Omnium Annalium Monumenta:
Historical Writing and Historical
Evidence in Republican Rome
Edited by
Kaj Sandberg
Christopher Smith
LEIDEN | BOSTON
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
Contents
Preface ix
List of Figures x
Abbreviations xii
Notes on Contributors
xiv
Introduction 1
Christopher Smith
PART 1
The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition
1 Fabius Pictor, Ennius and the Origins of Roman Annalistic
Historiography 17
John Rich
2 L’“archéologie” de Rome dans les Annales d’Ennius: poetica fabula ou
annalium monumentum? 66
Martine Chassignet
3 The Discovery of Numa’s Writings: Roman Sacral Law and the Early
Historians 90
Hans Beck
PART 2
Antiquarians and Historians
4 On the Edges of History 115
Christopher Smith
5 Diligentissumus investigator antiquitatis? ‘Antiquarianism’ and
Historical Evidence between Republican Rome and the Early Modern
Republic of Letters 137
Duncan MacRae
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
vi
contents
6
Inspired Leaders versus Emerging Nations: Varro’s and Cicero’s Views
on Early Rome 157
Vera Binder
7
Which One is the Historian? A Neglected Problem in the Study of
Roman Historiography 182
Tim Cornell
PART 3
History and Oratory
8
How Much History did the Romans Know? Historical References in
Cicero’s Speeches to the People 205
Francisco Pina Polo
9
Ciceronian Constructions of the Oratorical Past
Henriette van der Blom
10
Cicero, Documents and the Implications for History
Andrew Riggsby
234
257
PART 4
The Literary Construction of History
11
Livy’s Battle in the Forum between Roman Monuments and Greek
Literature 279
Dennis Pausch
12
Echi dalle tragedie tebane nelle storie di Roma arcaica 301
Marianna Scapini
13
Figures of Memory. Aulus Vibenna, Valerius Publicola and Mezentius
between History and Legend 322
Massimiliano Di Fazio
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
Contents
vii
PART 5
History and Monuments
14
Monumenta, Documenta, Memoria: Remembering and Imagining the
Past in Late Republican Rome 351
Kaj Sandberg
15
Visibility Matters. Notes on Archaic Monuments and Collective
Memory in Mid-Republican Rome 390
Gabriele Cifani
16
Aedificare, res damnosissima. Building and Historiography in Livy,
Books 5–6 404
Seth Bernard
17
Memoria by Multiplication: The Cornelii Scipiones in Monumental
Memory 422
Karl-J. Hölkeskamp
18
Constructing, Deconstructing and Reconstructing Civic Memory in
Late Republican Rome 477
Penelope J. E. Davies
Index Locorum 513
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
CHAPTER 8
How Much History did the Romans Know?
Historical References in Cicero’s Speeches to the
People
Francisco Pina Polo
Roman orators habitually used historical examples in their speeches.1 As a
matter of fact, all known rhetorical treatises recommended them to be used in
certain situations as a part of the argument.2 Cicero pointed out that the orator should be aware of the past (antiquitatis memoria) and should have precise
knowledge of the history, as well as of the exempla of Rome’s ancestors (monumenta rerum gestarum et vetustatis exempla).3 Valerius Maximus collected a
huge number of historical exempla in his Facta et dicta memorabilia, which
was published during the reign of Tiberius. His purpose was to provide the orators with a handbook in which they could easily find both Roman and foreign
examples that could be applied to diverse rhetorical contexts.4 Quintilian devoted a chapter of his Institutiones oratoriae to the topic. He defended the use
of exempla as a criterion of authority (rerum gestarum auctoritas).5 The mention of a historical fact should serve to persuade the audience of the veracity
of the point that the orator was trying to make.6 Quintilian added that it was
necessary to decide whether the historical facts to be compared were identical,
or only similar. In the latter case, only what was of interest for the argumentation should be used. The facts were to be narrated to a greater or lesser extent
according to the knowledge of the audience, but also according to their utility.7
To illustrate his point of view, Quintilian mentioned some examples of the
use of historical events taken from speeches delivered in the courts by Cicero,
1 On the concept of exempla, see Walter (2004), 51–62. See also on collective memory
Hölkeskamp (1996). For further illustration of Cicero’s use of the past in his speeches see van
der Blom (this volume).
2 See, for instance, Rhet. Her. 3.9: it is especially useful in judicial causes to employ the greatest
possible number of examples from the past (exempla rerum gestarum).
3 Cic. de orat. 1.201.
4 Bloomer (1992), 14–17; Skidmore (1996).
5 Quint. inst. 5.11.1. Cf. Cic. inv. 1.49; orat. 169.
6 Quint. inst. 5.11.6.
7 Quint. inst. 5.11.16.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/978900435555�_0�0
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
206
Pina Polo
because, as he said, “where could we find better?”8 Unfortunately, we are ignorant of how frequently Roman orators used historical exempla, since most of
their addresses are lost. We certainly find in the ancient sources, for instance in
Livy and Sallust, speeches supposedly delivered by politicians throughout the
history of republican Rome, but these are rhetorical reconstructions that have
little to do with reality. However, Ciceronian orations were actually delivered
and were filled with historical examples, in his speeches in the senate, as well
as those given before the people and in the courts. The preservation of a good
number of them in these three venues offers us the possibility of identifying
which historical examples Cicero chose, and in what circumstances he made
use of them. Obviously, we only have the written versions of these speeches.
In the process between the delivery of the speech and its writing, a partial revision of the text may have taken place. We must bear that in mind, though
it is reasonable to assume that the content was not subjected to substantial
changes.9
It is considerably beyond the goal of this paper to carry out an analysis of all
Ciceronian orations. The subject is well-known and has already been studied
by other scholars. I want to focus on the preserved speeches that Cicero delivered before the people in a contio. Ultimately the question that I would like
to address, on the basis of the historical information that Cicero used in his
speeches, is that of how much history the Romans actually knew. I also want to
examine whether addresses before the people can be used as an indication of
the historical knowledge of Roman citizens and/or whether these constituted
a means of learning history.
The nine preserved orations delivered by Cicero to the people are in chronological order: Pro lege Manilia; De lege agraria 2 and 3; Pro Rabirio perduellionis;
In Catilinam 2 and 3; Post reditum ad Quirites; and Philippics 4 and 6. The historical facts mentioned in them are as follows:10
Pro lege Manilia:
– some episodes of the war against Mithridates: Sulla, Murena (4–9);
Ariobarzanes (12); Lucullus, Mithridates and Tigranes, Glabrio (20–26)
– Pompey in Hispania against Sertorius (10)
– destruction of Corinth (11)
8
9
10
Quint. inst. 5.11.11–18.
See van der Blom (2010), 9. Cf. Powell – Paterson (2004), 52–57.
Bücher (2006) has collected all the Roman examples in Cicero’s speeches in his
Appendix 3.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
How Much History Did The Romans Know ?
207
– wars against Antiochus, Philip, Aetolia, Carthage (14)
– victories of Pompey in the Civil War, in Africa, Hispania, against the pirates
and against the slaves (28) (cf. 61)
– victory of Pompey against the pirates (33–35)
– famous Roman imperatores: Fabius Maximus Cunctator, Marcellus, Scipio
Africanus, Marius (47)
– ancient sea empires: Athens, Carthage, Rhodes (54)
– war against Perseus (55)
– the biggest wars in Roman history: the Punic Wars and the wars in Hispania;
destruction of Carthage and Numantia (60)
– Marius fought against Jugurtha as well as against the Cimbri and Teutons
(60)
De lege agraria 2:
– praises of the Gracchi brothers, described as clarissimi viri (10) (cf. 81)
– the lex Domitia of 104 about the election of priests by the comitia tributa is
mentioned. The tribune of the plebs Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus is called vir
clarissimus (18–19)
– mention of the leges Aebutia and Licinia (21)
– reference to the absent Pompey and his recent victories (23)
– procedure for the election of triumviri by the people in the lex Sempronia.
Tiberius Gracchus is praised again (31)
– according to the Rullan bill, the decemviri could sell everything included in
the senatus consulta issued during the consulship of M. Tullius and Cn.
Cornelius in 81 and afterwards (35)
– the decemviri are authorized to sell the public land acquired during the consulship of Sulla and Q. Pompeius in 88 and afterwards (38) (cf. 56)
– ‘which of you does not know the tradition’ according to which Egypt passed
into the hands of the Roman people by the will of king Ptolemy Alexander
(year 81)? (41)
– areas of Cilicia conquered by P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus in the 70s might be
sold (50), as well as Corinth; zones of Hispania; the territory of Attalos in
Chersonesos; of Philip and Perseus in Macedonia; of Ptolemy Apion in
Cyrene; and Carthage, whose land was consecrated by Scipio Aemilianus to
the gods (51)
– Sulla sold property confiscated during the proscriptions in an auction (56)
(cf. 68 and 81)
– Scipio Aemilianus assigned to the Roman people some lands on the coast of
Numidia. Consul C. Aurelius Cotta signed a treaty with king Hiempsal in 75
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
208
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Pina Polo
stating his property over the lands. The treaty was not ratified by the
people (58)
mention of Juba, son of Hiempsal (59)
some conspicuous Romans are cited as example of wisdom, austerity and
bravery: C. Fabricius Luscinus (cos. 282 and 278); A. Atilius Calatinus
(cos. 258 and 254; dict. 249); M. Porcius Cato (cos. 195); L. Manlius Acidinus
(cos. 179); C. Laelius (cos. 140); and L. Furius Philus (cos. 136)
mention of the Social War (80)
praetor P. Cornelius Lentulus was commissioned by the senate in 165 to purchase private land in Campania located within public ground (82)
wars prevented taxes from provincial territories from being deposited in the
Roman treasury: the Mithridatic Wars in Asia; the Sertorian War in Hispania;
and the Servile War in Sicily (M. Aquilius even had to provide corn to some
Sicilian cities) (83)
Carthage and Corinth were destroyed by Rome (87)
senatorial issues on Capua during the Hannibalic War (88–89) (cf. 92–93)
Capua was conquered during the consulship of Q. Fulvius and Q. Fabius (90)
Rome fought in many exterior wars after the Hannibalic War: against kings
Philip, Antiochus, Perseus, Pseudo-Philip, Aristonicus and Mithridates; the
third war against Carthage; the wars against Corinth and Numantia. There
were internal revolts as well as wars against allies such as Fregellae and the
Marsians (90)
the tribune of the plebs M. Iunius Brutus carried a bill to found a colony in
Capua in the year 83 (92) (cf. 98)
De lege agraria 3:
– Sulla distributed land (3)
– the lex Valeria, enacted by the interrex L. Valerius Flaccus in 82, legalised
what Sulla had done (5)
– mention of Sullan dictatorship (6)
– the orator quotes an article of the Rullan bill referring to land and buildings
publicly assigned after the consulship of C. Marius and Cn. Papirius Carbo
in 82. Cicero clarifies that only Sulla passed relevant legislation after that
consulship (7) (cf. 11)
Pro Rabirio perduellionis:
– Cicero summarises the lex Porcia, which eliminated corporal punishment
for citizens, and the Gracchan lex de capite civium Romanorum, which forbade the death penalty without trial (12)
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
How Much History Did The Romans Know ?
209
– T. Labienus is putting liberty in danger. He is compared to Romulus, Numa
Pompilius and Tarquinius, the most arrogant and cruel of the Roman
kings (13)
– Gracchus is favourably compared to Labienus (14–15)
– Cicero describes L. Saturninus as hostis (18)
– the orator makes a detailed account of the facts since the senatus consultum
ultimum was issued in 100 (20–21)
– C. Appuleius Decianus (tr. pl. 98) brought prosecution against P. Furius
(tr. pl. 99). During the trial Decianus regretted the death of Saturninus. This
is the reason why he was prosecuted and condemned after his year of office.
Sex. Titius (tr. pl. 99) was condemned for having a portrait of Saturninus in
his house (24)
– illustrious men who supported the senatus consultum ultimum are enumerated: Q. Catulus, M. Scaurus, both Mucii Scaevolae, L. Crassus and
M. Antonius (26)
– should both consuls of year 100, C. Marius and L. Valerius Flaccus, be convicted as responsible for the implementation of the senatus consultum ultimum? (20–21)
– Scaeva, a slave of Q. Croton, killed Saturninus. He was given his freedom.
How could Rabirius, an eques, possibly be convicted? (31)
In Catilinam 2:
– Sulla founded colonies, where some of the followers of Catilina come
from (20)
– Cicero alludes indirectly to the recent Pompeian victories over all enemies
of Rome (29)
In Catilinam 3:
– praetor P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura had told the Allobroges that he was the
third Cornelius after Cinna and Sulla destined to rule in Rome, according to
a prophecy included in the Sibylline Books (9)
– C. Marius ordered the murder of the praetor Glaucia (15)
– some portents occurred in Rome during the consulship of L. Aurelius Cotta
and Lucius Manlius Torquatus in 65 (19)
– the Catilinarian conspiracy is much more dangerous than the civil wars in
the 80s: Sulla killed Sulpicius and banished Marius; consul Octavius expelled
his colleague from the city; Cinna’s rule meant the death of many citizens;
Sulla brought revenge; the rebellion of Lepidus led to the confrontation
with Catulus and to his death (24–25)
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
210
Pina Polo
Post reditum ad Quirites:
– three illustrious consulars had gone into exile before Cicero: P. Popillius
Laenas; Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus; and C. Marius (6–7, 9–11)
– the orator provides details of Marius’ exile (19–20)
Philippic 4:
– the Roman ancestors conquered the whole of Italy, destroyed Carthage and
razed Numantia (13)
– M. Antonius is compared to Spartacus and Catilina (15)
Philippic 6:
– there is no point in sending legates to Antonius. He will not accept the senatorial conditions just as Hannibal did not consent to lift the siege of
Saguntum (4–6)11
– there is a statue of L. Antonius in the Forum in front of the Temple of Castor.
There is another of Q. Marcius Tremulus, triumphator over the Hernici in
306 (13)
As expected, the historical examples used by Cicero were chosen according to
the subject matter of each speech. Thus, in Pro lege Manilia the orator focused
on the Mithridatic Wars and on the previous military victories achieved by
Pompey. The exempla referred to important wars in the history of Rome and to
glorious imperatores, in order to reinforce the thesis that Pompey was the most
appropriate general to face Mithridates. In the speech delivered to the people
after his own return, Cicero mentioned three examples of consulars who were
banished, with the purpose of emphasising the differences between their experiences and that of his own exile, particularly the huge support he received
concerning his return to Rome. Marcus Antonius was the target against whom
the Philippics were directed. To that end, Cicero gave an account of current
events always trying to portray Antonius as a public enemy. The historical examples selected by the orator were aimed in the same direction: Antonius was
compared to Hannibal, one of the most impressive and dangerous external
opponents in Roman history; to Catilina, the most recent internal danger; and
11
In the fifth Philippic Cicero made the same comparison, but whereas the mention was
very brief before the people, in the senate he gave the names of the legates and added that
they were ordered to go to Carthage if Hannibal did not obey (Cic. Phil. 5.27).
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
How Much History Did The Romans Know ?
211
to Spartacus, the slave who put Rome in check, thus denigrating Antonius by
linking him indirectly to slavery.
We may assume that Cicero also chose his historical examples according
to the audience. In the courts he spoke directly to the group of highly literate
senators and knights who composed the jury, though a circle of spectators,
the so-called corona, could also attend the session and listen to the addresses.12
The audience was more exclusive in the senate, whose members had traditionally belonged to the most prominent families of Rome. The composition of the
senate had changed after the dictatorship of Sulla, when the number of senators had been doubled. A good number of outsiders without prestigious ancestors had then entered the senate, though the majority of its members were still
those with greater access to education and culture in Rome. What about contiones? Who attended popular assemblies? In recent years there has been some
scholarly debate on this subject. To summarise the discussion, while Jehne has
argued that the plebs formed most of the audience, Mouritsen believes that
they were, rather, members of the elite with time to spare.13 Could the selection of historical examples by Cicero help to clarify this point?
The way in which Cicero referred to certain particularly popular historical figures in his speeches to the people is striking. The Gracchi brothers are
a good example.14 It is well known that Cicero held negative opinions about
them, as demonstrated in some passages of his works and even in his speeches
in the senate.15 His attitude was quite different when he spoke in a contio.16 In
his second oration on the agrarian bill of Rullus, Cicero praised both brothers
on several occasions.17 He described them as “most distinguished, most brilliant” citizens, adding that he was not one of those consuls who considered
it a crime to praise the Gracchi.18 Thanks to their wisdom, they had brought
positive reforms to the res publica through their laws. Later in the same
speech, Cicero stated how far Rullus stood from the equity and modesty that
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Rosillo-López (2017b).
Mouritsen (2001), 39–45; Jehne (2006). Morstein-Marx (2004, 41–42) argues that the plebs
was “the greatest constituent of any contional audience”.
On this topic: Béranger (1972); Gaillard (1975); van der Blom (2010), 103–107.
See for instance Cic. Catil. 1.3–4, 4.4, har. resp. 41, 43, prov. 18, Phil. 8.13, off. 2.43, de orat.
2.106, 2.132, 2.169; etc. Nonetheless, Cicero saw both brothers as talented orators: Cic.
de orat. 1.38, Brut. 103–104, 125–126.
van der Blom (2010), 104.
On the speech, see Walter (2013).
Cic. leg. agr. 2.10: Venit enim mihi in mentem duos clarissimos, ingeniosissimos, amantissimos plebei Romanae viros, Ti. et C. Gracchos … .
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
212
Pina Polo
characterised Tiberius Gracchus.19 The orator referred once more to both
Gracchi, whose thoughts were always with the welfare of the plebs.20 In his
first shorter speech on the rogatio held in the senate on the first of January 63,
Cicero mentioned only briefly the generosity (largitiones) of the Gracchi in
connection with the tyranny (dominatio) of Sulla.21 It was obviously a veiled
criticism. Nothing more about them can be found. Certainly, Cicero also connected the Gracchi to Sulla in his speech to the people, but whereas he spoke
openly again of Sullan dominatio, he used the much more positive word benignitas when speaking of the Gracchi.22 It is reasonable to suppose that Cicero
did this in order to gain the attention of the audience as well as to receive
favourable feedback.23 If that was the case, it is very unlikely that his listeners were composed mostly of members of the elite, who would not have been
happy to hear the Gracchi being praised by one of the most prominent senators of the time, even if his words could be understood as rhetorical licence.
The oration Pro Rabirio perduellionis was delivered by Cicero in the context
of the trial against C. Rabirius, who was accused of the murder of the tribune of
the plebs Saturninus in the year 100. The trial resurrected the past procedure
of a defendant being judged by the people. Before the verdict was voted upon
in the comitia centuriata, a series of contiones had to take place, in which different orators spoke in behalf or against the defendant. Cicero was one of the
orators in one of these assemblies, and the Pro Rabirio perduellionis is the written version of his speech.
The affair itself, as well as the unusual legal process, would have aroused
excitement among the population of Rome. As a result, the assembly in which
Cicero delivered his speech was probably better attended than usual, perhaps
19
20
21
22
23
Cic. leg. agr. 2.31.
Cic. leg. agr. 2.81.
Cic. leg. agr. 1.21. In some cases it is possible to compare how Cicero made the selection
of historical examples for two speeches on the same subject delivered successively in the
senate and to the people. That happened with De lege agraria 1 and 2, the Catilinarian
speeches, Post reditum ad senatum and ad Quirites, and some of the Philippics.
Nonetheless, it is not my aim to analyse these speeches comparatively. This has been done
by Mack (1937), Thompson (1978) and Bücher (2006), esp. 228–257. Their conclusions are
unsurprisingly the same: Cicero adapted rhetorical strategies and historical examples to
his audience.
Cic. leg. agr. 2.81.
In this context, the reference to the tribune of the plebs Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, who
promoted in 104 a law to make the appointment of new priests subject to popular vote,
should be added. Cicero described the tribune as a vir clarissimus and homo nobilissimus
(Cic. leg. agr. 2.18–19).
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
How Much History Did The Romans Know ?
213
with citizens belonging to all social classes. All in all, two passages indicate
that at least a good portion of the audience was formed by individuals from the
plebs. As he had in his oration on the agrarian bill of Rullus some months earlier,
Cicero praised Gaius Gracchus, comparing him with Labienus, the prosecutor
in the trial against Rabirius. He described Gracchus as full of courage (animus), wisdom (consilium), power (opes), authority (auctoritas) and eloquence
(eloquentia).24 Cicero made no reference to any reaction from the audience to
his words. However, shortly afterwards when Cicero defined Saturninus as an
enemy of the Roman people (hostis populi Romani) his statement was received
with hostility.25 At least some of the listeners answered Cicero’s accusation
with shouts and boos. The orator reacted immediately, discrediting those who
were protesting: they were only a minority of the audience and, anyway, they
were no more than ignorant citizens. There is no means of knowing how widespread the protest of the audience was, but we can conjecture that Cicero’s
words were simply a rhetorical tactic to diminish the complaints. In any case,
the episode attests to the substantial presence of the plebs in the contio, since
it is improbable that the Roman elite would have supported Saturninus in a
popular assembly.
The nature and number of the public who attended contiones probably differed depending on the orators announced, the topics likely to be discussed,
and the general political atmosphere in Rome. Consequently, the most likely
answer to the question of who attended popular assemblies is that there was
not a permanent and homogeneous audience. Anyway, I am inclined to think
that, in general, members of the plebs formed the majority of the audience,
and that only a small element of the elite attended assemblies. The hypocritical attitude of Cicero when speaking of the Gracchi, as well as the immediate
reaction of the audience on behalf of Saturninus, seem to prove this, taking
into account that both Saturninus and the Gracchi were loved by the plebs and
their memory was apparently still alive.
If we accept that the plebs attended contiones, the next question is whether,
and to what extent, they were capable of understanding the historical information that orators frequently included in their addresses to the people. But
perhaps we should broaden the focus and ask whether all orators had accurate
knowledge of the history of Rome, as well as whether the facts they mentioned
were correct or could be biased by their rhetorical strategy.
24
25
Cic. Rab. perd. 14.
Cic. Rab. perd. 18.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
214
Pina Polo
All persons who spoke in a contio during the first century BCE were, or had
been, magistrates, and were therefore senators.26 This presupposes that all of
them belonged to the cultivated elite. Their education must surely have included history, linked to the study of rhetoric. Ultimately, the writing of history
had been, in Rome, a task performed above all by senators. Since Fabius Pictor
wrote the first history of Rome, in Greek, other senators had followed the same
path either in Greek or in Latin. It was actually a logical consequence of the
fact that the decision about what was worthy of being remembered had been
in the hands of the pontiffs for centuries. The result was the so-called Annales
maximi, the basis of the various histories of Rome written in the second and
first centuries BCE.27
Thus, it is plausible that all orators had at least a basic knowledge of the history of Rome and of its relations with other states. The depth of this knowledge
depended upon their personal curiosity and interest in learning. The fact that
Valerius Maximus wrote a work containing a collection of historical examples
shows that these were used by orators in their speeches, but not necessarily
that the orators were experts in history. On the contrary, Valerius Maximus’
work suggests that most Roman orators needed the help of such a compendium of historical information to fill the gaps in their knowledge.
Cicero was aware of the importance of history as an essential instrument
for a good orator.28 Even more so, he stated that writing history should be primarily the responsibility of an orator.29 To write about the history of Rome
was undoubtedly a temptation for the multifaceted Cicero. Nevertheless, he
never went so far as to do it systematically. The exception is the second book
of De republica. His essay on early Roman history could serve as an example of
practical application of the type of historical narrative that he recommended
in De oratore. In fact, Cicero was interested in studies closer to antiquarism,
in line with other contemporaries, in particular Varro.30 He was especially attracted by the great Roman characters that had forged a civilisation that later
became an empire, as well as by the civil and religious institutions that had
made it possible. Cicero advocated a moralistic and educational history, a history which had to be “light for truth” (lux veritatis) and “master of life” (magis26
27
28
29
30
Pina Polo (1996).
On the relationship between mos maiorum and the control of history by the elite, see Pina
Polo (2004). On the Annales maximi, see Rich (this volume).
Cic. de orat. 1.18, 1.159, 1.201, orat. 120. On Cicero’s interest in history, see Rambaud (1953),
Rawson (1972); Fleck (1993).
Cic. de orat. 2.62–63.
For a more detailed examination, see Binder (this volume).
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
How Much History Did The Romans Know ?
215
tra vitae) for the citizens.31 History was of great relevance as one of the factors
that shaped personal and collective identity. As Cicero stated: “What is the life
of a man if he does not join his life to his ancestors through the memory of
the ancient facts? The memory of the past and the use of historical examples
provide great delight, authority and credit to a speech.”32
We have no information with which to evaluate the level of historical knowledge of most Roman orators. Yet in the case of Cicero there can be little doubt
that he knew Roman history well, and had read the books written by earlier
and contemporary historians such as Cato, Atticus and others.33 Sometimes he
even tried to do his own research on certain matters of interest, and it is not
completely unusual to find scholarly discussions in some of his letters.34 Does
this mean that he was always accurate when he used historical references in
his speeches? It was not always the case. He failed sometimes due to lack of
suitable information, or manipulated the facts in order to achieve his purpose.
Let us take two instances from Ciceronian speeches.
In the second address on the agrarian bill, delivered to the people, Cicero asserted that Capua had been defeated and conquered when Q. Fulvius Flaccus
and Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus were consuls. However, this is incorrect according to Livy. Capua was actually conquered two years earlier, during the
consulate of Cn. Fulvius and P. Sulpicius in 211.35 In fact, the aforementioned
Fulvius Flaccus achieved the capitulation of Capua as a proconsul. Cicero
probably knew the relationship between Fulvius Flaccus and the victory over
the Campanian city, but he was mistaken about whether this happened when
Fulvius Flaccus was consul or proconsul. The unintentional error was most
likely actually committed in the speech before the people, but it was not corrected in the written version published later. Did anyone in the audience notice the confusion?36
31
32
33
34
35
36
Cic. de orat. 2.36.
Cic. orat. 120.
Cic. orat. 120. Cicero (rep. 2.1) praises the book written by Atticus, in which the author
had summarised the whole history of Rome in chronological order. On Cato as the main
source for Cicero’s historical essay, see Cornell (2001). For Cicero’s citations of fragmentary historians, see FRHist I, 53–60.
Cic. Att. 4.14.1, 6.1.8, 6.1.18, 12.5.3, 13.4.1; etc. Cicero criticised Metellus Scipio for erecting an
equestrian statue in honour of his great-grandfather assuming wrongly that he had been
a censor. He considered it an inexcusable error (Cic. Att. 6.1.17).
Broughton, MRR I, 274.
Another inaccuracy is found in the Pro Murena, delivered before the jurors. There, Cicero
asserted that Cato fought together with Scipio Asiaticus in the war against Antiochus
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
216
Pina Polo
The mistake in the first of the Verrines seems of a different nature. The address was delivered before the jurors, all of them senators, who had to judge
Verres de repetundis. At the time there was a discussion about the composition of the courts, which had been composed exclusively of senators since the
dictatorship of Sulla. The equites claimed for their reinstatement, something
that happened scarcely weeks later. In his argumentation Cicero stated that
only one senator, and one of the poorest, had been condemned de repetundis
after the tribunician law was passed.37 He meant that during the 70s the juries
of senators only had dared to convict one senator, implying a veiled accusation
of corruption, or at least absence of severity in the courts. The message for the
jurors who were listening to Cicero was obvious: the only way of recovering
lost prestige was to condemn Verres, even though he was a very rich senator
and was being defended by Hortensius, who was at the time a consul-elect.
But the initial assertion by Cicero was false. At least four senators had been
convicted de repetundis in the 70s: Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (praetor in 81) was
condemned in 78; Q. Calidius (praetor in 79) in 77; P. Septimius Scaevola in 72;
and P. Gabinius between 76 and 70.38 In the case of Dolabella the fine amounted to three millions sesterces. Was it an error or a manipulation? The trial
against Verres was being held in the summer of 70. Therefore, Cicero failed to
mention facts that had occurred just a few years earlier. It is difficult to assume
that he did not have that information, or that the jurors listening his speech
did not know what had happened in the courts in recent years. Yet Cicero did
not hesitate to use that argument even though he was aware of its falsehood,
and his statement was also included in the written version of the oration.39
37
38
39
(Cic. Mur. 32). That is not correct. Cato was actually under the orders of Acilius Glabrio;
cf. Rawson (1972), 33 n. 5.
Cic. Verr. 1.46: Vident adhuc, post legem tribuniciam, unum senatorem hominem vel tenuissimum esse damnatum: quod tametsi non reprehendunt, tamen magno opere quod laudent
non habent.
Alexander (1990), nos. 135, 139, 172, 174. Other senators were also convicted in the 70s:
Q. Opimius (tr.pl. 75) in 74 according the lex Cornelia de tribunis plebis; between 74 and 70
C. Aelius Paetus Staienus (quaestor 77) and M. Atilius Bulbus according to the lex Cornelia
de maiestate; Ti. Gutta according to the lex Cornelia de ambitu; C. Herennius according to
the lex Cornelia de peculatu (cf. Alexander [1990], nos. 157, 159, 160, 161, 162).
A further example of manipulation of historical information can be added. In Pro Rabirio
perduellionis before the people, Cicero described Tarquinius as the cruellest of the kings
(Cic. Rab. perd. 13). However, in the third Philippica in the senate Tarquinius became for
Cicero a tolerable human being in comparison with Antonius, who was a real tyrant
(Cic. Phil. 3.8–11). So, Cicero adapted historical reality to his rhetorical goals; cf. Rambaud
(1953), 47.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
How Much History Did The Romans Know ?
217
This invites a reflection. If an orator could distort recent facts that must have
been known to his audience, he could do so more easily with events that had
occurred some centuries ago and that were difficult to verify, unless the historical expertise of the audience was excellent. The manipulation certainly ought
to have been easier before the people. In a contio the authority of the orator
was especially decisive. It was the confidence with which he provided information, which was not going to be verified by his listeners, that was important.40
It is perhaps more surprising that Cicero, as concerned about posterity as he
was, kept the obviously incorrect information in the written version. The explanation is probably that it was a rhetorical device similar to others that were
frequently used by orators, and that therefore it was not necessary to hide it.
Indirectly this supports the idea that there were no substantial differences in
content between the oral and the written versions of a speech.
All historical examples in Cicero’s speeches to the people were drawn from
Roman history. Many of them alluded to Roman wars and heroes. The wars in
Hispania and against the Carthaginians were described as the major wars in
the history of Rome.41 Cicero particularly emphasized the capture of Carthage
and of the Celtiberian city of Numantia.42 Also the destruction of Corinth was
one of the recurring topics.43 According to Cicero, the victories over Carthage
in Africa, Corinth in Greece and Numantia in Hispania seemed to be the key
moments in the Roman expansion during the second century BCE. Or were
they perhaps the best-known events in collective memory? However they are
not the only episodes mentioned by the orator. In Pro lege Manilia, he referred
to the wars against Antiochus, Philip, Aetolia, Carthage and Perseus.44 In his
second speech on the agrarian bill, Cicero made a list of external wars fought
by the Romans after the Hannibalic War, including once again the wars against
kings Philip, Antiochus, Perseus, Pseudo-Philip, Aristonicus and Mithridates,
in addition to those against Carthage, Corinth and Numantia.45 In the same
speech Cicero also cited the bellum sociale,46 the war against Sertorius in
Hispania and the Slave War in Sicily.47
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
van der Blom (2010), 126.
Cic. Manil. 60.
Cic. leg. agr. 2.87; Phil. 4.13.
Cic. Manil. 11.
Cic. Manil. 14, 55.
Cic. leg. agr. 2.90, 2.51.
Cic. leg. agr. 2.80.
Cic. leg. agr. 2.83.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
218
Pina Polo
In the recent history of Rome, Pompey was no doubt the greatest victorious
general. The description of his triumphs obviously played an important role in
Pro lege Manilia, a speech whose main topic was warfare. Yet Cicero also alluded to them in the second address De lege agraria and in the second Catilinarian
oration.48 But Roman history was full of great imperatores. Some of them were
mentioned in the speech on behalf of the Manilian bill, as a means of linking
the glorious past to the present, of showing Pompey as a descendant of those
who turned Rome into an empire. The orator cited three notable generals
who fought in the Hannibalic War (Fabius Maximus Cunctator, Marcellus and
Scipio Africanus) together with C. Marius,49 who was mentioned later again
as the victor against Jugurtha, the Cimbri and the Teutons.50 In the second
speech against the Rullan bill, P. Servilius Isauricus was mentioned briefly as
the general who conquered some areas of Cilicia in the 70s.51 And in the sixth
Philippic Cicero spoke of the equestrian statue of Q. Marcius Tremulus, placed
before the Temple of Castor in the Forum.52 The orator made it clear to his audience that he was talking of the victor over the Hernici in the fourth century.
Ultimately, Cicero used the example of Tremulus to denigrate L. Antonius, one
of whose statues was also placed before the Temple of Castor. Tremulus deserved that honour, but in no way did Antonius do so.
Again in the second address to the people on the agrarian rogatio, Cicero
referred to several famous Romans from the third and second centuries.53 The
most ancient of these were C. Fabricius Luscinus and A. Atilius Calatinus, who
played prominent roles, the former in the war against Pyrrhus and the latter
in Sicily during the First Punic War. The others were Cato, the eminent censor
and triumphator in Hispania in 195; L. Manlius Acidinus, held up as a model
of good citizen;54 C. Laelius, consul in 140 and nicknamed Sapiens because of
his prudence; and L. Furius Philus, consul in 136. In this case Cicero chose as
exemplary ancestors politicians who were acknowledged for their austerity,
courage and wisdom, not only victorious generals. His purpose was obviously
to contrast their virtues with the iniquity of the tribune Rullus.
The historical references contained in the speeches after his return from
exile were adapted to the subject and were therefore quite different. Repeating
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Cic. leg. agr. 2.23, Catil. 2.29.
Cic. Manil. 47.
Cic. Manil. 60.
Cic. leg. agr. 2.50.
Cic. Phil. 6.13; cf. Plin. nat. 34.23. See Kardos (1997), 225–226.
Cic. leg. agr. 2.64.
Cic. de orat. 2.260.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
How Much History Did The Romans Know ?
219
his arguments with almost the same words in both addresses, in the senate
and to the people, Cicero alluded to three consulars that were forced to go
into exile in the past.55 P. Popillius Laenas, consul in 132, was banished during
the tribunate of C. Gracchus as a result of his repression of the followers of
Tiberius a decade earlier. He was recalled to Rome after C. Gracchus’ death.56
Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus spent a year in Rhodes as a consequence of
his confrontation with the tribune of the plebs Saturninus. Following the death
of Saturninus, Metellus was allowed to return to Rome.57 Finally, Cicero referred in a more detailed way to the exile of Marius, whose complaints and
lamentations he claimed to have heard personally.58 Cicero’s goal was to compare with his own circumstances the contexts in which those three consulars
returned to Rome. The comparison was obviously favourable to Cicero. So, the
consuls of the year that followed Metellus’ exile did not intercede in his favour
as Lentulus had done with the greatest conviction in 57. On the other hand,
Cicero and Marius had suffered similar affronts, but whereas the latter took
revenge on his enemies with arms, Cicero wished to use only his words as a
weapon.
Ancient wars and generals, famous exiles, virtuous ancestors: were these individuals and events known to the audience in a contio? We may assume that
there were different levels of historical knowledge among the attenders of a
popular assembly. Yet, in a society such as republican Rome in which something akin to a public education did not exist, it is difficult to believe that the
common inhabitants of the city were able to understand all historical references. An orator might consider it necessary to include some following the logic
of the speech, but that did not mean that his listeners knew everything that
he was talking about, or even that he expected to be completely understood.59
The same happened with geographical references. Cicero made use of them
when it was necessary for his argument, sometimes even in an almost exhaustive way. That was the case for instance in his second speech on the agrarian
bill, in which, as he had already done in the senate, Cicero included a complete
list of places whose lands were concerned in the rogatio. He mentioned cities
and territories in different regions of the whole Empire, as Cilicia, Bithynia,
55
56
57
58
59
Cic. p. red. ad Quir. 6–7, 9–11.
Cic. Brut. 128, dom. 82; Vell. 2.7; Plut. C. Gracch. 4. Kelly (2006), 71–76, 167–168.
Like Cicero, Metellus Numidicus also pronounced a speech before the people after his
return (Gell. 13.29.1). Kelly (2006), 84–88, 178–179.
Cic. p. red. ad Quir. 19–20. Kelly (2006), 74, 98.
Morstein-Marx (2004, 72) has argued that the speech could function as the orator
intended even if the audience was unable to understand all historical references.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
220
Pina Polo
Chersonese, Macedonia, Corinth, Cyrene, Hispania, Africa, Paphlagonia,
Pontus, Cappadocia and the Lake Maeotis (today called Sea of Azov).60 How
could his listeners have possibly known where some of these areas were? To be
sure, in some cases they would have never heard the place names. In referring
to a large number of place names, Cicero did not intend the audience to locate
them on a mental map of the Empire, which the audience obviously would not
have had in their minds. Rather, Cicero was overwhelming his listeners with all
this information, with his geographical and historical knowledge, which was
actually demonstrating his cultural and social superiority: he simply knew a
lot more history and geography than his listeners.61 It was clearly a question
of auctoritas emanating from the orator’s words and from the orator’s tribunal
itself, an auctoritas that made the speech credible.62
The plebs probably did not know many of the historical details, and even less
could they have placed events in their chronological order. Most of the historical information provided by Cicero in his speeches lacked chronological references. Nevertheless, sometimes he tended to order the events he mentioned
according to their relative chronology. For instance, in the third Catilinarian
oration, Cicero listed the main conflicts that occurred in the 80s and in the
early 70s in perfect chronological order, from the confrontation between
Sulla and Sulpicius to the repression by Catulus of Lepidus’ followers.63 In the
fourth Philippica the orator praised the ancestors that had first conquered the
whole of Italy, and had then destroyed Carthage and Numantia.64 However,
when he was reporting to the people how the praetor Lentulus had told the
Allobroges that he was the third Cornelius after Cinna and Sulla destined to
rule in Rome, Cicero used, exceptionally, an absolute chronology. Lentulus alluded to a prophecy supposedly included in the Sibylline Books, according to
which 63 BCE would be a fatal year for Rome and its Empire, ten years after the
acquittal of the Vestals and twenty years after the Capitolium burned down
during the Civil War.65 Sometimes Cicero gave a precise date, referring to the
consuls then in office. In his second speech on the agrarian bill, he stated that
60
61
62
63
64
65
Cic. leg. agr. 2.50–52. See Vasaly (1993), 222–243 (222: “Cicero has attempted in the speech
to control his listeners’ conception of geographical space”, 241: “the orator has set out to
create in the minds of his listeners a psychological map of the Roman world”).
See van der Blom (2010), 121: “By referring to historical individuals, events, and traditions
of those not known to the audience, the orator or author could present himself as an
expert whom the audience should trust and follow”.
Pina Polo (2005); Id. (2011).
Cic. Catil. 3.24.
Cic. Phil. 4.13.
Cic. Catil. 3.9. Cadoux (2005); Flower (2008).
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
How Much History Did The Romans Know ?
221
the decemviri would be authorized to sell everything included in the senatus
consulta issued during the consulship of M. Tullius and Cn. Cornelius in 81 BCE
and afterwards.66 Later on, he added that the decemviri could sell the public
land acquired during the consulship of Sulla and Pompeius in 88 BCE.67 It is
questionable whether the audience was capable of placing with precision the
dates of both consular years, or at least of identifying approximately when
some events had occurred two decades earlier. Personal experience probably
played an important role.
Nonetheless, that the people in all probability did not have a clear chronological structure in their minds – obviously knowledge of events became more
confused the more distant in time they were – does not mean that they had no
idea or sense of history. Some historical key facts must have remained in the
collective memory.68 Furthermore, the plebs had its own historical perspective, sometimes noticeably dissenting from the official view. The Roman aristocracy must have realized the risk of this alternative to their own view. For
that reason the senate attempted the damnatio memoriae of the Gracchi and
ordered the construction of a temple to Concordia presiding over the Forum
as a perennial symbol of the victory of the established order over sedition. The
people very likely did not remember the detailed events concerning the killing
of both the Gracchi brothers and Saturninus, but had preserved an independent memory of them as politicians who tried to introduce reforms favourable
to the people.69 They knew who the Gracchi and Saturninus were, and what
they had meant for them. They were popular heroes, and this image could not
have arisen from the official version. That the plebs had its own historical view
is indirectly shown by the support of the people for some men whose only
merit was to be descendants of very popular politicians. That was the case of
Equitius, the presumed son of Tiberius Gracchus, the so-called Pseudo-Marius
and Trebellius Calca, who claimed to be Clodius himself. All of them enjoyed
unusual popularity in the Late Republic.70
Warfare had always been a very important part of Roman society. Throughout
the republican period, thousands of citizens fought in the legions in different
66
67
68
69
70
Cic. leg. agr. 2.35.
Cic. leg. agr. 2.38. In the third speech Cicero (leg. agr. 3.7) mentioned as a chronological
reference the consulship of C. Marius and Cn. Papirius Carbo in 82 BCE.
van der Blom (2010), 118–119.
Similarly, some statues were spontaneously erected by the urban plebs in honour of the
praetor M. Marius Gratidianus, who had promoted a monetary reform: Cic. off. 3.80; Plin.
nat. 33.132, 34.27; Sen. de ira 3.18.1. See also Marco Simón – Pina Polo (2000).
See now Pina Polo (2014).
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
222
Pina Polo
locations, first in Italy and afterwards across the whole Mediterranean. The
duration of military service increased after the Hannibalic War. Those who returned home brought with them their experiences: they could tell of battles
and of the military skills of their commanders, and could describe landscapes
in unfamiliar lands. As a result, a collection of private memories may have
been created within families, at the same time being transmitted to the collective memory. Thus there were simultaneously unwritten histories perceived
from below from the perspective of the plebs, and others written from the top
by the aristocracy and destined to become the official history. The latter was
only partly and indirectly available to the plebs. The unofficial history had been
lived and experienced by the plebs itself.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that the uncultivated populace in
Rome retained the memories of ancestors who had fought in Asia, Macedonia,
Hispania, etc., and could also remember the names of great enemies such
as Hannibal, Perseus or Mithidrates, as well as those of the greatest Roman
imperatores. As a result, names such as Carthage, Corinth or Numantia that
were repeatedly mentioned by Cicero before the people would have sounded
familiar. The abundant monuments and statues in Rome would have helped
to keep those memories alive.71 The Ciceronian reference to Tremulus’ statue
might be an example, though one might doubt that the greater part of the population in Rome really knew its historical background.
In De finibus, Cicero pointed out that the lower classes also had an interest
in history. He was talking about the importance of history as well as about the
pleasure of knowing the particulars of the lives of illustrious men, and added:
“What could be said about the fact that men of the humblest condition, with
no expectation of participating in public life, workmen in short, are delighted with history?”72 Was it a rhetorical statement or a reality? In his second
speech on the agrarian bill, Cicero asserted: “Which of you is ignorant that it
is said that this kingdom belongs to the Roman people by testament of king
Alexas?”73 The kingdom to which he referred was Egypt and the king Ptolemy
Alexander. It was in all probability a rhetorical exaggeration to claim that the
entire audience was aware of the details concerning the Egyptian question.
However, it was very possible that many of the listeners had heard something
about it, since Egypt had been present in Roman politics for decades. In any
71
72
73
See Sehlmeyer (1999), as well as Hölkeskamp’s contribution in this volume.
Cic. fin. 5.52: Quid, quod homines infima fortuna, nulla spe rerum gerendarum, opifices
denique delectantur historia?
Cic. leg. agr. 2.41: Quis enim vestrum hoc ignorat, dici illud regnum testamento regis Alexae
populi Romani esse factum?
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
How Much History Did The Romans Know ?
223
case, Cicero gave a clue as to how the information could have reached the audience: “Which of you is ignorant that it is said … ?”, he stated. That indicates
that, unsurprisingly, oral transmission was the main way by which information
reached the population in Rome.
In the third Catilinarian speech, Cicero appealed to the recent memory of
the citizens: “Surely you remember that at the time of the consuls Cotta and
Torquatus …”.74 He was talking about the portents that occurred in Rome just
two years earlier. Further on in the same speech, Cicero mentioned past civil
strife: “Indeed you remember, citizens, all our civil conflicts, not only those that
you have heard of, but those that you recall and have seen yourselves”.75 The
orator then gave a list of the disorders and wars that had occurred in the 80s,
referring to Sulpicius, Sulla, Marius, Cinna, etc. Ultimately, Cicero intended to
communicate to the audience in the assembly the idea that the Catilinarian
plot was more dangerous than all the civil wars had been two decades earlier.76
But again, the point is the way in which the people had access to historical
information: either they had lived through the events themselves, or they had
heard about them.
Aside from private conversations within the family circle and across the
city, there were some public venues in which the people could hear something
about Roman history. The theatre had for centuries been one of these.77 The
fabulae praetextae brought to the people performances dealing with historical
Roman figures and events. Obviously, it should be borne in mind that these
were above all a theatrical spectacle intended to entertain the audience, and
not essays concerned with historical accuracy. Nevertheless, even if the fabulae
praetextae essentially did not have an educational purpose, they served inevitably as a means of providing a limited selection of episodes of Roman history
to a wide public composed of people from different social levels and with very
dissimilar levels of education. Moreover, for the large illiterate part of the audience, which had no means to contrast what they saw with other sources of information, the theatre was the real history.78 In this regard, evidence collected
by Aulus Gellius deserves to be mentioned. According to him, the Annales of
Ennius were recited to the people in the theatre of Puteoli by a reader with a
74
75
76
77
78
Cic. Catil. 3.19: Nam profecto memoria tenetis Cotta et Torquato consulibus … .
Cic. Catil. 3.24: Etenim recordamini, Quirites, omnis civiles dissensiones, non solum eas, quas
audistis, sed eas, quas vosmet ipsi meministis atque vidistis.
Cic. Catil. 3.25.
Cic. off. 1.47. On the subject: Wiseman (1998); Manuwald (2001). Cf. Flower (1995); Horsfall
(1996a), 107; Walter (2004), 75–83.
Walter (2004), 75.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
224
Pina Polo
powerful voice.79 It is not easy to establish to what extent this type of public
reading of historical works was common. However, the fact that the performance was held in Puteoli and that Gellius alluded to the reader with a Greek
word (anagnostes) suggests that it was rather typical of Hellenised southern
Italy.
A kind of theatrical performance also took place during the celebration
of an aristocratic funeral, the pompa funebris.80 As described by Polybius,81
the procession leading the corpse ended at the Rostra situated between the
Comitium and the Forum. During the procession the ancestors were ordered
chronologically from the oldest to the youngest. From the orator’s tribunal usually a relative delivered a speech (laudatio funebris) praising the deceased and
his glorious ancestors, who symbolically were present on the Rostra impersonated by actors wearing their masks and wearing clothes indicating their status
as triumphators or the highest magistracy that they reached. Eminent consuls,
famous generals and renowned victories were celebrated before the people.
In this way the history of the most prominent Roman families was implicitly
identified with the collective history of Rome.
The triumphal procession was one of the most impressive celebrations in
ancient Rome. It was actually conceived as a sort of performance, which may
have attracted a huge audience along the route.82 The victory over a foreign
enemy was glorified. The people could learn which kings had been defeated,
which battles had been won, which cities had been taken. Let us take as example Plutarch’s description of Pompey’s third triumph in 61.83 The procession lasted two days. There were spoils, prisoners and many trophies. Some
inscriptions indicated the peoples over which he had triumphed in the Orient,
the number of strongholds and cities that had been captured, as well as the
79
80
81
82
83
Gell. 18.5.2.
Beck (2006); Hölkeskamp (2008); Walter (2004), 89–108.
Pol. 6.53–54.
Beyond general references, there is no concrete evidence for the size of audiences at triumphs in the sources. However, see the description of Aemilius Paulus’ triumph in 167
(Plut. Aem. 32.1): “The people sat up wooden stands, both in the theatres for horse-races,
which they call circuses, and around the forum, and they occupied all the other parts
of the city which provided a view of the procession.” On the triumph, see Itgenshorst
(2005); Beard (2007); Östenberg (2009). Specifically on the triumphal route, see Östenberg
(2010), who states (313): “The triumph was a pregnant public feast, and Rome was beyond
doubt extremely crowded on the day of celebration. Many had travelled from far to see
the parade, and together with the people of the city, they occupied all available room to
get at least a glimpse”.
Plut. Pomp. 45.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
How Much History Did The Romans Know ?
225
cities which the triumphator had founded. According to Appian, images of
Mithridates and Tigranes were carried, depicting them as fighting, as defeated,
and as fleeing. Mithridates’ silent flight by night was also represented. Finally,
it was shown how he had perished, and even the daughters who chose to die
with him were depicted.84 Placing all this in the context of a spectacular show
no doubt helped the people to assimilate the information more easily.
The orations delivered in the courts usually contained historical references,
as Cicero’s speeches exemplify very well. They were addressed directly to the
jurors, who had to pronounce the sentence, so the cultural level must have
been higher than in a popular assembly. But trials were held in the Forum
and were open to other attendants, the so-called corona that surrounded the
venue. This indirect audience could hear the speeches perfectly well and could
draw conclusions from them.85
However, the contio was the main venue in Rome in which oral transmission
was possible.86 Contiones were frequently held in the city.87 Before voting on a
bill, at least three assemblies had to be convoked to discuss it. In these assemblies orators could speak in favour of, or against, the rogatio. Cicero’s speeches
in favour of the rogatio Manilia and against the agrarian bill of Rullus illustrate
this kind of oratory. A similar procedure existed in the iudicia populi before
permanent courts were established. The Pro Rabirio perduellionis is actually
reminiscent of that procedure. There were also informative contiones in which
the audience was advised about anything of interest for the community. The
triumphators would deliver speeches to the people after the triumphal procession, describing their victories and conquests. Cicero’s return after his exile
was not exactly a triumph, but he conceived of his travel from Brundisium to
Rome as a kind of triumphal procession.88 In the city, his speeches in the senate and to the people had a certain analogy with the usual triumphal discourses. Throughout the year, many political contiones took place in Rome. This was
the venue in which discussions before the people were held, the place in which
to praise or to disqualify other politicians. Both the Catilinarian speeches and
the Philippics that were pronounced by Cicero in contiones are good examples.
84
85
86
87
88
App. Mithr. 116–117.
See Rosillo-López (2017b). Horsfall (1996b, 9–20) points out popular songs as a means of
learning.
Morstein-Marx (2004), 70: “important information was on the whole heard, not read,
above all in the contio”. He stresses the “educative function of the contio” (117).
On contiones: Pina Polo (1989); Hiebel (2009).
Pina Polo (2010), 154–156.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
226
Pina Polo
This implies that the speeches delivered to the people in contiones should
not only (and not necessarily) be seen as an indication of the historical knowledge of the audience, but rather as a place for learning history.89 Obviously,
that could not happen in a systematic way, especially because the contio was
linked to contemporary issues, so that history may only occasionally intervene. Orators selected the information they wanted to convey, as well as the
historical examples they wished to use in their speeches. In other words, they
decided what individuals and events should be remembered and for what.90
Taking into account that only members of the elite acted as orators in contiones, this was another way to control indirectly the history that could be learnt
and transmitted.
Consequently, the analysis of a speech in a contio acquires a different perspective if we think of the historical information that was occasionally provided as something that could be learnt and that should not necessarily be
recalled by the audience. Or rather, whereas some of the listeners could remember something they already knew, the information would be completely
unknown for many of them.
In the Pro lege Manilia Cicero linked implicitly the memory of some of the
most important wars and imperatores in the Roman history with Pompey and
the present situation. Yet the really prominent topic in the speech was the
Mithridatic War. Cicero tried to paint a dramatic situation, in order to make
the approval of the bill unopposable. As a result, Cicero provided a lot of information about the development of the conflict over the previous twenty years.91
He mentioned briefly the victories of Sulla and Murena, which unfortunately
had not resulted in the final triumph. He explained the alliance of Mithridates
with Tigranes; he reported how the king of Pontus killed all Roman citizens living in Asia. The orator described in some detail the activity of Lucullus: he had
released Cyzicus from its siege, destroyed the fleet of the enemy and captured
a number of cities in Pontus and Cappadocia. Mithridates had been forced to
flee, but he managed to recover in Armenia under the protection of Tigranes.
This is not completely correct. When Mithridates went to Armenia his relationship with Tigranes was distant. He was not even received by the Armenian
king for more than one year. Only when the two were finally reconciled did
they begin to act jointly.92 But was the total accuracy of the story essential?
Could the audience have evaluated it?
89
90
91
92
The point has been stressed by Horsfall (1996b), 46–49. See also Id. (1996a), 116–117.
van der Blom (2010), 146.
Cic. Manil. 4–10, 20–26.
Ballesteros Pastor (1996), 247.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
How Much History Did The Romans Know ?
227
Anyway, the point was that Mithridates still remained a great danger for
Rome. The only man who could save the situation was Pompey, just as he had
done over the past two decades. To prove it, Cicero mentioned all his victories in Italy, Africa, Sicily, Gaul and Hispania.93 In particular he focused on
the war against the pirates: among other cities, Cnidos, Colophon and Samos
were taken by the pirates; Gaeta was plundered; the fleet in Ostia was sunk.94
Despite all these disasters, Pompey managed to re-establish peace in the whole
Mediterranean with extraordinary celerity.
We could probably distinguish within the audience different levels of
knowledge about the information conveyed by Cicero. Some of the events
he related had happened in recent years, and most should have been known
at least in broad terms. Others were more distant in time, and the recollection of them may have been confused. People in Rome had no doubt heard of
Mithridates during the last twenty years, some of them perhaps even having
fought in the Orient. With absolute certainty everyone in the city knew of the
victories achieved by Pompey. But beyond this superstructure of knowledge,
i.e the basic outline of events, the vast majority of the population could not be
familiar with all the details that Cicero gave in his speech. Some of that information was possibly new for them, but from that moment on it could become
part of their historical knowledge. Nevertheless, the people could have obviously received complementary information in other assemblies, since we do
not know what other orators had been saying on the topic.
The second speech on the Rullan agrarian bill was unusually long in comparison to the other Ciceronian addresses to the people, and was full of information relating to very different periods of Roman history. For instance,
the orator devoted particular attention to the relationship between Capua
and Rome. He referred to the decrees issued by the senate after Capua was
defeated during the Hannibalic War, explaining in particular detail what the
senatorial decisions meant.95 Giving great authority to his words, Cicero noted
that many official documents existed on this matter. It was obviously implicit
that he knew them. It is hardly plausible that the Roman people were familiar
with what had happened in Capua almost 150 years ago. How could they be?96
93
94
95
96
Cic. Manil. 28–31.
Cic. Manil. 32–35.
Cic. leg. agr. 2.88–89.
Even if the matter had been mentioned exactly twenty years earlier during the discussion
of the bill enacted by Brutus in 83 to found a colony in Capua, as Cicero recalled in his
speech (Cic. leg. agr. 2.92).
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
228
Pina Polo
Cicero was indoctrinating his audience with the ultimate purpose of discrediting Rullus by comparing him with his wise ancestors.97
In the same speech Cicero mentioned a more recent matter in which
Hiempsal was involved. The Numidian king owned some territories on the
African coast that Scipio Aemilianus had assigned to the Roman people. In 75
the consul C. Aurelius Cotta signed a treaty with the king asserting his ownership of the land, but the agreement was not corroborated by the people. Cicero
stated that this issue had frequently been discussed in the senate, but sometimes also from the orator’s tribunal in contiones.98 The debate in assemblies
had offered the people the chance to become aware of the particulars of that
situation in the past. Now, through Cicero’s words, some of the listeners were
recalling events that had occurred more than ten years ago, while others were
probably hearing them for the first time. In both cases the contio either had
been, or was, the venue in which the information could be acquired.
The speech on behalf of Rabirius is a good example. Cicero gave a comprehensive account of the events since the senatus consultum ultimum was issued
in the year 100, calling attention, of course, to everything that favoured his position on behalf of Rabirius and the senatus consultum ultimum. Consequently,
he enumerated the names of those prominent citizens who had supported the
repression of Saturninus in order to exonerate the defendant.99 Cicero even
mentioned the name of the man who had actually killed Saturninus, the slave
Scaeva.100 Taking into account that liberty had been granted to Scaeva, what
reward should be granted to a knight such as Rabirius if he had killed the tribune? In the process against Rabirius events that had happened nearly forty
years earlier were being judged. It seems evident that the plebs had a positive
memory of Saturninus, as shown by its reaction to the unfavourable judgement of Cicero. The people would have known that the tribune had been murdered. They might even have felt that his killing had been unfair. It should not
be forgotten that the events took place in the very heart of the city – like the
killing of the Gracchi brothers some decades earlier. Some listeners could have
been alive when the events took place, and consequently they had first-hand
97
98
99
100
In another passage Cicero explained that the praetor P. Cornelius Lentulus was commissioned by the senate to purchase private land in Campania located within public ground.
That happened in 165. It is again highly unlikely that the audience had the slightest clue
about it (Cic. leg. agr. 2.82).
Cic. leg. agr. 2.58: Audivit hanc rem non a me, sed ab aliis agitari saep in senatu, non
numquam ex hoc loco … .
Cic. Rab. perd. 20–26.
Cic. Rab. perd. 31.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
How Much History Did The Romans Know ?
229
information. Now, different versions of these facts could be learnt or remembered by listening not only to Cicero but also to the accuser, the witnesses and
the other defenders speaking in contiones during the process.101
Finally, in the fourth and sixth Philippics, Cicero used very few historical
examples, because the most recent events were his priority. This was why he
spoke of the actions carried out by Antonius and by the other main protagonists of the moment. Both contiones would have served for the people to obtain
information that was usually more easily accessible to the elite in general, and
to senators in particular.
In conclusion, we should not take for granted that all historical information
contained in a speech delivered before the people was known in advance by
the audience. Cicero’s speeches show how the contiones functioned as a place
in which the people could learn past history and in which their opinions about
current events could be formed, events which themselves became history in
turn. In an essentially oral society, the contiones were a source of general information for the usually hundreds of attendants. In a further step, we may
imagine that this information was also circulated orally across the city thanks
to circles of sociability reaching a wider audience.102 As part of this information, local and global, recent and past history was a constant subject for orators. On one hand, they used historical examples to illustrate the present. On
the other, they gave information about contemporary facts that were destined
to become history in the future. The aspiration to influence the future interpretation of these events should be taken into account as well. Roman assemblies
were therefore one of the main disseminators of historical knowledge for the
inhabitants of the city. Of course, we do not know how accurate the versions
circulating from the Rostra across the city were.
Consequently, the history the Roman people could have known in the first
century BCE was not the result of learning in a non-existent public school
or of reading books of scarce circulation and reserved for the aristocratic
minority, but was rather the outcome of their capacity to comprehend and
memorise what they had heard in the theatre, in the courts, during triumphal
101
102
In the same speech Cicero (Rab. perd. 12) summarised the laws Porcia and Sempronia de
capite civium Romanorum, whose details were surely unknown for most of his listeners.
On the other hand, he compared Labienus to Romulus, Numa Pompilius and Tarquinius,
the latter being “the most arrogant and cruel of the Roman kings” (Rab. perd. 13). In this
case it is sure that people had heard of the founder of the city as well as about some of the
kings, for example in some theatrical performances.
Cf. Rosillo-López (2017a).
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
230
Pina Polo
processions, in assemblies and in private conversations within the family and
across the city. It could not by any means be a history articulated around a
recognisable chronological structure. The common Roman did not have in his
mind a history organised according to periods and well-established dates. At
most, he would know some historical events and perhaps place them earlier or
later than others in a relative chronology.103 Obviously, events that happened
at Rome were better known than others that took place far away from the city.
It was a history of scattered highlights, composed of extraordinary characters
and facts, such as Hannibal, Carthage, Scipio, Corinth, Gracchus, Saturninus,
Numantia, Mithridates, etc.104 It was a history made of timeless fragments105
which had been selected and interpreted by the cultivated social elite, to be
dramatised in the theatre and in the pompa funebris, or to be used in the courts
and in contiones. Nonetheless, it must not be forgotten that the plebs developed an independent memory according to which some historical characters
were regarded more favourably than others.
Bibliography
Alexander, M. C. (1990). Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC (Phoenix,
suppl. 26), Toronto.
Ballesteros Pastor, L. (1996). Mitrídates Eupátor, rey del Ponto, Granada.
Beard, M. (2007). The Roman Triumph, London – Cambridge, MA.
Beck, H. (2006). ‘Züge in die Ewigkeit. Prozessionen durch das republikanische Rom’,
in F. Marco, F. Pina Polo, and J. Remesal (eds.), Repúblicas y ciudadanos: modelos de
participación cívica en el mundo antiguo (Barcelona), 131–151.
Béranger, J. (1972). ‘Les jugements de Cicéron sur les Gracques’, ANRW 1.1: 732–763.
103
104
105
The pompa funebris (and perhaps the subsequent laudatio) could be of some help, given
that ancestors of the deceased marched in chronological order. But again, these processions only represented small portions of the Roman history taken from family stories.
Moreover, only the most prominent ancestors were admitted into the procession, therefore painting a discontinuous history.
More optimistic is the conclusion of Morstein-Marx (2004), 117: “But the overall picture,
I submit, stands out clearly: that the audiences of public speeches were expected to be
quite aware of the Roman past and present, and were treated as involved and regular
participants in political affairs”. In the second chapter of this study (pp. 68–118), MorsteinMarx provides evidences of what he reckons the impressive civic knowledge among the
people.
In a sense, Valerius Maximus’ work, which lacks a chronological structure, could be similarly defined.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
How Much History Did The Romans Know ?
231
van der Blom, H. (2010). Cicero’s Role Models. The Political Strategy of a Newcomer,
Oxford.
Bloomer, W. M. (1992). Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility, London.
Bücher, F. (2006). Verargumentierte Geschichte. Exempla Romana im politischen Diskurs
der späten Republik (Hermes Einzelschriften 96), Stuttgart.
Cadoux, T. J. (2005). ‘Catiline and the Vestal Virgins’, Historia 54: 162–179.
Cornell, T. J. (2001). ‘Cicero on the origins of Rome’, in J. G. F. Powell and J. A. North
(eds.), Cicero’s Republic (BICS, suppl. 76, London), 41–56.
Fleck, M. (1993). Cicero als Historiker (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 39), Stuttgart.
Flower, H. I. (1995). ‘Fabulae praetextae in context. When were plays on contemporary
subjects performed at Rome?’, Classical Quarterly 45: 170–190.
Flower, H. I. (2008). ‘Remembering and forgetting temple destruction. The destruction of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in 83 BC’, in G. Gardner and
K. L. Osterloh (eds.), Antiquity in Antiquity. Jewish and Christian Pasts in the GrecoRoman World (Tübingen), 74–92.
Gaillard, J. (1975). ‘Que représentent les Gracques pour Cicéron?’, BAGB 4.34: 499–529.
Hiebel, D. (2009). Rôles institutionnel et politique de la contio sous la République
romaine, Paris.
Hölkeskamp, K.-J. (1996). ‘Exempla und mos maiorum. Überlegungen zum kollektiven
Gedächtnis der Nobilität’, in H.-J. Gehrke and A. Möller (Hrsgg.), Vergangenheit und
Lebenswelt. Soziale Kommunikation, Traditionsbildung und historisches Bewußtsein
(ScriptOralia 90, Tübingen), 301–338 (= Id. [2004], 169–198).
Hölkeskamp, K.-J. (2004). SENATVS POPVLVSQVE ROMANVS. Die politische Kultur der
Republik – Dimensionen und Deutungen, Stuttgart.
Hölkeskamp, K.-J. (2008). ‘Hierarchie und Konsens. Pompae in der politischen Kultur
der römischen Republik’, in A. H. Arweiler and B. M. Gauly (Hrsgg.), Machtfragen.
Zur kulturellen Repräsentation und Konstruktion von Macht, papers presented at a
colloquium held in 2005 at Institut für Klassische Altertumskunde der ChristianAlbrechts-Universität zu Kiel (Stuttgart), 79–126.
Horsfall, N. (1996a), ‘The cultural horizons of the plebs romana’, MAAR 41: 101–119.
Horsfall, N. (1996b), La cultura della plebs romana, Barcelona.
Itgenshorst, T. (2005). Tota illa pompa. Der Triumph in der römischen Republik
(Hypomnemata 161), Göttingen.
Jehne, M. (2006). ‘Who attended Roman assemblies? Some remarks on political participation in the Roman Republic’, in F. Marco, F. Pina Polo, and J. Remesal (eds.),
Repúblicas y ciudadanos: modelos de participación cívica en el mundo antiguo
(Barcelona), 221–234.
Kardos, M.-J. (1997). Lieux et lumière de Rome chez Cicéron, Paris – Montréal.
Kelly, G. P. (2006). A History of Exile in the Roman Republic, Cambridge.
Mack, D. (1937). Senatsreden und Volksreden bei Cicero, Würzburg.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
232
Pina Polo
Manuwald, G. (2001). Fabulae praetextae. Spuren einer literarischen Gattung der Römer
(Zetemata 108). München.
Marco Simón, F. and Pina Polo, F. (2000). ‘Mario Gratidiano, los compita y la religiosidad popular a fines de la República’, Klio 82: 154–170.
Morstein-Marx, R. (2004). Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic,
Cambridge.
Mouritsen, H. (2001). Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic, Cambridge.
Östenberg, I. (2009). Staging the World. Spoils, Captives and Representations in the
Roman Triumphal Procession, Oxford – New York.
Östenberg, I. (2010). ‘Circum metas fertur: An alternative reading of the triumphal
route’, Historia 59: 303–320.
Pina Polo, F. (1989). Las contiones civiles y militares en Roma, Zaragoza.
Pina Polo, F. (1996). Contra arma verbis. Der Redner vor dem Volk in der späten römischen
Republik (Heidelberger Althistorische Beiträge und Epigraphische Studien 22),
Stuttgart.
Pina Polo, F. (2004). ‘Die nützliche Erinnerung. Geschichtsschreibung, mos maiorum
und die römische Identität’, Historia 53: 147–172.
Pina Polo, F. (2005). ‘I rostra come espressione di potere della aristocrazia romana’, in
G. Urso (a cura di), Popolo e potere nel mondo antico. Atti del convegno internazionale, Cividale del Friuli, 23–25 settembre 2004 (Pisa), 141–155.
Pina Polo, F. (2010). Rom, das bin ich. Marcus Tullius Cicero. Ein Leben, Stuttgart.
Pina Polo, F. (2011). ‘Public speaking at Rome. A question of auctoritas’, in M. Peachin
(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World (Oxford), 286–303.
Pina Polo, F. (2014). ‘Impostores populares y fraudes legales en la Roma tardorrepublicana’, in F. Marco, F. Pina Polo, and J. Remesal (eds.), Fraude, mentiras y engaños en
el mundo antiguo (Barcelona), 123–138.
Powell, J. G. F. and Paterson, J. (2004). ‘Introduction’, in J. G. F. Powell and J. Paterson
(eds.), Cicero the Advocate (Oxford), 1–58.
Rambaud, M. (1953). Ciceron et l’histoire, Paris.
Rawson, E. (1972). ‘Cicero the historian and Cicero the antiquarian’, JRS 62: 33–45
(= Ead. [1991], 58–79).
Rawson, E. (1991). Roman Culture and Society. Collected Papers, Oxford.
Rosillo-López, C. (2017a). Public Opinion and Politics in the Late Roman Republic,
Cambridge.
Rosillo-López, C. (2017b). ‘The role and influence of the audience (corona) in trials in
the Late Roman Republic’, Athenaeum 105: 106–119.
Sehlmeyer, M. (1999). Stadtrömische Ehrenstatuen der republikanischen Zeit. Historizität
und Kontext von Symbolen nobilitären Standesbewußtseins (Historia Einzelschriften
130), Stuttgart.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
How Much History Did The Romans Know ?
233
Skidmore, C. (1996). Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen: The Work of Valerius
Maximus, Exeter.
Thompson, C. E. (1978). To the Senate and to the People. Adaptation to the Senatorial and
Popular Audiences in the Parallel Speeches of Cicero (Diss., Columbus).
Vasaly, A. (1993). Representations. Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory, Berkeley –
Los Angeles.
Walter, U. (2004). Memoria und res publica. Zur Geschichtskultur im republikanischen
Rom, Frankfurt am Main.
Walter, U. (2013). Cicero. Zweite Rede an das Volk gegen den Volkstribunen Publius
Servilius Rullus über das Ackergesetz, Bielefeld.
Wiseman, T. P. (1998). Roman Drama and Roman History, Exeter.
For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV
Keep reading this paper — and 50 million others — with a free Academia account
Used by leading Academics
Mercedes Gamero Rojas
Universidad de Sevilla
Pasquale Terracciano
"Tor Vergata" University of Rome
Randolph Head
University of California, Riverside
Fabien Montcher
Saint Louis University
