Ceremony and Power: Performing Politics in Rome between Republic and Empire
378
Ceremony and Power: Performing Politics in Rome between Republic and Empire
378Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780472025923 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | University of Michigan Press |
| Publication date: | 02/24/2010 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 378 |
| File size: | 2 MB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Ceremony and Power
Performing Politics in Rome between Republic and Empire
By Geoffrey S. Sumi
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PRESS
Copyright © 2005
University of Michigan
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-472-11517-4
Chapter One Consensus and Conflict
A Typology of Roman Republican Ceremonial
* * *
Our discussion of the relationship between power and ceremonial in the late Roman Republic will begin with a framework or typology of ceremonial-an enumeration and general description of the kinds of events that form the focus of this study and their historical development. The purpose of this chapter is not to provide an exhaustive list but rather the principal categories of ceremonies that we will be discussing. These events were usually formal gatherings of the people at which the ownership and distribution of political power were demonstrated. They share characteristics of ceremony, as defined in the introduction, but each is distinctive. Contiones and triumphs, for instance, were ceremonies of quite different type-the one quotidian and routine, the other splendid and lavish, full of pageantry and spectacle, the ultimate accomplishment of a Roman aristocrat's career. The disruption of these events frequently became an objective of those intent on undermining the power that was at stake. At many of these ceremonies a tension was palpable between the power and prestige of an individual and the sovereignty of the people, between the celebration of the glory won in the name of Rome and the renown of individual achievements. Consequently, the discussion will focus on the role of ceremonial in creating political consensus and as a stage for social and political conflict. It is not enough to say that public ceremonial reflected the larger political context of which it was part; rather public ceremonial was itself political action.
Oratory before the People
Vergil's striking comparison of Neptune calming the seas to an orator standing before a raucous crowd (Aen. 1.142-56), commanding silence through his appearance and soothing an audience with his words, demonstrates the Roman belief in the power of oratory and its importance as a component of statesmanship. At the same time, the fact that the crowd was in need of calming shows that Vergil understood public oratory to be a place of conflict that an orator could resolve through his power, influence, and sometimes his mere presence. An orator's ability to incite or calm a crowd, persuade a jury to acquit his client, or convince an assembly to approve or reject legislation made him a formidable presence on the political scene in Rome. Part of the orator's power and prestige arose from the ceremonial nature of oratory: the formal dress and comportment of the orator, the raised platform from which he spoke, the crowd of spectators looking on, and the sense of oratory as performance. Yet there is evidence that the orator was required to defer to the people, who could pass judgment with shouts-or with silence.
In our discussion of oratory before the Roman people we will focus on two venues, the public meeting (contio) and judicial proceeding (quaestio). A contio was any gathering of the Roman populace or army for the purpose of hearing a speech delivered by a political or military leader. We will focus on two of the three basic types: the contio preceding the comitia tributa, in which legislation presented, discussed and debated in the contio was voted on; and the contio convened by a magistrate to inform the citizen body of an issue of public interest, such as the content, course, and outcome of debate in a meeting of the senate. All contiones had to be convened by a tribune of the plebs or a magistrate or promagistrate with imperium, and all speakers were summoned and introduced by the presiding magistrate, although the people could demand a speaker by acclamation. In some cases, a nonmagistrate (privatus) could address an assembly but only after being introduced by a tribune of the plebs.
The tension mentioned earlier, between the prestige of an individual aristocrat, in this case the presiding official or orator at a contio, and the sovereignty of the Roman people was often in evidence at these events, as we shall see. It is worth noting now that this tension was ceremonially acknowledged by the display of the fasces, the bundles of rods and axes that were carried by lictors on public occasions as emblems of a magistrate's coercive and punitive powers and were thought to have originated with the kings. The presence of a magistrate with imperium at a contio required a display of the fasces, but since these symbols of regal authority were anathema to the ideal of popular sovereignty under the Republic, they were ceremonially lowered before the people. This custom, ascribed to the great populist politician, P. Valerius Poplicola (Cic. Rep. 2.53; cf. 1.62), was a sign of deference to the power of the people, yet it also acknowledged the tension between the sovereignty of the people and the power and authority of a magistrate. This tension erupted most visibly and violently in the late Republic through the breaking of the fasces, a dramatic means of undermining the very power and authority that these emblems represented.
In our period, a quaestio took place in the Forum Romanum (see fig. 2) on a wooden tribunal constructed for the purpose. The principals involved, both on the side of the prosecution and the defense as well as the presiding magistrate (one of the eight praetors for the year), were often leading politicians whose reputations depended upon the issues at stake and the eventual outcome. Thus, criminal courts were as much a venue for a discussion of political issues of the day as they were a site for judicial proceedings. Since these trials took place in the open air of the Forum and involved some of the most distinguished men of the day, a crowd might gather to hear one of the orators advocating for his client; and since several trials might be ongoing at once, we can envision the crowd moving from one to another, much as it did during a festival as it sought the most striking form of entertainment. A captivating speaker could expect a large crowd (corona) to gather in a circle around his tribunal, and orators were known to speak and perform to that audience as much as to the judge and jurors seated on the tribunal with them. The crowd in attendance at a trial, in its turn, could exert some pressure on the participants, creating anxiety on the part of the performers (Cic. Caec. 28; cf. Fin. 2.74).
One consequence of the metaphor of politics as performance is the expectation that these ceremonies involved a performer performing before a passive audience. As we shall see, this is not necessarily true. A common feature of a contio or public trial in this period was the vociferous reaction of the crowd to the speakers on the Rostra to the point where the crowd itself became a part of the whole performance. Whether these responses of the crowd were spontaneous or prearranged by some of the participants is often difficult to prove at such a remove. However, any attempt to orchestrate a crowd's response shows how important the expressed will of the people was to the political elite of Rome.
We can use as an example the public meeting in 67 BC to vote on the proposal of A. Gabinius (tr. pl. 67; cos. 58). Gabinius proposed to confer a command against the pirates on Cn. Pompeius Magnus. The passage of this law has to be understood as part and parcel of the public meetings (contiones) that were held before the people to debate the issues involved prior to the actual assembly in which the people voted. Since our ancient sources do not agree on the precise sequence of events, the following is an attempt to reconcile them.
A debate on this law had already been held in the senate, with A. Gabinius speaking in favor and Q. Hortensius (cos. 69) speaking in opposition (Cic. Man. 52). This debate continued at a contio that was probably held on the day of the voting in the Forum Romanum. First Pompeius and then Gabinius spoke in favor of the bill (rogatio). The consul C. Calpurnius Piso lent his prestige to the proceedings when he spoke in opposition, declaring that if Pompeius wanted to be another Romulus (Plut. Pomp. 25.9), he might suffer Romulus' fate. The crowd reacted by nearly tearing Piso to pieces-almost subjecting him to Romulus' fate instead. Q. Catulus (cos. 78), an eminent consular, spoke in opposition to the proposal contrary to Gabinius' expectations (according to Dio 36.30.5), but with greater deference to Pompeius, it seems, than Piso. Catulus opposed the idea of conferring such extraordinary power on one man and attempted to convince the crowd of the folly of the proposal by asking who would replace Pompeius should he be lost. The crowd responded ("You, Catulus") in a manner that appeared to be prearranged. Cicero understood the crowd's response to be an indication of Catulus' distinction, a product of his excellence (virtus) and prestige (dignitas). But it also had the effect of taking the wind out of his sails by making him appear to be the crowd's favorite, as he apparently had accused Pompeius of being. Catulus retired from the Rostra. It was probably at this point that another tribune, L. Roscius Otho, came forward to speak in opposition to the proposal, but the crowd refused to hear him. Instead of speaking, he held up two fingers to indicate (as Plutarch tells us) that he was opposed to the idea of conferring such power on a single man; the crowd shouted him down. As the people then divided themselves into tribes to vote on the proposal, Trebellius, another tribune, interposed his veto, at which point Gabinius proposed a second law deposing his uncooperative colleague. When seventeen tribes had voted for his removal-one short of the majority necessary-Trebellius withdrew his veto. The law was passed. At this contio, the crowd did not wait passively to be told how to vote on this law: it nearly assaulted a consul, encouraged one orator to retire from the Rostra, and refused to hear another. The distribution of power was on display, and the Roman people were full participants.
Audience participation was not limited to contiones. We have already noted how orators sometimes "played to the gallery" at judicial trials, demonstrating a keen awareness of audience reaction. The jury could participate in the performance as well. In a raucous scene at the infamous Bona Dea trial of P. Clodius (62 BC), Cicero claims that he came forward to testify amid the shouts of Clodius' supporters and that he was surrounded by the jury who pointed to their bare throats, as if to demonstrate that they would lay down their lives for his. A similar scene played out at the trial of T. Milo in February of 56. When Cn. Pompeius rose to speak, his voice was nearly drowned out by the shouts of Clodius' supporters. When Clodius began to speak, Milo's supporters, among them Cicero, returned the favor. Clodius became flustered (according to Cicero) and began peppering the audience with questions ("Who is starving the people?" "Pompeius!"). Following this, as though on cue, Clodius' supporters began spitting at Milo's supporters. A riot ensued (Cic. Q.fr. 2.3.2).
These incidents illustrate how the people could influence the course of a debate at a contio or the procedure at a trial, demonstrating further that it is overly simplistic to view such events as merely displays of aristocratic power. Rather it was in oratory before the people that the distribution of political power in the Roman Republic was most visible. Certain elements lent prestige and power to the performer (the appearance of the orator and the location of the speech, for instance), but the presence of the crowd was an abiding reminder that whatever the issues at stake the approbation of the people was necessary for their resolution. The ever-present threat that a contio could devolve into rioting showed how delicate was the balance of power between elite and nonelite, and how fragile the harmony that underpinned public order. Attempts to disrupt a contio or a quaestio and undermine the speaker only brought into sharper relief the question of the ownership and distribution of power. The fact that the crowd's response appeared to be prearranged indicates the level of performance in these ceremonies, even on the part of those in the audience. It also shows that the usual distinction of performer and spectators can become blurred, which has ramifications for our understanding of the relationship between power and ceremonial. If power is conferred partly through performance at such public events, then the crowd on these occasions would have garnered some power at the expense of those eminent statesmen standing on the Rostra or tribunal.
As we can see from the above examples, ceremonies in this period often became high public drama further confirming the metaphor of politics as performance. Another such instance was the prosecution (in 63) of C. Rabirius for the murder of C. Marius' one-time ally, L. Appuleius Saturninus (tr. pl. 100), a crime that was alleged to have been committed thirty-seven years previously. Saturninus' popular legislation in 100 eventually provoked the so-called ultimate decree (senatus consultum ultimum), compelling the consul Marius to arm the citizen populace and bring down his former ally. In his defense in 63 BC, Rabirius admitted to taking part in the siege of Saturninus and his supporters on the Capitolium but denied murdering him. The point at issue in the trial was whether the senate had the authority to pass the "ultimate decree" (Dio 37.26.1), in effect calling for martial law, against the sovereignty of the people vested in a tribune of the plebs whose person was sacrosanct. The trial, or rather trials, and accompanying events became a dramatic performance, the outward form of which was as politically significant as the very issues at stake.
At a contio that preceded the trials themselves, T. Labienus, tribune of the plebs and prosecutor, displayed a portrait bust (imago) of Saturninus (Cic. Rab. Perd. 25). The frequent comparison of public oratory with a theatrical performance and a contio with a "stage" (as we discussed earlier) indicates that public speeches in Rome were partly a visual experience. If we imagine a contio or quaestio in the Forum in which the orator stood on the Rostra or tribunal to address a crowd of citizens in the open air, we have to assume that many in the back of the crowd at a distance from the speaker would have been able to catch only snippets of the speech, a catchphrase or slogan, shouted above the din. This is why the visual aspects of oratory, for instance a prop like Saturninus' imago displayed as part of an orator's speech, became communicative components of the performance.
There is no record of how the audience on this occasion reacted to the display of Saturninus' imago, but it did elicit comment from Cicero, who, in his speech in Rabirius' defense, wondered aloud where Labienus had found such a portrait, since it had become illegal to display one after Saturninus' death. Since such imagines were often displayed at funerals, this prohibition really meant that Saturninus was not to be mourned publicly and thus constituted a form of damnatio memoriae, the officially sanctioned eradication of the public memory of a man deemed an enemy of the state. If Cicero's statement is accurate, then it is likely that no one in the audience at Labienus' contio would have previously laid eyes on Saturninus' portrait. Further, the display of imagines at funerals and in the atria of aristocratic households was a right associated with the Roman nobilitas. By displaying his imago in this way, Labienus was not merely reviving Saturninus' memory but also conferring an honor on Saturninus that was usually reserved for members of more distinguished Roman families. The display of Saturninus' imago, then, was a more pointed act at this trial, since it infringed upon the power of the aristocracy and was meant to elevate the sovereignty of the people.
Rabirius might have been found guilty again had it not been for the unusual action taken by the praetor Metellus Celer, who brought down the flag from the Janiculum. Dio explains that in ancient times this action signaled an enemy attack and the consequent adjournment of an assembly, but it continued largely as a matter of form. This gesture towards an antiquarian tradition was consistent with a theme of the first trial, which was conducted in accordance with an archaic legal procedure before two judges (duoviri perduellionis) (Cic. Rab. Perd. 12). The whole procedure is a further indication of the kind of devotion to archaic and arcane rituals and procedures that permeated political life in the late Republic, for Cicero claims that Labienus, the tribune of the plebs who presided at the second trial (a iudicium populi), found the ritual of the first in the dusty pages of annalistic history. He was probably right, for the paradigm case for perduellio was from the Regal period, the story of Horatius who killed his sister when she mourned the fallen enemy upon her brother's return from war, as retold by Livy. In the trial in 63, Rabirius was found guilty and sentenced to death by the lash and the cross, an antiquarian revival of a long extinct form of punishment. Cicero, however, apparently exercising his consular veto, arrested the proceedings before this grim penalty could be enacted (Cic. Rab. Perd. 10-11).
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Ceremony and Power by Geoffrey S. Sumi
Copyright © 2005 by University of Michigan . Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.