THE CURRENT DEBATE on the political culture of the Roman

Transcription

1 Chapter1 APLEAFORCONTINUATION THE CURRENT DEBATE on the political culture of the Roman republicbeganalmosttwentyyearsagoandhaslostlittleofits momentumsince.forthefirsttimeindecades,thefocuswasnot onthecountlessindividualissuesbutonthereallybasicquestions.the status,identity,functions,andinteractionsofcitizenbodyandpopular assemblies,ofsenateandmagistrateswereproblematizedandreopened todiscussion,thusraisingfundamentalquestionsabouttheverycharacterandstructureoftheliberarespublica.essentialissuesinthisdebate aretherelativeimportanceandrelationsofinstitutionsandprocedures of deliberation and decision making, the nature of social hierarchies, rank,andreputation,ofinfluence,authorityand,lastbutnotleast,power and participation in the political life of this Republic, and indeed its wholepoliticalculture.therebeganasearchforadequatetermsforthe peculiarsociopoliticalorderoftheimperialrepublicthatattemptedto clarify the basic meaning of terms like constitution, democracy, and sovereignty, process, structure and ritual, city-state anditscharacter asa state (inwhateversenseofthiscontroversialconcept), aristocracy, meritocracy and oligarchy, élite and ruling or politicalclass. ThisinternationaldiscussionwastriggeredbyFergusMillar,whoradicallyquestionedabasicconsensus,whichhad inspiteofmanydifferencesconcerningapproaches,perspective,andinterpretation beenacceptedinthefieldwithoutseriouschallengeforalmostacentury. 1 Upto then,ithadbeenagreedthatthesocialandpoliticalorderofthelibera res publica had been aristocratic or even oligarchic, meaning that all institutionsandpositionsofpowerwerecontrolledbyaparticularkind of ruling class, which recruited not only magistrates, generals, priests, and senators from its ranks, but also the official representatives of the people,thetribuniplebis.scholarshadgenerallytakenforgrantedthat thisruling(or political )class oftencalledan aristocracyofoffice or 1 Millar, 1984; idem, 1986; idem, 1989 (review of Raaflaub [Ed.], 1986, and Hölkeskamp,1987);idem,1995aand1995b(reviewofCAH,ix).Thesecontributionshavebeen reprintedinmillar,2002a.iwillcitefromthiscollectioninthefollowing(cf.myreviewin SCI21,2002,308 11;Benoist,2004,371ff.).

2 2 CHAPTER1 the senatorialaristocracy hadaninnercircle,thetruenobilitas,consistingofthosefamilieswithaconsulartraditionandakindofvirtually, thoughnotformally,hereditaryclaimtothehighestmagistracy.thisnobilityalsocontrolledthesenate,becausethe(higher)magistratesregularly returnedintoitsranksaftertheiryearofoffice;thesenatewastakento havebeenthecentralinstitutionalorganofthisaristocracyand,therefore,theactualdecision-makingandthus,inthefullsense, ruling body. Millarhasaccusedthisestablished orthodoxy ofa remarkabledistortion ofthetrueimportanceoftheconstitution scentralinstitutions;he evencallsitadistorted,ifnotcompletelyfalse,viewoftheentirepolitical order. He criticizes two specific aspects. According to him, the populus Romanusitself, asrepresentedbythevariousformsofassembly, was in aformalsensethesovereignbodyintherepublicanconstitution and thefactofthissovereigntyhastobecentraltoanyanalysis ofthe Republicasapoliticalsystem. TheSenate,ontheotherhand,wasnevera parliament, letalonea legislature ofa representative government. Hebelievesthatthetraditionalperspectivenotonlyplaysdowntheinstitutionalized participation of the people(which no one in fact has ever doubted), but also dismisses it as merely formal, passive, powerless, and nominal, evenasa charade,managedfromabove namely, determinedbyaself-perpetuatingoligarchy. 2 SinceMatthiasGelzer s classicbookonthenobilitas, 3 theideathatromancitizens,theinhabitantsofromeanditaly,andthewholeimperiumromanumwerelinked in a complex system of patron-client relations had been generally acceptedwithoutfurtherdiscussion.thisdensenetworkofverticaldependencies,mutualobligations,anddutieswasthoughttoincludethe ruling class aswellasalltheothergroupsofcitizens,reachingdowneventothe greatmassofplebsandprovincials.formillar,ithasbeenthis modern myth that legitimated again without further discussion the conclusionthatthesecomplexinterrelationssecuredtheoligarchy scontrolover allvotes,processesoflegislationandjurisdiction,and,aboveall,theelectionstothehighestmagistracies.andasaconsequence,itwasthiscontrolthatinturnallowedtheoligarchytoreproduceitselfandensureits position.thesemainpointsare accordingtomillar thebasisofthe generallyaccepted fictionofacollectiveparliamentaryruleofthesenate and misleadingpresuppositions ofarulingclassasaclosedshop. 4 ForMillarthisleadstoasecondfundamentalquestion,whichheraised inhischaracteristicallyprovocativeway: Wastherea governingclass, an aristocracy, oran élite?wasitdefinedbydescent,andifso,inwhat way? He does not deny that there were of course patricians, who 2 Millar,2002a,111,124,127,137,145,andalsoidem,1998,1,4ff.,197ff.andpassim. 3 Gelzer,1912,inidem,1962,17 135;newedition Millar,2002a,137,145f.,150,cf.92,149;idem,1998,7ff.,11,216.

3 3 were descendantsofearliergenerationsofpatricians. However, nothingguaranteedapatricianapublicoffice,apriesthood,oraseatinthe Senate. Alsotherewere somepersonsinpubliclife, whowerecalled nobiles,becauseoneoftheirancestors hadheldamajorpublicoffice. But,accordingtoMillar,thistermwas socialorpolitical,notconstitutional :anobiliscannotbecomparedto forexample anenglishpeer and his hereditary constitutional rights. Millar denies the existence of suchasituationintherepublic: Evenapersonwhowasbothapatriciusandanobilishadtocompeteforoffice. Inhisopinion,theresulting competition took place between individuals who as such (and not as membersofapoliticalclasswithaspecificcollectiveidentity)promoted themselves in public life. In consequence, Millar flatly denies the existenceofthenobilityorofanyhomogeneouspatrician-plebeianpolitical éliteingeneral;forhim,toputitinanutshell,neitheranaristocracynor anoligarchyeverexistedinrepublicanrome. 5 Only if we abandon these fictions and misconceptions can we trulyunderstandtheliberarespublica.formillar,therepublicwasnot simply a city-state but a true direct democracy much closer to the Athenian democracy than most scholars would have been prepared to admit. This interpretation adds the Roman republic to the relatively smallgroupofhistoricalexamplesofpoliticalsystems that mightdeservethelabel democracy atall andthereforeitisformillaronlyfit andproper,andindeedhightime,thattheromanpeopleberestored to their proper place in the history of democratic values. 6 According to Millar,thepopulusRomanusitselfwasthesovereigntrueandproper andnotmerelyinanabstractformal,symbolic,orideologicalsense.the assembliesofthepeople thecomitiacenturiata,comitiatributaandthe conciliaplebis alwayshadthefinalwordinthepoliticalprocess.this includesnotonlytheelectionofmagistrates,butalsomattersofforeign policy,decisionsabouttreaties,warandpeace,and,mostimportantly, the whole spectrum of legislative competences, ranging from issues of citizenship,thefoundingofcolonies,anddistributionoflandtociviland criminallaw,legalprocedure,andevenmattersoftheconstitution. 7 Millarinsiststhatrealday-to-daypoliticalissueswerenotdecidedbehindthecloseddoorsofthecuriabytheSenateanditsexclusiveinner circle,butwerepubliclydiscussed,undertheopensky,inthecentralcivic spacesofthecity-staterome,suchastheforumromanum,comitium, andthecampusmartius,andnotonlybeforeand,inthetruesenseof 5 Millar,1998,4;cf.idem,2002a,126f.,and87,90ff.,95f.,104f.,111, Ibid.,7,11,209,andidem,2002a,112,132ff.,138ff.,148,150,158,163ff.;idem, 2002b,6. 7 Millar,2002a,112ff.,120ff.,136f.,151ff.,165f.;idem,1998,15ff.,92,209ff.,224; idem,2002b,6.cf.lintott,1987,41ff.

4 4 CHAPTER1 theterm,undertheeyesofthecitizensassembledthere,butalsoamong them.therefore,thesepublicspacesweretheessentialfieldsofactivity, intheconcreteaswellasmetaphoricalsenseoftheterm,fortheindividualactorsplayingthedifferentpublicrôlesthatthis directdemocracy provided asoursourcesforeverydaypoliticallifeshow.according tomillar,theseactors performed asofficeholdersorcandidatesgoing aroundintogacandida asadvocatesincivillawsuits,asprosecutorsor defensecounselsinpoliticaltrials,asspokesmen,supportersof,oropponentsto,thenumerousissuesthathadtobepresentedandexplained tothepeopleofrome,andthatwereoftendiscussedheatedlybeforethe peopleinformalassemblyfinallycametoadecision.moreover,millar callsallthesedifferentfunctionsmerefacetsoraspectsofthesingle,most fundamental public rôle in this system namely, that of the orator addressingthecrowdsinthepoliticalarenasofrome.onlyoratorswho wereabletoconvincetheassembledcitizensoftheirviewscouldhopefor successandhigheroffice. 8 EvenMillarconcedesthat inthissense thepoliticalstructureofthe Republicwasa socialsystem afterall,butonlybecauseitwasbasedon humaninteractioninthemostconcretesense.asallpoliticalactionwas at all times determined by the dense and small-scale topography of a city-state andthedirectface-to-facecommunicationthatresultedfrom it,politicalpoweralwaysremainedconcentrateduponthespacebetween forumandcomitium namely,therostra,theplatformfromwhichoratorsaddressedthecrowds.whatmillarcallsthe directdemocracy of therepublicwasclearlyandobviouslydefinedbythisfundamentalform ofinteractioninspecificpublicspaces. 9 AsMillarhimselfsays,hisintentioninputtingforwardsuchdeliberately one-sidedclaimsistoforceadebatewiththesupportersofthereceived orthodoxy abouttheirfundamental preconceptions, whichhebelieves tohaveremainedunchangedfordecades:these assumptions arealleged tohavedominatedresearchonrepublicanromethroughoutthetwentiethcentury. 10 Hisimplicitopponentinthisdialogueturnsouttobeoneof theprominentsupportersofanolder,indeedtrulyorthodoxvariantofthe basicconsensus namely,millar sownteachersirronaldsyme. 11 Witha 8 Millar,2002a,141f.and105,111f.,143ff.;idem,1998,1,44ff.,217ff.,223ff.andpassim. 9 Millar,1998,38ff.,209ff.;idem,2002a,91,101,cf.117,171,179f.,208f. 10 Ibid.,ix.Alsocf.Hopkins,1991,492,whoseviewofthe conventionalscholarlyopinionoverthelastfewdecades(misled[...]bytheelitistpreoccupationsofleadingscholars) isjustasundifferentiated. 11 Thisbecomesclearinhisauthor sprologue:millar,2002a,12f.

5 5 characteristickindofaristocraticself-confidence,symehadalreadyformulatedtheinspiringprincipleofthisorthodoxyintermsofabroadgeneralizationinhisfamousbookonthe RomanRevolution, magisteriallydeclaringitametahistoricallyvaliduniversaltruth: Inallages,whateverthe formandnameofgovernment or whatevermaybethenameandtheory oftheconstitution, beitmonarchy,republic,ordemocracy,anoligarchy lurksbehindthefaçade. EvenRobertMichels swell-known ironlaw insistingonthe historicalnecessityofoligarchy couldhardlybemore explicit.andforsyme, oligarchy (beit openorconcealed )isnot a figmentofpoliticaltheory,aspeciousfraud,orameretermofabuse, but somethingrealandtangible thatis, verypreciselyacollectionofindividuals, whose shapeandcharacter clearly standsout,solidandmanifest. 12 AndthatwascertainlytrueforRome: Inanyageofthehistory of Republican Rome about twenty or thirty men, drawn from a dozen dominantfamilies,holdamonopolyofofficeandpower. Onthereceiving end,theamorphousandanonymous otherclasses were(atbest) susceptibletoauctoritas,takingtheirtoneandtastesfromabove infact, the lowerclasses notonly hadnovoiceingovernment, butsymeeven deniedthema placeinhistory. 13 As a consequence, political life was not characterized, according to Syme, by the ostensible opposition between Senate and People, optimatesandpopulares,nobilesandnovihomines, letalone byparties andprogrammesofamodernandparliamentarycharacter, butsimply consisted in nothing but the strife for power, wealth and glory a never-endingstrugglethatinvariablyandexclusivelytookplacewithin theclosedcirclesofthesenatorialaristocracy, intheheartofthegoverningoligarchy,incourtandcabinet. Inthesamecontext,Symestatedin histypically imperious tonethatthewholeofromanhistory, RepublicanorImperial, is thehistoryofthegoverningclass anaristocracyuniqueindurationandpredominance. Forhim,this oligarchyof government andits composition alwaysremainedthe guiding, indeed dominantthemeofpoliticalhistory,asthebindinglinkbetween therepublicandtheempire. 14 Sir Ronald Syme, Friedrich Münzer, the recognized and (rightly) revereddoyenofrepublicanprosopography, 15 andmatthiasgelzer who hasbeenlistedamongthefoundersoftheconsensusmentionedabove,in 12 Syme,1939,vii,7,18,346,cf.10ff.;alsoseeidem,1991a,323ff.,andgenerallyMichels, 1989,369,cf.351ff.Cf.thetrenchantcriticismbyOber,1996,18ff.Cf.alsoGalsterer,1990, 12ff.;Walter,2002,137ff.;Hölkeskamp,2001b,94f.,withadditionalreferences. 13 Syme,1939,459, Syme,1939,vii,11,405;idem,1986,v,13,andidem1991a. 15 Münzer,1920(=1999).Cf.Hölkeskamp,2001b,92ff.(onthemanandhiswork),with furtherreferences.

6 6 CHAPTER1 spiteofhisreservationsaboutanall-too-schematicmodel 16 agreedthat theaforementioned strifeforpower,wealthandglory, andindeedpolitical conflict in general, took only one concrete form throughout the wholeromanrepublic:theformationof aristocraticparties or factions insidethenobilitas,whichconfrontedeachotherinmeetingsof thesenateoreven(atleastduringelectionsandincriminaltrials)inthe assemblies.however,thisdoesnotmeanthattheseinstitutionswereanythingelsebuttwostagesofcontest andeventuallyevenlessthanthat: at least for the princeps, the senate no less than the assembly of the sovranpeoplewasacumbrousandunsatisfactorybodytodealwith. 17 AccordingtoSyme,apparentlyalludingtoafamoussayingattributedto Caesar, 18 theromancommonwealth, respublicapopuliromani, wasnotonlyjust aname the constitution oftherepublic(aswell as,fordifferentreasons,thatoftheprincipate)wasindeednothingbuta façade, ascreenandasham. 19 Asaconsequence,thekindofaristocratic parties thatmünzerand Symeenvisagedcouldneverinfluencetheordinarycitizenbody,letalone splitthepeopleasawholeintopoliticalgroups.onthecontrary,these parties or factions wereexclusivelyalliancesofleadingfamilies,sealed and stabilized often for several generations by typically dynastic formsofpersonalrelationships thatis,bymarriagesandadoptions,personal obligations, political friendships and alliances between nobiles as headsof noblehouses, anddownright dynasties, patricianandplebeian.accordingtoanotherprominentadvocateofthisapproach,howardscullard, anelaboratesystemofgroupingsandcounter-groupings hademergedbythemid-republic,anditwasthis system that formed thereal,ifunadvertisedandunofficial,basisofromanpubliclife ;John Briscoeinsistedaslateastheearly1980sthatitwas entirelynatural, indeedinevitable,thatsuchgroupsshouldhaveexisted. Atlast,Roman Republican factionalism hadachievedthestatusofametahistoricallaw ofnature. 20 AsMünzerandSymeexplicitlypronounced,theoneandonlypurpose ofthese parties wastoobtainandmaintain power inthestateby holding the two highest offices, the dual magistracy of the consulship. 16 Gelzer,1912;idem,1921,186ff.Cf.Bleickenetal.,1977;Burckhardt,1990,77ff.; Jehne,2006,5f.Seebelowatn.28fordetails.Cf.onGelzer sworkasa turning-point Ridley,1986,andSimon, Syme,1939, SuetoniusDivusIulius77,quotingT.Ampius,whorecordedCaesartohavesaidin public: nihilesserempublicam,appellationemmodosinecorporeacspecie. 19 Syme,1939,11f.,15, Scullard,(1935)1980,333;Briscoe,1982,1076;cf.alsoidem,1972and1992.

7 7 Themachinationsofthe parties andthetypical weapons thattheir nobleleadersheldandwieldedinordertoachievethisoneandonlyend werethetruearcanaimperiiofthenobilitasthroughouttheentirerepublic,fromearliesttimestoitsfall andevenbeyond. 21 Andas hardened prosopographers, they were confident that these arcana, though concealedbycraftorconvention, couldanddidnot evadedetection bymeansoftheirparticularmethodofinvestigatingpersonalrelations. 22 Theseassumptionsandpresuppositionsgaverisetoaspecificconcomitant conceptionofthenatureofromanpolitics thatbydefinition,as itwere,excludedthepossibilitythatconcreteissues,pragmaticproblems, and programmatic differences could be(or ever become) the stuff that politics wasmadeof.accordingly, politics wasunderstoodasakindof perpetual,unendinghustleandbustleamongtheaforementionedleading figuresasheadsofindividualfamiliesandrepresentativesoftheirrespectivecoalitions,theriseand rule, domination andfallofdynastiesand ofone governingparty followinganother,revolvingaroundthecentral pivotoftheconsulateasanendinitself:toquotesymeagain,itwasthe lustofpower thatwasthe primeinfirmityoftheromannoble. 23 LongbeforeMillarstartedthecurrentdiscussion,however,somescholarshadalreadyfeltuneasyaboutthisconceptofpolitics,withitsimplicit preconceptions and downright ideological assumptions in the guise of apparentlyself-evidentaxioms aconceptof(andamethodologicalapproachto)thefundamentalcharacterofrepublicanpoliticsthatsimply tookforgrantedwhatshouldhavebeenquestioned,analyzed,andputto thetestofempiricalresearchinthefirstplace. 24 Alreadyinthe1980s, ChesterStarrironicallybutaccuratelyobservedthat thepopularityof chasingdownwhowaswhoseunclemayatlastbewaning, referringto fastidious,andincreasinglyspeculative,traditionalprosopography.adecadelater,allenward(whoself-criticallyremarkedthathehadhimself beenone whosometimestoozealouslytrackeddownuncles andaunts 21 Münzer,1920,1ff.,133,317,427f.(=1999,5ff.,127,291,362f.)andpassim. 22 Syme,1939,10ff.,esp.ixand12;idem,1991b,338ff. 23 Syme,1939,vii,18,22,23,etc.. 24 SeeMeier,1966/1980,163f.,174f.,187f.;Shatzman,1974,197ff.;Astin,1968,and 1989,167ff.(whoinhisearlierworkhadstilladvocated,thoughwithcaution, theconsiderationof family-group factionsandofmotivationbyfactionalrivalry asbeing indispensablefortheunderstandingofromanpolitics. Hedenied,however,theexistenceof monolithicparties or coherentfactions inthemid-2ndcentury:1967,80,95f.;brunt, 1988,463ff.).Cf.Ward,1997,66ff.;Hölkeskamp,1987,44ff.,53ff.,andmorerecently idem,2001b,100ff.,withdetailsandreferences.

8 8 CHAPTER1 andcousinstoo! )declared,perhapsalittleover-optimistically, 25 thatit hadlongsincebeensilentlyagreedthatsuchalliancesbetweenaristocratic families and factions based on dynastic relationships had never existed, muchlessbeenstableoverseveralgenerationsorevendecades. 26 It is a rather telling paradox that it was Matthias Gelzer who had beenmillar sspecialtargetbecausehisworkhadallegedlycontributedto the establishment of the orthodox consensus 27 who as early as 1950 hadbegunexplicitlytodoubttheconceptofstablearistocratic parties, factions,or familygroupsasconstituentfactorsinromanpolitics and becameincreasinglyscepticalabout theschematiccrudeness ofthealltoo-simple and mechanical prosopographical method, which Münzer (andsomeofhisfollowers,includingscullard)employedtoreconstruct them. 28 Interestinglyenough,aleadingAmericanhistorianofRepublican Romeandamasteroftheprosopographicalapproachofthenextgeneration,whoknewonlytoowellwhathewastalkingabout,ErichGruen, also warned against dogmatism or slavish adherence to a schema, abuse ofthemethod,andproblematic generalizations, insistingon thefragilityof loyaltiestofamily,class,andfaction andgenerallyemphasizingthefluidityofassociations,cooperations,andgroupsand the rapidityofchange,theshiftingandslipperynatureofpoliticalevents in the(late) Republic. Though still convinced that the prosopographical method,itsuseasatoolremainsindispensableforanyunderstandingof theromanrepublic, Gruenapparentlydidnotsharetheoptimismof the wholenewschoolofprosopographicalresearchinvestigatingmarriagealliances,adoptions,amicitiae,andclientelaeinordertoreconstruct 25 Twyman,1972,notonlyonceagaintriestomakeacasefortheexistenceofa Claudio-Metellanfactio inthe70sbc,butalsotakesissuewithgeneralcriticismofthe factionalist approach.hisownconceptofthe structureofpolitics, however,simplyfailsto meetthestandardsthatthedebateontheanalyticalstatusandvalueofconceptssuchas factio, onthepotentialandlimitsofprosopographyassuch,andonthecharacterof(republican)politicshadalreadyestablishedbytheearly1970s.thesameistrueforthe(only slightly)modernizedrestatementoftheoldorthodoxybybriscoe, Starr,1987,41;Ward,1997,66f.Cf.alsoWiseman(1976)1987.Thebestdetailed refutationisbrunt,1988,443ff. 27 Millar,2002a,145ff.,cf.92,126;idem,1998,7ff.,and2002b, Gelzer,1950,andthereviewofGelzer, ,byErnstBadian,inJRS57,1967, ,quotation:218.Scullard sreply(1973,xviiiff.)revealsthatthis hardenedprosopographer wasonthedefensive:ontheonehand,herelativizedhisconceptsof political groups, e.g.,xx: Falseemphasismay...arise...fromconceivingsuchgroupsasselfconsciouscorporatepersonalities, etcetera;ontheother,however,hedidnotaddressthe fundamentalissue,raisedalreadyintheseverelycriticalreviewbyalfredheuss,1956a, whether(ornot)romanpoliticsandpoliticalcultureshouldbeexplainedintermsof factionalist patternsorparallelogramsatall.cf.alsohölkeskamp,2001b,96f.,forfurther evidence;gwynmorgan,2006,174f.

9 9 thegroupsthatdominatedromanpolitics. 29 Thesameistrueforthe AmericandoyenofRepublicanprosopography,T.RobertS.Broughton. Itiscertainlytruethathewasconvincedthat aprosopographicalapproach of some sort (explicitly to be used with due caution and a comprehensive view ) was necessary for a description of the Roman governingclassfromtheearlyperiodoftherepublicthroughitsfall (andbeyond): 30 especiallyfor,asitwere,the microhistorical reconstructionofindividualcareersandaristocraticprofilesaswellasforthe macrohistorical analysis of general patterns of office holding, criteria of ranking and social status, the composition, definition, and identity of socialgroupssuchasthesenatorialaristocracyandtheequites,prosopographyhasbeen,andremains, anextremelypowerfultoolandtechnique. 31 However,BroughtonaswellasGruenwerealsowellawareof thelimits(anddangers)ofaone-sidedrelianceonthemethod:the evidence that prosopography provides may in some instances give aid, butonlypartialaid,indealingwithotherimportantquestions thathave indeedremainedcentralandwillthereforeberaisedagainandagainin laterchapters,suchasthe reasonsfortheacceptancebyallclassesofso aristocratic a government for so long and the reasons for Roman expansion. 32 ButMillarseemstohavehadnotime(andperhapsnosense)forsuch nuancesandthepeculiarironyimplied. 33 Speakinggenerally,the implicitdialogue,orargument thathewantedtoconductwithwhathe took tobetherulingpresuppositionsaboutromansocietyandpolitics 29 Gruen,1968,1ff.,quotations:25,2,3,4,7,cf.alsoidem,1974,47ff.,105etc.(andin thesecondedition:1995,xif.). 30 Broughton,1972,260f.(myitalics,K.-J.H.). 31 Barnes,2007b,93.Theclassicdiscussionsofthe payoffsandpitfalls of prosopography remainstone,1971;carney,1973;eck,1993(andthecommentbybarnes,2007b, 86ff.),aswellasalreadyNicolet,1970,andBarnes,2007b,82ff.(fortheRomanrepublic inparticular).cf.onthehistoryofprosopographyasa methodology Galsterer,1990, 5ff.,andBarnes,2007a,withfurtherreferences.Cf.onmodernconceptsofthemethodand itspotentialeck,1993,andtheothercontributionsinidem(ed.)1993;idem,1974,republishedinanupdatedandaugmenteditaliantranslationinidem,1996,27 83,andhisother contributionsinthisvolume.seealsonäf,2001,1074f.,withfurtherreferences;eck,2002 and2003;magdalino,2003,andtheothercontributionsincameron(ed.),2003;keats- Rohan,2007,andtheotherrelevantcontributionsineadem(Ed.),2007.Cf.ontheprosopographicalapproachtoafull-scaleanalysisoftheRepublicanequitesNicolet,1966,147ff. 32 Broughton,1972,260f.Cf.alreadyMomigliano,1940,77f. 33 Unfortunately this also applies to John North, who calls the traditional orthodoxy frozenwastetheoryofromanpolitics andbelievesittobetheestablishedmodel(1990a, 6f.;idem,1990b,277f.),andtoPeterWiseman,whoholds thesheerinertiaofthegelzer model responsibleforthepersistenceofanalleged prevalentorthodoxy (2002a,309,cf. 305ff.).AlreadyHarrischaracterizesthisasan artificialtarget andcallsnorth sperception curiouslyinsular inidem,1990,291;hölkeskamp,1993,15and17.

10 10 CHAPTER1 thathavecharacterizedhistoricalwriting inthetwentiethcenturyhas stoppedshortofatruedebate.an ongoingdialogue betweenmillar (andhisfollowers),ontheonehand,andhiscriticsaswellasthemost important advocates of a revisionist school of thought who had long sinceembarkedonasystematicdeconstructionofthetraditionalorthodoxy,ontheother,hasregrettablynottakenplaceatall.hehasexplicitly refusedto arguedirectlyandcontinuouslywithanyofthemajorinterpretations (mentioning, however, the elitist variants proposed by ChristianMeierandErichGrueninpassing).Hehasnotbeenprepared tobeinvolvedinadebatethathehimselfhaddemanded,norhasheresponded, at least up to the present moment, to the differentiated and detailedcriticalresponsestohispublications. 34 Thefollowingchaptershavethreeintentions.First,Iwillattemptto record and review these responses 35 this seems necessary as they are being increasingly simplified, misrepresented, sweepingly dismissed out ofhand,orevensimplyignoredbyscholarswhoseemtosubscribetoa radicalrevisionismàlamillar. 36 Atthesametime,rathercrudeversions ofmillar sviews partial,superficial,andinadequate thoughtheirauthor himself, in a classic captatio benevolentiae, has characterized them 37 seemnowthemselvestobegrowing(orevensolidifying)intoa neworthodoxy.hisbooksandarticleshavebeencharacterized(notquite unjustly)asthe mostsignificantcontributionstorecentdebatesabout thecharacterofromanpolitics, revolvingaroundthecentraltopicsof thepracticeofpopularparticipationandindeedsovereignty (!)inthe 34 Millar,1998,ix,4.Hisselectiveandsomewhatopinionatedcommentson somecontemporaryapproaches hereandelsewhere(e.g.millar,1998,ixf.onpinapolo,1996etc.; idem,2002b,135ff.)donotrespondtothedebateitself. 35 Cf.Burckhardt,1990,89ff.;Jehne,1995a,1ff.;Gabba,1997,266ff.;Ward,1997,68f.; Hölkeskamp,1993,14ff.;recentlyidem,2000a.Cf.alsothe(fromdifferentpointsofview, somewhatcritical)reviewsofmillar,1998:keithbradley,inphoenix53,1999,140 47; RobertaStewart,inAHR104,1999, ;GarrettG.FaganinEMC18,1999,437 41;AntonPowell,inCR50,2000,516 18;AndrewJ.E.Bell,inJRS90,2000,220 21; Erich S. Gruen, in CPh 95, 2000, ; Michael C. Alexander, in AJPh 121, 2000, ;WilfriedNippel,inGnomon73,2001,232 36,andtherathermorepositiveappraisalsbyT.PeterWiseman, Democracyallaromana, injra12,1999,537 40;GeoffreyS.Sumi,inCJ95, ,197 99,andthebalancedassessmentsofMillar2002a bytimothyj.cornell,injrs93,2003,351 54;CraigeB.Champion,inIJCT11.1,2004 5,114 17,andFrédéricHurlet,inLatomus64,2005, Detaileddiscussionsof Millar sargument(againfromdifferentperspectives)alsoincludeyakobson,1999,10f., 231f.;Mouritsen,2001,2ff.;North,2002,1ff.,andrecentlyBenoist,2004,376ff.;Ward, 2004; Morstein-Marx, 2004, 6ff.; Marcone, 2005, 89ff.; Gwyn Morgan, 2006; Jehne, 2006,14ff.;Hölkeskamp,2006d,360f.,363andpassim,withadditionalreferences. 36 ForexamplebyJeremyPatersoninhisreviewofYakobson,1999,inJRS92,2002, 229f.,whosimplydismissesallcriticsofMillarasrepresentativesoftheoldorthodoxy. 37 Millar,1998,ix.

11 11 shapeof votingintheassemblies, thegeneral importanceoftheassembliesthemselves, and,lastbutnotleast, thecloselyconnectedthemeof thecompositionandrôleoftheroman élite. Thisconcept,itscomplex meaning(s)andapplicabilityarenotdiscussed,butcrudelydenouncedas amisleadingcharacterizationofasomewhatfluidbody,ratherthanthe rigid aristocracy controlling political events that is imagined in traditionalworks whichare(unsurprisingly)notevenmentioned,letalone takenseriouslyandexaminedindetail. 38 Millarhimself,whowantedto provide nothing but a one-sided contribution to a future and (in his view) moresatisfactory comprehensive analysisofthelaterepublicas apoliticalsystem, cannotreallybecontentwithsuchadevelopment. 39 Secondly,thesedifferentviews,theirpreconceptionsandproblems,concepts and categories must be presented especially those opinions that Millarmerelyskimsoverandleavesasideasorthodox.Acarefulexaminationwillshowthatsomeoftheseauthorshadanticipatedsomeofhis central ideas, and that Millar s radical criticism of the old orthodoxy mightnothavebeenpossiblewithouttheprobingquestionsandinnovativeviewsformulatedandtestedalreadysincethe1960s.finally,iwill attempt to develop some new theoretical, methodological, and empiricalapproachestofurtherresearchonthepoliticalcultureoftheroman republic. 38 Dench,2005,105f.,whoseemstobewellawarethat thestudyofpoliticshasbeen reinventedasthestudyofpoliticalculture andthen(againunsurprisingly)declares(364 andibidemn.7)that Athenianpoliticalculture...hasbeenthesubjectofintensescholarly activity in recent years; the subject of Roman political culture has been somewhat quieter [sic!].cf.laurence,1994,62: Thisdebatehasdemonstrated[!,K.-J.H.]thatthe Romancitizenwasactivelyinvolvedinvoting,andmadeconsciousdecisionsaboutwhich candidateheshouldvoteforatelections,andwhethertovotefororagainstabillatthe meetingsofthecomitia. Cf.alsoMay,2002a,56,andPurcell,1994,645,whoseemto basethemselvesonmillar:thelattergrantsthepopulusromanus animportantpractical andtheoreticalstanding in whatcouldberegardedasaspectacularexampleofamixed constitution. In his (otherwise thoughtful and balanced) survey of Millar s work, Guy Rogers(2002,xiv) obviously acceptingthatpolybiuswasright andmodernscholars were wrong emphasizes Millar s restoration of the citizen body to its rightful place withintheconstitutionalstructureoftherespublica (!,K.-J.H.).Cf.PaulLewis,inthe NewYorkTimes,July24, Millar,1998,ix,4.Cf.theimportantnewbookbyBleckmann,2002:hisaccuracyand diligenceforcetheauthorhimselftoconcede(thoughsomewhatunwillingly)thatitseems tobeimpossibletoignorethecurrentdebate(227ff.and11ff.).