. Millar, , JRS 74 (1984), 1–19Google Scholar and JRS 76 (1986), 1–12Google Scholar.

82. Indeed, it was an important factor in the murder of Caesar in 44 B.C.; see Yavetz (n. 4), pp. 201–9.