Ars invectiva und artifizielle Mündlichkeit: Schmähungen in Rom zwischen Schulbuch und scheinbarer Spontaneität

This paper starts from the question of how the perception of an invective in Late Republican Rome is influenced, when it follows strictly the rules of the ars rhetorica. Since speaker and audience will have undergone the same rhetorical training, both sides have clear ideas about the rules of the genre, as they can be reconstructed from the surviving textbooks. At the same time, it can be shown on the basis of ancient evidence that insults were perceived not only more effective, but also as socially more acceptable if they arose unprepared from the situation – or if they gave exactly this impression. In the case of invective, thus, a speaker must make a special effort not to let his preparation become visible. For this purpose, he can, on the one hand, resort to the technique of artificial orality and apparent spontaneity and, in this way, take the usual dissimulatio artis to extremes. On the other hand, he can deliberately deviate from the rules of textbooks, resulting in a strong tendency of invective to a permanent innovation. This will be demonstrated by the example of some passages from Cicero's speech pro Caelio from 56 BC.

Constructing Rome: the Politics of Public Building in Republican Rome

<p>This thesis explores Rome’s built environment from its early republican foundation to the period of the late republic and demonstrates that monumental construction remained an embedded and integral element of Roman society throughout this period. Public buildings and civic space played a significant role in shaping the cultural and political identity of early republican Rome. As an outward manifestation of the unification and urbanization of the city-state, these monumental structures represented and advertised the civic superiority of the great city over the wider Mediterranean. For the city’s elite, this monumental domain provided the ideal venue to display their own civic superiority, advertising the dignitas, gloria, and honos of individual men through the medium of Rome’s built environment. The embedded nature of Roman religion and politics further augmented the importance of many of these public buildings. In particular, temple structures provided magistrates with the platform from which to express highly personal - yet legitimate - glorifying and propagandist messages through the use of inscriptions, architectural innovation, and divine representation. Increasing political competition in the late republic saw the significance of public construction, both temporary and permanent, increase dramatically as magistrates strove to outshine their peers through the provision of public works. By the close of the republic, the city’s built environment came to represent the individual power and superiority of a wealthy and select few, signalling a new direction for Rome the city-state. A closer look at the various building projects of individual men confirms the significance of monumentalization for Roman republican society. Caesar’s forum Iulium, for example, clearly illustrates the immense potential such spaces held for the self-aggrandizement and personal glorification of these elite individuals. Situated at the intersection between republican and imperial Rome, the Caesarian phase of the forum Iulium provides a valuable insight into this important period of Roman politics and cultural development. This thesis will also demonstrate that smaller individual building projects, such as temporary theatres and temple refurbishments, served to provide significant political utility for the less powerful, yet elite, men of Rome.</p>

Constructing Rome: the Politics of Public Building in Republican Rome

<p>This thesis explores Rome’s built environment from its early republican foundation to the period of the late republic and demonstrates that monumental construction remained an embedded and integral element of Roman society throughout this period. Public buildings and civic space played a significant role in shaping the cultural and political identity of early republican Rome. As an outward manifestation of the unification and urbanization of the city-state, these monumental structures represented and advertised the civic superiority of the great city over the wider Mediterranean. For the city’s elite, this monumental domain provided the ideal venue to display their own civic superiority, advertising the dignitas, gloria, and honos of individual men through the medium of Rome’s built environment. The embedded nature of Roman religion and politics further augmented the importance of many of these public buildings. In particular, temple structures provided magistrates with the platform from which to express highly personal - yet legitimate - glorifying and propagandist messages through the use of inscriptions, architectural innovation, and divine representation. Increasing political competition in the late republic saw the significance of public construction, both temporary and permanent, increase dramatically as magistrates strove to outshine their peers through the provision of public works. By the close of the republic, the city’s built environment came to represent the individual power and superiority of a wealthy and select few, signalling a new direction for Rome the city-state. A closer look at the various building projects of individual men confirms the significance of monumentalization for Roman republican society. Caesar’s forum Iulium, for example, clearly illustrates the immense potential such spaces held for the self-aggrandizement and personal glorification of these elite individuals. Situated at the intersection between republican and imperial Rome, the Caesarian phase of the forum Iulium provides a valuable insight into this important period of Roman politics and cultural development. This thesis will also demonstrate that smaller individual building projects, such as temporary theatres and temple refurbishments, served to provide significant political utility for the less powerful, yet elite, men of Rome.</p>

Political Conversations in Late Republican Rome

We are familiar with the notion that the Roman political world of the Late Republic included lofty speeches and sessions of the Senate, but also need to remember that another important aspect of Late Republican politics revolved around senators talking among themselves, chatting in the corner. The present book intends to analyse senatorial political conversations and illuminate the oral aspects of Roman politics. It argues that Roman senators and their entourages met in person to have conversations in which they discussed politics, circulated political information, and negotiated strategies; this extra-institutional sphere had a relevant impact both on politics and institutions, as well as determining how the Roman Republic functioned. The main point of this book is to offer a new perspective on Roman politics through the proxy of conversations and meetings. Orality has represented an important component in analysis of Roman institutions: oratory before the people in assemblies and contiones, addresses and discussions in the Senate, speeches in the law courts. Orality was also crucial in rumours and public opinion. The present research posits that, in Rome, oral was the default mode of communication in politics, especially outside institutions. Only when they could not reach each other in person did Roman senators and their peers resort to letters. The book suggests that the study of politics should not be restricted to the senatorial group, but that other persons should be considered as important actors with their own agency (albeit in different degrees), such as freedmen and elite women.

Sources for political conversations in Late Republican Rome

Chapter 2 considers Cicero’s letters, which are the main source of this book. These letters are exceptional since they were largely written shortly after conversations took place and, although they underwent several processes of selection throughout their transmission, they were not rewritten and are deprived of hindsight bias. Thus, they provide us with an insider’s perspective on conversations and politics, transmitting the political uncertainty of the period. This contrasts with how later historians, from Nicolaus of Damascus onwards, depicted political conversations during the Roman Republic, paying attention to other elements and markers, such as non-verbal gestures, instead of focusing (as Cicero did) on the impressions from conversations, feelings, and speculations about the future.

Dowód z zeznań niewolników w procesach o crimen maiestatis

<p>According to the rule being in force in Republican Rome, the slave testimony could not be used to the detriment of their owners, in particular in cases punishable by death (<em>in caput domini</em>), and the slaves could not bring charges against the owners. The few crimes in which exceptions were permitted was the crime of majesty. This article presents the most important views of Roman authors on the credibility of testimony given under torture and also explains the reasons for using torture in interrogating slaves. During the Principate period, the ban on interrogating slaves against their owners in <em>maiestas</em> cases was circumvented and then was abolished by imperial constitutions. During the Dominate period, the crime of lese-majesty was the only one in which a slave was allowed to accuse his master.</p>