Spaces of Roman Constitutionalism 26-28 September 2019

Law, Governance and Space: Questioning the Foundations of the Republican Tradition (SpaceLaw)

University of Helsinki Tieteiden talo (House of Science and Letters) Kirkkokatu 6, 00170 Helsinki

Márlio Aguiar (University of São Paulo): Iurisdictio, dicere and ius dicentis in Roman legal tradition between the Republic and the The word iurisdictio can be described as a basic historical concept (Geschichtliche Grundbegriff) in Roman legal and political history. It is at the same time a semantic unit that aims to explain a social phenomenon as a cognoscitive scientia or ars, and a normative concept which aims to act in social reality, concerned with the exercise of ius dicere to order the society. With the transformation and growth from the Republic to the Empire, not only the ius ciuile was marked with many changes, but 1 also the ius publicum (concerning the , the princeps, the magistrates and the Roman officials) – and the iurisdictio was related with both private and public dimensions. After the lex Aebucia and the lex Plaetoria, from the mid and Late Republic until the Severan age, the Romans effectively used this concept within their own legal and cultural tradition of continuous modification of past concepts. The Romans later forged the nominalized form of the word that expressed the characteristics, symbols and acts of the “ius dicere”: , , the princeps, prases provinciarum, praefecti (and many of their legati) were all invested with some kind of iurisdictio, the ius dicentis officium (Ulp. D.2.1.1). The iurisdictio also played a large role in Roman legal history by its function in Roman civil procedure as the main function of the iudex appointed by the magistrate in the in iure stage for the trial in the stage apud iudicem. The iurisdictio is linked since its origins with the administration of Justice, simultaneously with the procedural-institutional aspects (the Courts, the quaestiones etc.) and substantial aspects of the ius edicendi. The iurisdictio was also connected with key-terms of the Roman public realm and its political culture, specially , potestas and . The relevance (and the tension) of such terms remained in the post-Classical and medieval understanding of iurisdictio as can be seen in the various comments on Digest 2.1.1 and D.1.21.1 in authors like Bartolus. For our purposes, the iurisdictio can be seen as the nodal point of the institutional and the legal history of ; it is an evidence of the immense laboratory of experiments of republican and imperial administrative and political practices. In brief, the iurisdictio is a way to understand how they thought their own politics, the exercise of governance and the “language” capable of expressing their legal experience.

Tuuli Ahlholm (University of Oxford): Public figures? The display of numerical state information and the values of Roman Republicanism Producing and processing numerical data was an inherent part of Roman Republican administration, in the form of census records, tax revenues, state expenses, war booties, military logistics, results, and geographical and architectural measurements. Public display and dissemination of such figures appears imperative to any political system that relies on the will of the people (cf. Cuomo, 2011). Any people that is entrusted with decision power, as was the case with the Republican populus, requires precise and objective state numbers to make informed decisions; and, they also satisfy the need for administrative accountability and transparency. Accordingly, we find that the had multiple fora to display such figures in public spaces, from the regular tabulae to both publicly and privately funded monuments. However, when we examine Republican history and what sort of numbers were recorded in monuments, we find that in different points of Republican history the public display of numerical data was heavily controlled by the elite, often also contested and subject to change. The status of public space as a of trustworthy political information was gravely compromised when many key state records could, in fact, be confined only to private spaces, and elites claimed the right to display triumphantly numbers of e.g. military campaigns in private monuments. How heavily were numbers that were allowed to enter the public sphere filtered and manipulated? What sort of numbers were carved in public monuments for all eternity, and which were only transiently available before disappearing to various public and private archives whereupon free and meaningful consultation was, as a rule, impossible? The current paper 1) reconstructs where, what kind of, and by whose agency numerical information relating to state matters was exhibited publicly in ; 2) how public space was 2 accordingly used to display, often only superficially, values of democratic accountability and participation; and 3) what implications these aspects had on the balance of power between the populus and the elite in this ancient state that we call a republic.

Joel Allen (City University of New ): Public Space at Nighttime in the Roman Republic On a morning in 121 BCE, dawn in the city of Rome shed light on the product of a nighttime escapade. According to (Gaius Gracchus 16.6), onto the Temple of Concordia had been painted a slogan that reproached the consul, Lucius Opimius, who had commandeered the space by means of a reconstruction. The Gracchan faction, already oppressed by Opimius since the death of their champion, by means of nocturnal graffiti now challenged his claim to “their” temple, which had tokenized popular authority for centuries (Morstein-Marx 2004). The Gracchans thus achieved a declaration: the city one saw in the light of day was not the only city. A regime of the night should loom in any imagination, whereby different populations practiced different rites and were governed by different rules, ignored at one’s peril. This paper reads this and other episodes involving public space after dark against expectations of nighttime as revealed in Roman literary sources. On the one hand, evening hours were a moment of anxiety owing to fear of the unknown, be it human or supernatural, a sentiment that is clear among writers of the late Republic (Mueller 2004, on ) and early Principate (Spaeth 2010, on , among others). Roman political thought accordingly considered the evening city a different place from that of the day. In the (VIII), the very existence of due process—the life-blood of any civil society—hinged on whether a crime were committed in darkness: during waking hours personal theft and political assemblage, no matter how contentious, had to be treated by the book; at

night, at least with thieves, it was sauve qui peut. The state of light could influence the propriety of senate meetings (Ramsey 2008). On the other hand, as James Ker has shown (2004), in certain contexts nighttime labor was ennobled, precisely, according to (10.3.22-27), because it was shielded from public review and gave the practitioner freedom to operate without shame or laughter. The nocturnal community could be seen as a productive one. Unruh (2015) reads a passage in Seneca’s Thyestes as a comment on the Domus Aurea’s encroachment onto public space, bringing with it a more gruesome form of night. As with historians of other pre- and early-modern societies (Koslofsky 2011, Baldwin 2012), the study of nighttime in Rome reveals nuances of social relations, political movements, and cultural stereotypes.

Clifford Ando (University of Chicago): The Perils of Republican Magistracy: Elite Competition in Space and Time It was a notable feature of Roman republican politics that competition among the elite for prestige and office took place to a very large degree outside of Rome. In the language of , which was echoed by Augustine and affirmed by Machiavelli, the virtue of the elite was expressed in a desire to , and the project of empire issued from a compromise whereby that desire to dominate was directed not at the masses in Rome but outwards, to enemies further and further afield. By the early second century BCE, the diversity and size of the empire triggered fundamental changes in the structures of politics and the nature of elite competition. The effects of this are visible in the politicization of controls on magistrates in two arenas, senate and assembly. These controls were often expressed in terms of geographic constraints on magisterial action, which amounted to an incipient project of mapping and territorializing empire. 3

Alberto Barrón Ruiz de la Cuesta (Universidad de Cantabria): Among priests and magistrates: towards the function of the seviri Augustales The aim of this contribution is to analyse the discussed function of the Augustality, following the precedent studies and the preserved sources of the seviratus Augustalis, which are mainly epigraphic. The uncertain rank and nature of this urban and semi-official institution, that was mainly hold by freedmen, has fostered the debate about its primary occupation and the responsibilities that it implied. While some aspects of the seviratus Augustalis are typical of a priesthood, other features can be also related with a collegiate magistracy, or even with the professional collegia. Indeed, the name of this particular organisation is parallel to those ones of many priesthoods, as some of its symbols could also be, and the numerous testimonies of Imperial Cult between its members show the strong links of the Augustality with the emperor. On the other hand, the collegial nature, the annual and/or permanent membership of the seviri Augustales (which hasn’t been completely clarified), the public acts of munificence and the official recognition by the ordo decurionum match with the characteristics of a magistracy. It has been usual to relate the seviri Augustales (including in this name the different terminological varieties like Augustales, seviri, magistri Augustales, Claudiales, etc.) with the Imperial Cult, emphasising its religious character, despite the lack of clear evidences of their participation in the ceremonies of this official worship and the ambiguity around the concrete object of the cult that they were supposed to administrate. Anyway, the epigraphic testimonies bring several proofs of the social and economic significance of the Augustality, rather than its religious involvement. Actually it can be seen a clear evolution on the researches about this topic in the last two centuries, from a

perspective focused on the seviri Augustales as imperial priesthoods to an approach centred on its social meaning and implications, even though indicating its (unclear) religious role. Following our epigraphic study of the seviratus Augustalis in Hispania and Gallia, we will test the main theories towards the function of this urban institution, trying to clarify the concrete role of this position in a paradigmatic case of how the religious and civic sphere could be combined in the Roman society and its institutions.

Guilhem Bartolotti (University Paris II Panthéon-Assas): Evergetism towards collegia in Roman imperial period: the particular case of pollicitationes As associations, collegia constituted entities which form an integral part of the city, since their activity could affect civic life. Indeed, their functioning was ad exemplum rei publicae, like a civic community, according to the formula, that F. De Visscher described as interpolated, of Gaius. The purpose of this speech is to reflect on the scope of the benefactions addressed to collegia and other associations, in particular, on the possibility of acting to enforce a pollicitatio, a promise made by a notable to a community, who committed to perform a service. This will allow making a connection between civic evergetism and infra-civic evergetism consisting in gifts to associations. To do this, two specific sources will be useful. First, the legal sources and essentially the Digest, which includes a title dedicated specifically to the issue of pollicitationes (D. 50, 12). Then the epigraphy is a tool for confrontation and confirmation of legal data by those of the acts of practice. In the absence of explicitly and contradictory evidence, and despite discordant opinions, it must be considered that the legal regulation of pollicitations intervened for the first time under , at the beginning of the second century CE. This does not mean that there was no prior legal apprehension of the phenomenon. But it had to happen irregularly and without any constant basis. It was until the 4 so-called Severian period that the imperial constitutions, and to some extent the jurisprudence, progressively specified the legal framework for promises. The analysis of this legislation reveals that the cities were granted the right to coerce recalcitrant benefactors. or res publica are thus recurring terms in legal sources. On the contrary, there is no reason to say that associations have benefited from such a mean since the case of a promise to an association is never mentioned in these same sources. Nevertheless, and Greek epigraphy provide a number of illustrations of benefactions addressed to associations, whose existence depended on an official authorisation, the ius coeundi, or right to meet. Epigraphic occurrences are dependent on circumstances and sometimes involve the mobilization of institutional actors such as the curator rei publicae. It will therefore be necessary to study how this evergetic practice which W. Eck described as “selfish” could be received because it was exclusively turned towards a corporation and only incidentally towards the city.

Jessica Bartz (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin): Multivalence of urban spaces in Rome. The transformation of spaces on behalf of temporal structures and their chronological development Public spaces did not function as static and monofunctional areas, but as dynamically changed, heterogeneously animated and multisensory experienced spaces. E.g. during the Republican period markets, speeches and , courts and assemblies, rituals, processions of different kinds, triumph festivals and gladiatorial contests took place at the Roman Forum. This led on the one hand to a heavy functional concurrence – especially in such an area with a limited usable surface –, on the other hand a lot of limited in time, daily or non-daily events required flexible constructions,

which organized and structured the urban space and supported the specific function. Depending on the quantity and quality of one specific function, the appearance of the appropriate required architecture varied from a temporal small structure over huge (semi-)ephemeral constructions to permanent monumental buildings. The paper will focus on the various usage and therefore temporal transformation of urban spaces in the city of Rome in the period between the end of the Republican period to the beginning of the Imperial period. This epoch is characterized by a shift from a use of temporary structures and architectures, such as wooden scaffoldings, theatres and amphitheatres, to permanent buildings made of stone. In this process long-time traditions, legal provisions, the ownership of areas, the responsibility of specific magistrates and the need for self-representation of the aristocrats and ruling protagonists was an important factor. The diachronic analysis of temporary architectures shows that in the course of the establishment of the empire, the multifunctional use of urban spaces was decreased: magistrates got their constant seat in permanent buildings, each function seemed to have been assigned to a specific urban space, primary wooden architectures have been built in stone. Temporary monumental architectures such as wooden theatres, which were originally built annually for the cultic events, were gradually given a permanent home, which is why the responsible magistrates, e.g. the curule aediles for the Romani, lost their possibility to represent themselves with the erection of a precious wooden building to the people of Rome. Temporary structures and architectures instead became auxiliary constructions mainly limited to the imperial house and visualising the ruling institution. Thus, the withdrawal of the various temporary use of urban spaces and permanentizing processes of structures are an expression of the changing political system during the end of the Republican period to the beginning of the Imperial period. 5

Harriet Flower (Princeton University): In domo gravissimae feminae: Space for Politics in Houses owned by Women In this paper I will look at magistrates (mainly) and how they interact with spaces owned by elite Roman women, with a focus on the second century BC. So I will be looking at a time period when woman were gaining new wealth from empire, some of which came in the form of houses in Rome. These houses might or might not be part of a dowry. Particularly, when women were widows and lived alone in houses they owned themselves, this situation creates new types of spaces that have not received much attention.

Roman M. Frolov (Universität Bremen/P.G. Demidov Yaroslavl State University): Invisible but Inviolable? The pomerium, the Sphere domi, and Pompeius as a Promagistrate in 57–52 BC In late Republican Rome, political rules were being constantly renegotiated, redefined, or even breached one way or the other. Against this background, the continuing observance of the pomerium as the invisible border that directly affected the powers of Roman officials, is almost an exception (even if the pomerium, too, did not completely avoid redefinitions and violations). This is all the more striking considering that, in the 1st century BC, powerful proconsuls repeatedly found themselves precisely in the situation where the pomerium remained, perhaps, the last obstacle that did not allow them to realize their full potential in domestic politics. In the society, where personal presence was a prerequisite of secure and stable power, this limitation was significant, even if it could be partly escaped. However contested and fluid the notion of the pomerium in itself might

have been, the principle that a privatus with imperium undermined his power by crossing this border has hardly ever been seriously questioned. Apparently, even Sulla and (probably) did not cross the pomerium until first “upgrading” their promagisterial position to that of a magistrate, confining themselves until then to the interference in the sphere domi from outside the city walls. I will look at how Pompeius dealt with the same issue in 57–52 BC. Although consul in 55 and 52, even in this period, he mostly acted pro magistratu: a curator annonae (probably 57–54) and a proconsul of the Hispaniae (after 55). As Caesar puts it, idem ad portas urbanis praesideat rebus et duas bellicosissimas provincias absens tot annos obtineat (B Civ. 1.85.8). Ad portas he stayed, but what about crossing the pomerium? The position of the curator annonae may explain how Pompeius was able to get an authorized access (although strictly limited) not just to the sphere domi but also specifically to intrapomerial spaces, while the ultimum of 52, which empowered, among others, the proconsul Pompeius, showcases both the breach and persisting relevance of the pomerium as a major invisible border in Roman politics.

Eliza Gettel (Harvard University): Koina as nesting public spheres within the This paper examines the concept of publicness or commonness in the eastern Mediterranean under the Roman empire. It accesses this concept through analysis of transformations in the structure and ideology of τὸ κοινόν in the Greek mainland between the 1st and 3rd century CE. The Greek term koinon (pl. koina) means ‘common/public thing,’ but scholars often translate the term as ‘federal state’ for the Greek world or ‘provincial council’ for the Roman world. Broadly, a koinon was a political structure that brought together several poleis in shared institutions, notably a council, and it facilitated cooperation between these poleis and their leaders. Therefore, the koinon can help us understand the public sphere, community, and notions of citizenship at an intermediary scale 6 beyond the framework of the individual polis, but beneath that of the empire. The koina of imperial Achaea are particularly fitting for examining the concept of publicness in the Greek East and for questioning the hegemony of the province in studies of imperial administration. Scholarship of ‘provincial councils’ tends to largely pass over the koina of the Greek mainland (e.g., Deininger 1965; Burrell 2004; Edelmann-Singer 2015), because these koina usually pre- existed Roman control and were more fragmented than newer koina that existed farther north and east. In fact, I have collected epigraphic and literary evidence attesting to the periodic survival of thirteen koina—including the Boeotian League, koinon of the Amphictyonians, and Panhellenion— that often overlapped each other within and beyond the single imposed province of Achaea. I will argue that the fragmented and overlapping nature of these koina is significant for understanding how local elites participated in and imagined the world they inhabited. Tracing the scales on which koina existed in the Greek mainland reveals that they expanded under the empire: progressively, koina of varying inclusiveness nested within each other. These nesting koina thus incrementally expanded the supra-civic public spheres or communities in which regional elites held political and religious positions and in which they were honored and recognized as ‘common citizens.’ Ultimately, this paper will conclude that the koinon had structural and ideological symmetries with the evolving Roman res publica, which has a similar meaning in Latin as τὸ κοινόν does in Greek. Through these symmetries, regional elites could conceptualize what we call the Roman empire as the largest, most successful mega-koinon or ‘common/public state,’ which encompassed the more local, nested koina that they administered.

Vesa Heikkinen (University of Helsinki): Pinpointing the sensus communis – public space and the meaning of ‘common sense’ The oldest meaning of the ‘common sense’ (the sensus communis, or the koine aisthēsis) denotes the Aristotelian idea of the human sense apparatus having a ‘sixth sense’, which connects intelligibly together the other senses, which by themselves merely offer stimuli which have nothing in common – auditory stimuli being impossible to reduce to visual stimuli and so on. Another meaning of the common sense, closer to the now popular meaning, is one already alluded to by Aristotle in his Rhetoric, and later adopted and developed in turn by Immanuel Kant and Hannah Arendt. This conception of sensus communis is one which denotes the shared understanding of a multitude of people. In effect, it retains the problem confronted by the oldest meaning: how to find a common ground through which to bind together a plurality of heterogeneous elements. In other words, the physiological explanation concerning the senses became useful also for theorizing the ‘political sense’ of human beings. This paper, having the quality of an ‘idea paper’, will outline some avenues through which to approach the constitution of a ‘political common sense’, by way of examples derived from the Roman Republican era.

Karl-Joachim Hölkeskamp (University of Cologne): Governing a City-State. Magistrates, Assemblies and Public Space in Republican Rome Roman Republican culture was a visual culture, that is a culture of seeing and being seen – ‘visibility’ must be taken literally. Formal procedures and other performative modes as well as media of communicative interaction had to be situated in the public spaces of a city-state ‘culture of personal physical presence’. These spaces were the ‘forums’ (both meanings of the word apply) of 7 an extraordinarily high degree of civic communication and, in the full sense of the term, direct interaction – between magistrates, senators, patrons, commanders and priests on the one hand and citizens, clients and soldiers on the other. The Forum Romanum and the , the Capitol and the Campus Martius were in turn indispensable and indeed constitutive parts of the characteristic political and sacral topography of city-statehood. Moreover, this culture was characterized by a specific imperative of immediacy, by an intensified degree of visibility, personal presence, public performance and sheer physicality that determined the whole scale of practices and patterns of behaviour. The presence and in fact the active participation of the citizen body as audience were part and parcel of all performances – the actual physical ‘co-presence’ and participation was inscribed in the syntax of civic rituals of all kinds, including ‘governing’ in the shape of formal procedures of decision-making in assemblies. The ultimate objective of all procedures and practices, rituals and ceremonies was permanent performative creation of a collective consensus about these fundamental values and convictions, and the immediacy and actual ‘visibility’ were themselves an integral part of this repertoire – and thus a fundamental prerequisite and resource of governing, namely legimitacy and acceptance.

Antonio Lopez Garcia (University of Helsinki): How was the headquarters of Praefectura Urbis during the empire? A review of written sources and archaeology The Praefectura Urbis was an essential body of the Roman administrative system from the High Empire to the Late Antiquity. The purpose of this paper is a review of written documentation and archaeological remains related to the magistracy of the of the city. I will take a tour through all the sources that mention the functioning of this body of government, the spatial needs of the

office, the functioning of the courts of justice and the management of urban policies. In recent years, several proposals about the location of the headquarters of this institution inside the urban fabric of Rome have been made. In this talk, I will discuss the different problems involved in the location of several physical spaces related to the Praefectura Urbis through the archaeological sources. Spatial reconstruction of various buildings that have been associated with high magistracy is necessary to understand the historical importance of this institution, which in some of its features can be compared to the functioning of the current municipalities.

Brendan McCarthy (Utah Valley University): Vici: The Shape of Rome’s Social Bubbles While major events in Roman public life are rooted to spaces like the circus and the Forum, most public life in Rome remained in the vici, small neighborhoods tied together by religious rituals and proximity. In order for an event to have a truly public impact, the results of it had to permeate throughout Rome’s hundreds of vici. I will examine how easy it was for news to reach the vici of Rome and thus how connected the Roman public truly were. My paper will describe vici, how they were connected to each other and the wider city of Rome and the role they played in the public life of the men and women who lived in them. I will discuss how the Roman road network and the shape of Roman social networks both affected the ways in which public business entered and exited vici ultimately concluding that Rome’s vici were an invisible but not insurmountable barrier to the participation in civic life. My argument is founded on three scholarly approaches. First, the spatial syntax of Rome. While it is impossible to recreate the streets of Rome at the end of the Republic, descriptions from Roman authors give us a sense of how easy it was to navigate the city and move from vicus to vicus. This becomes an important piece of evidence for my second approach: the shape of Roman social 8 networks. The segregation of one vicus from another was alleviated by the social connections Romans made through patronage, collegia, and other social structures. Knowing the shape of Roman networks, we can then use communications theory to create a sense of how integrated or segregated a typical vicus was from the rest of the city. I conclude that, while a vicus connected Romans within that community, vici also formed social bubbles not unlike modern social media bubbles. This formed an invisible barrier that isolated some communities from the city and made public engagement in politics and civic life more difficult.

Marsha McCoy (Southern Methodist University): A Res Publica of Letters? Spaces of Roman Constitutionalism and the Circulation of ’s Correspondence in the Late Republic While major events in Roman public life are rooted to spaces like the circus and the Forum, most public life in Rome remained in the vici, small neighborhoods tied together by religious rituals and proximity. In order for an event to have a truly public impact, the results of it had to permeate throughout Rome’s hundreds of vici. I will examine how easy it was for news to reach the vici of Rome and thus how connected the Roman public truly were. My paper will describe vici, how they were connected to each other and the wider city of Rome and the role they played in the public life of the men and women who lived in them. I will discuss how the Roman road network and the shape of Roman social networks both affected the ways in which public business entered and exited vici ultimately concluding that Rome’s vici were an invisible but not insurmountable barrier to the participation in civic life. My argument is founded on three scholarly approaches. First, the spatial syntax of Rome. While it is impossible to recreate the streets of Rome at the end of the Republic, descriptions from Roman

authors give us a sense of how easy it was to navigate the city and move from vicus to vicus. This becomes an important piece of evidence for my second approach: the shape of Roman social networks. The segregation of one vicus from another was alleviated by the social connections Romans made through patronage, collegia, and other social structures. Knowing the shape of Roman networks, we can then use communications theory to create a sense of how integrated or segregated a typical vicus was from the rest of the city. I conclude that, while a vicus connected Romans within that community, vici also formed social bubbles not unlike modern social media bubbles. This formed an invisible barrier that isolated some communities from the city and made public engagement in politics and civic life more difficult.

Josiah Osgood (Georgetown University): Terentia and the Bona Dea: Women's Space in the Roman Constitution Women have not traditionally been studied as part of the Roman constitution. Yet it is increasingly clear that they were not merely associated with the domestic sphere, and a neat division between public and private is problematic (see, e.g., Treggiari 1998; Schultz 2006; Russell 2016). This paper, taking as its point of departure the ancient accounts of Terentia’s role in the suppression of the Catilinarian conspirators (Plut. Cic. 20; Dio 37.35.3-4), argues that Roman women contributed to political debate and, moreover, actively shaped understanding of what the res publica was. I begin with analysis of Terentia’s role in presiding over the festival of the Bona Dea in 63 BCE and her intervention in the debate over what to do with the alleged conspirators. I relate her actions to those of other women at the time, including Cicero’s informer Fulvia. The episode sets up key ways of thinking about the space of women in the Roman constitution and political culture that I address throughout the paper, including the importance of women’s religious festivals, women’s social 9 networks, and women’s place in a politician’s consilium (cf. Flower 2019; Treggiari 2019). Brennan (2012) has suggested that Terentia’s generation of women was unusually active in Roman politics. I argue that the phenomenon he detects had earlier roots, looking at ’ remarks on Roman women as well Caecilia Metella’s role in sheltering Sextus Roscius at her house in the aftermath of the Sullan proscriptions. In addition, Metella’s house functions in Cicero’s defense of Roscius as a refuge from a violent breakdown in political culture. Women’s use of their own, as well as their husbands’, houses for friendly visits and meetings deserves emphasis. Furthermore, women did make use of non-domestic spaces, especially the Forum, theaters, sanctuaries, and shrines, participating in rituals, trials, funerals, and protests. There are real continuities here between the so-called late Republic and the and principate, as I will show by briefly looking at a couple of examples (Scribonia, Octavia, Aemilia Lepida). In the emerging principate, and its literature, women were highly visible as champions of the res publica (Welch 2012, Osgood 2014). They defended not just their own interests and families but related these to the community’s wellbeing. Only by understanding women’s physical presence in Rome and their symbolic space in the constitution can we fully understand the evolution of Roman politics.

Ben Salisbury (University of Birmingham): Defining a Public Sphere at Rome in the Late Roman Republic The term „Ӧffentlichkeit“ (Public Sphere) was first conceived by Habermas (1962) and, broadly speaking, refers to a conceptual space in which communication between members of a society

openly takes place. The public sphere thus provided a theoretical structure for the study of politics, discourse, and society itself, which could be applied across multiple disciplines. Since its conception, scholars have offered revised definitions of a ‘public sphere’, usually tailored to the nature or temporal period of their studies with each new interation of a public sphere being formed from the same methodology, focussing on the core element of the public sphere: communication. The method comprises the identification and/or imposing of certain limitations on communicative processes within a society. For example, the communicative process might be restricted by access to appropriate physical spaces for communication (Habermas 1962), or the ability of individuals to participate in public discourse due to their financial capabilities (Nugt & Kluge 1993). By applying this same methodology of determining restrictions to the potential for communication, I aim to provide a definition of a public sphere as it existed and functioned in the Late Roman Republic. I will begin by briefly establishing the primary types of restriction identified in past scholarship as having affected communication and thus public spheres; these types are: spatial, financial, and available media. Then, using the groundwork laid by Rosillo-López’s (2017) study of public opinion, I will assess the degree to which each type of restriction was present in the communicative processes at Rome in the Late Republic. To do so, I examine the physical spaces for communication at Rome (such as the Forums, barbershops, and theatres), the impact of class and wealth on a Roman citizen’s ability to travel to Rome or engage with the apparatus of public discourses (such a assemblies and contiones), and finally, the avenues of communication available in contemporary society (such as face-to-face interactions, literary correspondence, and significationes at public gatherings). Thus the purpose of this paper is to outline a reproducible framework for a “Roman Public Sphere” 10 that accurately describes the communicative processes of the Late Roman Republic and that can be used to facilitate the study of contemporary public opinion.

Samuli Simelius (University of Helsinki): Social space, archaeology and Roman urbanism Multifunctionality has been a trend word (or conclusion) during the last decades of the Roman urban studies. In particular, meeting and social spaces has been interpreted to be multifunctional. However, mapping of social places is a difficult task, because often archaeological remains rarely indicate directly locations of these type of activities. This paper will investigate how we can identify social spaces in the Roman urban context – in public or private. The current interpretation of multifunctionalism is justified against the older schematic view, where urban space was divided between areas, which had clear primary functions. This has produced an overly segregated and organized interpretation of the Roman world, where every activity and person related to this activity had its own place. This, however, is seldom how urban and social life works. Spaces have several activities and actors, and often activities spread around several locations of urban structure. The old schematic model of the Roman city space made possible to create an idealized version of Rome: a pre-modern Republic, where the public matters were managed openly in a public space, producing a certain idealized constitutional aura for its government. The Roman sources already tell us that this was not necessarily the case, how Roman political and social life functioned. Not all public activities occurred in open and transparent manner. For instance, several of administrative activities took place in the private homes of the social elite, and one could almost claim that the public venues were just locations to perform the openness and republicanism of government.

The multifunctionalism has its place in the Roman studies, but it also generates some problems. The concept of social space is a good example of this. Almost, every social space is multifunctional, and vice-versa every multifunctional space is social. This conclusion, however, is partly blurring the functioning of the Roman city space, and it does not reveal us, where the social gatherings took place – or where they were planned to take place. Consequently, there is a need to take a look pass to the multifucntionalism and seek the social space in the Roman world.

Catherine Steel (University of Glasgow): Space and the res publica in the oratory of the Republic Public speech at Rome had a set of clearly defined locations: the places where Senate met and where the people gathered, and, increasingly, the places where the quaestiones were held. These spaces made public speech possible and were in turn shaped by orators, who drew on memories of the past to appeal to a history shared with their audience which could justify present action. But the relationship between oratory and place was under constant pressure from the tensions of space and time. The lack of overlap between the who gathered to listen to speakers and the mass of Roman citizens as a whole was early established. The recording of speeches as texts expanded the chronological and geographical reach of oratory. And in the transition from Republic to Empire, the dislocation between audiences in theory and practice affected the political classes as well as citizens. As the locations of power and decision-making spread across the Mediterranean, so did the forms of communication. Oratory was transformed into quasi-oratory, reflecting the extent to which Rome was displaced as the centre of political practice. In this paper I explore the slippages in speaker, place, audience and time at the end of the Republic, with particular attention to Cicero’s speeches as constitutional spaces under pressure. 11

Darja Šterbenc Erker (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin): ' appropriation of public and private spaces The paper will discuss rituals, ceremonies, religious convictions and beliefs that surrounded Augustus’ practices of governance. It will focus both on interlinking of public and private spaces by performance of rituals as well as on merging Augustus’ public and private roles in religion. New festivals and rituals served the princeps to display and legitimate his exceptional position in the res publica. Public staging of rituals in which Augustus assumed the principal ritual role was an important means of his religious self-fashioning. Through this kind of symbolic communication, the princeps sought to influence the people of Rome and to gain their acceptance of his extraordinary political role. Augustus also presented himself as chosen by the gods, and often stressed that his decisions touching the res publica were endorsed by the gods. Furthermore, Roman citizens performed ritual gestures of honouring Augustus as the ruler of the res publica in public as well as in private spaces. By public and private performance of rituals by Augustus and on behalf of Augustus, the citizens of Rome gradually perceived him as (almost) divine ruler who governs the res publica together with the gods. I shall argue that approaching of Augustus to the sphere of the divine marked decisively the transformation from the Republic to the Principate. The paper focuses on literary representations of Augustus’ appropriation of space by his performance of rituals on behalf of the political community mainly in Ovid's Fasti and in Ovid’s exile poetry. Ovid reflects in his poetry on Augustus’ religious legitimisation of power, he represents Augustus’ appropriation of public space and time by performance of rituals and celebration of festivals. Straightforward praise of the emperor and the imperial viewpoints in certain

passages of Ovid’s poetry can be perceived – due to the poems’ allusiveness and openness to different readings – as undercut by ironic smiles in the passages which comically deflate myths on gods which are associated with Augustus himself.

Martin Sunnqvist (Lund University): Cum veritate et legum observatione? – The Oath of Judges in Ancient Rome That judges take an oath of office is a ritual that can be traced to Roman republican governance and the formulary procedure. In my contribution, I discuss the ancient origin of oaths of office for judges in Europe. Kaser wrote that judges appointed by the swore to proceed according to truth and laws. In Justinian’s Codex 3, 1, 14, the oath of ‘ancient judges’ to decide cases cum veritate et legum is mentioned. The general view is that Justinian confirmed the existence of an ancient oath. Other literature indicates that judges had to, ‘from rather early time’, swear that they were to administer their offices according to the best of their knowledge and conscience and that they should not judge according to ‘favour or envy’. Seneca the Elder wrote in his Controversiae that ‘judges about to pass sentence swore they were conceding nothing to bias [gratiae] or to entreaty [precibus]’. That there was an oath of judges in the Roman republic is confirmed by Cicero’s contemporary text. The exact wording of this oath is unclear. There is no earlier evidence for the phrase cum veritate et legum than from 530. Seneca supports the conclusion that bias and entreaty were mentioned, words that refer to the influence by the parties and the attitudes of the judge.

Kaius Tuori (University of Helsinki): How did the Romans know about administration? 12 Knowledge production and sharing between , oral tradition and expert literature As all who have ever either worked with administration or been in contact with one, there are two different normative realms: the way that things are supposed to be done and the way that they are actually done. The dilemma is, in a society such as the ancient Roman Republic, how that information is generated and disseminated. How does one know what everyone is supposed to know? The purpose of this paper is to examine the question of how in the Roman Republic knew about how the administration worked and how to achieve things through the administration? It will examine the two main alternatives, first, the existence of an oral tradition that is passed along via apprenticeship and from clerks and magistrates to another. The second alternative is that of the existence of a written set of rules or guidelines, which has been sometimes suggested by the emergence of professional literature mainly from the Late Republic onwards. Using comparative material, the paper seeks to analyze the issues and idealized images that still persist about knowledge production and dissemination.

Lewis Webb (University of Gothenburg): Qui hic mos est in publicum procurrendi? Reconsidering female presence and visibility in public and sacred spaces in Republican Rome In 195 BCE, women filled the streets of Rome to lobby for the abrogation of the lex Oppia. According to Livy, in his consequent dissuasio the consul M. Porcius Cato complained ‘qui hic mos est in publicum procurrendi?’ (Livy 34.2.9). The plebeian L. Valerius reputedly retorted ‘nunquam ante hoc tempus in publico apparuerunt? […] accipe quotiens id fecerint, et quidem semper bono publico’ (Livy 34.5.7-8). Here female presence and visibility in public spaces in

Republican Rome are contested ideas, as they are in contemporary scholarship (e.g., Culham 2004; Milnor 2005; Boatwright 2011; Trümper 2012; Russell 2016a; 2016b). For example, a Republican funerary inscription for a Claudia claims ‘domum seruauit lanam fecit’ (CIL VI 15346), and C. Sempronius Gracchus locates his mother Cornelia P.f. in the home: ‘an domum? matremne ut miseram lamentantem uideam et abiectam?’ (C. Gracchus fr. 61 ORF4). These have been invoked as evidence that Roman women were associated with and relegated to domestic spaces (e.g., Milnor 2005, 29-30; Russell 2016a, x). Moreover, one influential study suggested that non-religious female presence in the Forum Romanum during the Republic was ‘considered anomalous, perhaps even transgressive’ (Boatwright 2011, 135). Yet no lex confined women to domestic spaces, although male auctoritas or mos might have constrained them in some instances (cf. Livy 22.55.3, 6; 34.1.5). Indeed, women moved through public and sacred spaces throughout Rome during regular sacra publica and on their way to others’ houses, banquets, commercial activities, funerals, games, and more (see e.g., Culham 2004; Schultz 2006; Russell 2016b; Webb 2019). In this paper, I enter this contest on the side of Livy’s Valerius. By reconsidering a series of individual and collective public actions by women from the third century through the first centuries BCE, I will argue that women, especially senatorial women, were highly present and visible in public and sacred spaces in Republican Rome. My paper will focus on 1) the public actions of several senatorial women, including Claudia Ap.f., Sulpicia Ser.f., Quinta Claudia P.f., Tertia Aemilia L.f., Papiria C.f., the Vestal Claudia Ap.f., the Vestal Licinia C.f., Sempronia Ti.f., and Hortensia Q.f., 2) the collective public actions of married women (mourning, financial contributions, demonstrations, religious processions), and 3) the presence of daughters like Cornelia P.f. in triumphal processions. Contra Catonem, I will argue that these cases indicate it was 13 customary and often bono publico for women to appear in public in Republican Rome.

Anna-Maria Wilskman (University of Helsinki): Starting Your Career in Politics: The Places of stlitibus iudicandis Roman Republic relied on its institutes and magistracies. Together with the Senate, the annually elected officials were responsible for smooth running of the everyday life. The competition for higher offices was fierce, and laws were created to prevent the young – and perhaps politically dangerous – nobles from rising to senatorial offices too quickly. Nevertheless, it was possible – and in many cases compulsory – to hold minor civil offices before the higher senatorial ones. reports that holding an office in the Vigintivirate became a legal recruitment for entering the Senate during Augustus’ time (Cassius Dio 54, 26, 5). The officers of this collegium were in their early twenties. One of these offices of the Vigintivirate was decemviri stlitibus iudicandis. The tradition recalls that the office, or its predecessor, was founded under Servius Tullius in the sixth century BC to deal with the manumission of slaves (Dion. Hal. 4,22,4). At first, the office was a plebeian one, but gradually patricians were able to hold the office as well. The decemviri were mostly concerned with the civil rights and personal freedom of individuals. The office existed still in the 3rd century CE, even though it went through some changes. My paper deals with the visibility of these office holders. Relying on epigraphical and literary evidence, I compare material from different regions regarding the following points: how the officers continued their careers, how their municipal background affected the career (if it did), and whether different places played a role in modes of representation of the magistrate.

The nature of this presentation is ‘idea paper’, and it interconnects with the wider theme concerning the visibility of Roman minor magistrates.

Alexei Zadorojnyi (University of Liverpool/University of Helsinki): Exempla and the City: Topography of Power in A good number of exempla across Valerius Maximus’ Memorable Deeds and Sayings are meaningfully embedded in the cityscape of Republican Rome. Buildings and landmarks, which sum up the ideological lore of Romanness, play an integral role in tales ranging from the extremely famous (e.g., 5.6.2) to the less well-known ones (4.2.5, 5.4.7); for the elite, the city’s architectural fabric serves as a rich (mine)field of opportunities and constraints – saliently, political achievement can be cemented via voluntary eschewal of monumentalization in the most prestigious locations (4.1.6a). It is also apparent that the structure of Valerius’ book is spatially conscious on several levels. Alongside the tendency to frame his material through the idioms of journey, demarcation, and so on (e.g., 3.6 praef.; 6.1 praef.; 6.3.5), the narrator is committed to maintaining the partition between Roman (“domestic”) and non-Roman (“external”) stories; furthermore, it is claimed that the Roman state has achieved global dominance in terms of exemplarity too (2.7.6; 6.5.1d). Valerius’ concern with the internal spacial semantics of the Roman polity – and, again, with Rome’s imperial growth (4.1.10a; 2.8 praef.) – is hardly innovative per se, however, the overall nature of his project, which is an elaborately designed jigsaw of approximately 1000 short narratives, entails a dynamic and searching approach to the traditional scenarios and staple assumptions. Valerius invites the Roman reader to revisit what Rebecca Langlands aptly calls “sites of exemplarity”, that is, the focal points for cultural reflection and evaluative construal. And it is all-important to keep in mind that Valerius was busy repackaging the Republican exempla during 14 the reign of Tiberius. Thus, throughout Valerius’ work the interest in the senate is both symptomatic and revealing: the mentality and conduct of the Republican senatus as a collective exemplary agent receive mostly positive appraisal, yet the ethico-political fault-lines are flagged up as well (5.3.1). Notably, there are several instances when the senate or its delegates are responsible for somewhat cavalier and even outright problematic schemes in relation to land – just outside of Rome (3.7.10b), in Italy (7.3.4a), and, albeit in a more symbolic mode, in the East (6.4.3). The physical space of the Senate House exposes the structural tension of Roman democracy (2.2.7; 9.5.2) and is of course at risk from cultural contamination and violence (2.2.3; 3.8.5). Against such background, the link (2.8.7) between the “eternal glory” of Augustus and the architectural materiality of his mansion (postes Augustae domus) looks poignantly significant.