Introduction

Traditionally, historians regard the demise of the Roman Republic as the end of politics. If politics is regarded as decision making that affects society as a whole, something certainly changed with the advent of single rule. Yet the traditional political institutions of senate and city council continued to exist for a remarkably long period of sixth centuries afterwards. It is argued that their role became social rather than political and that they became self-referential, offering the elite a platform to define and negotiate its own position and enact and negotiate major tensions and ambiguities of elite life. The behaviour of their members is best analysed under the heading of political culture, here defined as ‘a style of doing politics’. Such an approach focuses on the social meaning of the form of the behaviour rather than on the content of the decisions. The approach is underpinned by the theory of bounded rationality, which assumes that participants are bound by language and conventions. It is argued that a case study approach, focusing on specific texts or clusters of texts, offers the best way to proceed. It presents seven cases that will be studied in successive chapters, each representing a major tension or ambiguity inherent in Roman political culture.

Conclusion

The conclusion brings the major characteristics of Roman political culture together and discusses the implications of the approach. It sketches some of the connections between the seven cases. It addresses the question of the extent to which Roman political culture changed over time. The boundaries of the subject in space and time are delineated in order to investigate to what extent it is justifiable to regard Roman political culture as a single, homogenous entity. It discusses the implications of the spread of Roman political culture over the rest of the institutional landscape. The emergence of an alternative, Christian discourse is sketched, focusing on the way it appropriated elements of traditional political culture. It addresses institutional longevity: how can we explain the continuation of political institutions that served no apparent political function?

Scripting Politics

This chapter analyses the seventh characteristic of Roman political culture. The way that political institutions were functioning was based on the claim that they were central to society. Reality was different, and this produced ambiguities in the way elites positioned themselves. These can be analysed on the basis of the Ravenna papyri, which contain a number of reports of meetings of the city council of Ravenna and some other Italian cities. They show how a number of developments coalesced. First, the city council still formed a place to foster elite identity, but it did so in a society in which the traditional markers of elite identity were no longer adhered to by all, in which the church took over some of the social and economic roles, and in which some persons outside the council quite likely enjoyed a significantly higher level of wealth and status than the councillors themselves. Second, it shows what functions the remaining councils could perform, both at a practical and a symbolic level. By authenticating documents in accordance with the requirements of late-antique law, they performed an important practical notarial function. At a symbolic level, the elaborate procedures meant that social relations were enacted during the transactions. The council could assume—if only briefly—the central position in society that it still claimed. Third, it also shows the scripted quality of the proceedings. As the functions of the council and its role in society were reduced, role playing took over. Politics became literally scripted.

Draining Resources

This chapter discusses the sixth characteristic of Roman political culture: ambiguity in the agency of benefactions. It is analysed on the basis of a small dossier concerning a drainage project carried out in the reign of the Ostrogothic king Theoderic. Members of the elite were supposed to engage voluntarily in benefactions that were directed at the wider community. In reality social expectations were very strong. The Roman period of single rule altered the dynamic of the benefactions. Although they remained an integral part of the internal competition within the elite, in larger projects the ruler became a primary point of reference. Given the tension between voluntary and forced behaviour, the ruler’s role was ambiguous: was he the actual initiator of benefactions that were in reality state ventures, or merely offering approbation to private initiative? The agency in benefactions had never been completely clear, but benefactions could now be used by both ruler and elite to construe a relation between the two parties. The drainage project discussed in this chapter occurred under Ostrogothic rule. It not only shows the durability of Roman modes of behaviour, but precisely because engaging in benefactions offered a type of discourse that had proven to be successful over several centuries, it lent itself to adaptation to changing situations. The language of benefaction offered common ground to ruler and senate, and at the same time allowed both parties to position themselves as the embodiment of Roman values in a radically changed society.

The Economy of Favours

This chapter discusses the fifth characteristic of Roman political culture; the fact that competition for honour between cities became locked in expectations about the mutual behaviour of its participants. It analyses this on the basis of the rescript of Constantine to the Umbrian city of Hispellum. In the Roman period under single rule competition between cities continued unabated, but the direction and nature of it changed. What might be regarded as a form of ‘horizontal’ competition or ‘peer polity interaction’ between communities that were in principle of equal status was now increasingly conducted along vertical lines: communities tried to enhance their status by obtaining privileges and honours from the ruler that affected their ranking in the urban network. In this way the ruler became not only the external arbiter in the competition for status, but at the same time actively shaped that competition. The symbolic exchange with the ruler was structured by petitions which were presented by embassies sent by communities. The relation between emperor and subject was construed in their interaction, and both the requests and their answers could therefore be bent and subtly manipulated to fit their writers’ wishes. However, as both parties became locked in expectations of each other’s behaviour, in the honorific exchanges exactly what was perceived as a gift obtained from the ruler and what was perceived as an honour given to the ruler became obfuscated. An economy of favours emerged in which benefactor and beneficiary played leapfrog.

Shouting down the Dead

This chapter analyses the fourth characteristic of Roman political culture, the ambiguities that could occur in those situations where members of political institutions tried to exercise real power and influence decisions. As their power was nominal rather than real, strategies arose that could be used to force decisions regardless. The tensions surrounding imperial successions are fully visible in a report preserved in the Historia Augusta of the senate meeting that was held directly after Commodus’ death in AD 192. In the face of the impossibility of conducting proper debates about the most important issues, political institutions would increasingly resort to a strategy that was commonly employed by large theatre audiences: that of shouting collectively. As shouts expressed the collective consensus, they supposedly showed true feeling. Acclamations were therefore difficult to ignore. In the crisis-like atmosphere that surrounded imperial successions, the use of acclamations helped the senate to reclaim lost territory, frame issues in a way that buttressed its own position, and thus regain the initiative. It cornered the ruler to whom the acclamations were directed: he was placed in a position in which he could hardly ignore what was asked of him. Despite appearances, however, the acclamations constituted a dialogue rather than presenting the ruler with a fait accompli. Given the actual power relations, the ruler still had room to make his own decisions, no matter how great was the pressure that would be exerted.

Debating Space

This chapter analyses the first tension around which Roman political culture revolved: the restricted space for debate. The issue is discussed on the basis of Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis. With the coming of the Principate the number of issues on which the senate could take decisions was reduced, as was its capacity to debate them seriously. At the same time, the emperor positioned himself as the upholder of the social order and as protector of the state’s institutions. As the senate’s functioning was predicated on the voluntary behaviour of its members, this left the senators some agency. The result was a particular social dynamic in which debates were conducted as if nothing had changed, but where both emperor and senators were locked in expectations about each other’s behaviour. In reflecting on the ambiguities, there were two major themes to consider. The first was that there were situations in which the senate had to debate matters that pertained directly to the position of the emperor. The other occurred when the senate debated its own membership. Both not only revolved around the senate’s capacity to debate these matters in a serious way, but both also raised the issue of the role of imperial intervention. How much space for debate was left? The Apocolocyntosis brilliantly explored both.

Making Fun of Elections

This chapter analyses the third characteristic of Roman political culture, the tension between solemnity and self-conscious reflexivity. It does so on the basis of two letters of Pliny the Younger about jokes that were made during senatorial elections. From his letters it emerges that campaigns for office continued to matter immensely for senators, despite the fact that the balance of power had shifted with the advent of single rule. During the elections the emperor was inserted at the top of the existing hierarchical elite network, rather than that his power was presented as external and inimical to that of the senate. It positioned the emperor in a role of guardian and protector of senatorial values, but at the same time left the senate’s functioning intact. The meaning of the elections should be primarily sought in their social function: they offered the elite a stage for the reaffirmation of their position, both individually vis-à-vis their peers, and collectively to the rest of the populace. Campaigns were a competition about reputation, but this competition would involve a wider group than the candidates alone: it was as much about the position of their high-ranking supporters. In the process, all participants lost much of what constituted their personal characteristics. Given the emphasis on reputation and stability, senators increasingly positioned themselves primarily as senators, rather than as individuals. The corollary was that self-reflective humour should find no place within the curia.

The Constraints of Patronage

This chapter analyses the second characteristic of Roman political culture: it was structured by a specific form of patronage that was both pervasive, encapsulating wide sections of the population in its network, but also weak, in the sense that ties could shift relatively easily. How it structured unstable hierarchical networks can be seen in the local elections that were held in Pompeii. The campaigns for these elections can be analysed thanks to the survival of the programmata, election notices that were painted on the walls of the houses of the city. At an abstract level, these local elections produced a totalizing discourse. They made the implicit claim that the political system mattered immensely and that there were no alternative routes to articulate social success. This claim pertained primarily to those people who aspired to be members of the elite: they were supposed to stand for office and have their elite status formally demarcated by membership of a political institution. But its reach also extended further: it tied the whole community to the political system, fostering a notion of universal participation. The question then becomes one of how such a system functioned. Along what lines was the population mobilized? How did elite competition work? It is argued that both groups were captured in expectations of each other’s behaviour that were structured by patronage relations, but again, some leeway was left to them. Participation was universal and competition was fierce, but both were at the same time subject to clear constraints.