Mos, Maiores, and Historical Exempla in Roman Culture and Society

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/6/2010, SPi

Mos, maiores, and historical exempla in Roman culture and society

The Roman republic with its institutions was not founded by a written constitution but had developed over centuries. The sources consulted for proper legitimate practices—whether political, social, religious, or economic— were laws and decrees of various kinds, legal precedents, and tradition, mos. Mos was an unwritten yet central part of Roman society because, for example, many rules of the political and legal systems were based on tradition rather than laws and statutes. Similarly, mos guided social norms. In this way, mos had a normative function in the Roman republic. The ancestors were regarded as the creators of mos, and the collective actions and customs of the ancestors was termed mos maiorum. The fundamental importance of mos maiorum for the right interpretation of constitutional practices of the Roman state meant that the ancestors were revered as providers of such practices and that their actions and decisions were regarded as one of the leading principles in all aspects of life. The nature of mos maiorum meant that it was a very ﬂexible source of practices and that the actions and customs of the ancestors could always be reinterpreted. In this way, the Romans looked to the past not only for solutions but also for qualiﬁcations for present situations which suited their own particular agenda.1

1 Instances of orators referring to mos or the maiores: Val. Max. 4.1.3 (C. Marcius Rutilus Censorinus speaking); Festus 220.9; Prisc. in G.L.2, 226.16; Gell. NA. 4.3.37, 14.2.21 (M. Porcius Cato Maior); Gell. NA. 4.20.1; Macrob. Sat. 3.14.6 (P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Aemilianus); Cic. De or. 2.200 (C. Antonius, the orator); Cic. Tul. 49 (L. Quinctius); Cic. Balb. 2 (Pompey). For modern discussions of mos maiorum see Rech (1936) 8; Bleicken (1975) 354–96; Burckhardt (1988) 14; Timpe (1996) 279; Lintott (1999b) 1–8; Stemmler (2000) 167; Bettini (2000); Ho¨lkeskamp (2004a) 184–5; Flaig (2004) 83–8; Wallace-Hadrill (2008b) 213–58. Blo¨sel (2000) 76: two meanings of maiores, while Wallace-Hadrill (2008b) 218 argues for three broad uses of maiores. Walter (2004) 51 argues that historical exempla had a normative effect in practice. For the relationship between mos and ius (law) see Lintott (1999b) 1–8; Harries (2006) 68–70. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/6/2010, SPi

Mos, maiores, and exempla in Roman times 13 The reasons for the respect for the ancestors and their actions were, to a certain extent, political. Modern scholars have argued that the political and social upper class of the Roman republic, the nobility, attempted to retain their power by referring to the leading position of their ancestors. That is, the tradition justiﬁed the continued power of this group. The composition of the nobility changed over time, but the argument from ancestral actions and customs seems to have stayed the same.2 The nobility had to take the opinion and responses of the people into consideration when conducting their politics. The discussion of the nature of popular politics in Rome has, if not come to a consensus, at least emphasized and reminded us of the importance of the people as electorate and of oratory as a means of persuading the electorate.3 References to the ancestors must have worked with the electorate, given the many such references found in the extant speeches.4 This, in turn, raises the question of the ownership of these ancestors. The nobility talked of the ancestors within their own families, but also of the maiores of the past as a whole. In this way the maiores could be understood as personal ancestors of a particular family, but also as the ancestors of the whole Roman people at large.5 This double meaning of ancestors can be found in both the literary and the material sources and it provides a further dimension to the rhetorical

2 Blo¨sel (2000) 37, 46–7, 51, 67; Walter (2003) 256–8; Pina Polo (2004) 168–70; Walter (2004) 84–6; Flaig (2004) 76. Blo¨sel (2000) 48 finds the origins of mos maiorum in the struggle between patricians and plebeians. Pina Polo (2004) 164–5 argues for three phases of political use of maiores by the nobility, of which the struggle between patricians and plebeians constitute the first. For the maiores as a concept for the nobility, see Ho¨lkeskamp (2004a) 187. Beck (2003) traces this discourse of the nobility in the early Roman historiography. Cicero did not justify the position of the nobiles with reference to the maiores but he did employ the maiores in his attempt to justify the power of the Senate and the consuls: Cic. Sest. 137. For a discussion of aristocratic values see Rosenstein (2006). 3 The central issues are discussed, with varying and even contrasting conclusions, in Millar (1998) (collecting thoughts expressed in earlier articles) stressing the political power of the populus; North (1990) contra Millar emphasizes the limits on popular power; Yakobson (1999) supports Millar in his stress on popular power in the elections; Mouritsen (2001) contra Millar emphasizes the difference between formal and real political power of the populus; Morstein- Marx (2004) supports Millar in his stress on popular power, but prefers not to call it ‘demo- cratic’ but rather ‘contional’. For an overview of the debate see Jehne (2006) 14–23. The latest contribution to the debate is Wiseman (2009). 4 Cicero’s speeches abound in such references, as will be discussed throughout this study. On the difference between exempla employed in Senate speeches from those in contio speeches, see the sections ‘The flexibility of exempla: the example of the Gracchi’ and ‘The importance of genre?’ in Chapter 6. For evidence of other orators referring to historical exempla see page 2 note 2 and page 12 note 1. 5 Blo¨sel (2000) 26, 31, 53 argues that the ancestors of anybody outside the nobility did not count as maiores. Flaig (2004) 83–8 is critical of this idea and instead argues that the plebs knew and shared the norms of the nobility, including their representation of mos maiorum. See Bu¨cher (2006) 114–15 for a similar but less explicitly argued view. Wallace-Hadrill (2008b) 218 operates with three broad uses of ancestors. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/6/2010, SPi

14 Introduction device of referring to the ancestors. Would the populus identify with these maiores of the nobility or would they think of their own personal ancestors? This question is difﬁcult to answer because we lack sources from the lower strata of Roman society. Given the power and appeal of the concept of mos maiorum, the people, too, must have identiﬁed, at least partly, with the maiores as ancestors for themselves.6 Besides the political background of this concept, cultural implications can be found as well. Early Roman historians such as Fabius Pictor and Cato Maior referred to the virtues of the ancestors in order to explain and justify Roman supremacy in the Mediterranean world. They argued that the gods had willed the imperial power to the Romans because of the high moral standards of the maiores. In this way, Roman supremacy was legitimized and, at the same time, a Roman identity as an imperial power was created. This identity included not only a self-understanding, but also a responsibility for all Romans to live up to the ancestors, thereby keeping the gods on their side and the empire safe.7 This sense of responsibility was one of the driving forces behind the normative power of mos maiorum. A sense of responsibility was certainly felt within the nobility, perhaps mostly as a responsibility to live up to ancestors within the family.8 Implicit in this responsibility lay an expectation of imitation of ancestral actions. Since the ancestors had been favoured by the gods, an imitation of the ancestors and their actions would secure the continuation of this favour. This expectation led to a moralizing character of the accounts of the ancestral actions and customs. It was made clear to the audience what was good and what was bad behaviour to enable them to use these accounts as yardsticks for their own behaviour. This moralizing element meant that history became a series of good and bad res gestae, that is, actions of the ancestors, rather than impersonal events. History had a practical purpose of providing lessons for the present, and historians therefore focused on individuals rather than on abstract concepts or qualities and connections.9 These concrete actions of the ancestors, these res

6 Flaig (2004) 76–7 argues that the references to the maiores and speciﬁc historical exempla supported the consensus-driven Roman politics: consensus between single nobiles and the Senate and consensus between the Senate and the people. 7 For the shaping of a Roman imperial identity through maiores and the role of early Roman historians in this formation, see Lind (1972); Bleicken (1981) 247–9; Stemmler (2000) 166, 192; Pina Polo (2004) 165–6; Ho¨lkeskamp (2004a) 177. 8 Cic. Planc. 51 (M. Juventius Laterensis); Cic. Brut. 281–2 (P. Licinius Crassus, son of M. Cras- sus); Cic. Brut. 331 (M. Junius Brutus); Cic. Rab. Post. 2 (Scipios, P.Decius); Cic. Flac. 25 (Flaccus). Lind (1979) 52; Hofmann-Lo¨bl (1996) 1; Blo¨sel (2000) 40, 46; Ho¨lkeskamp (2004a) 187. 9 See Cic. Arch. 14; Polyb. 1.1, 3.31 for the past providing moral lessons for the present. Cape (1997) 212–16; Ho¨lkeskamp (2004a) 177, 180. For an excellent, yet theoretical, study of historical exempla in Roman society see Stemmler (2000). Beck (2003) 87–92 places more emphasis on the collective element than the individual actions in early Roman historiography. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/6/2010, SPi

Mos, maiores, and exempla in Roman times 15 gestae, were turned into moralizing historical exempla, illustrating not only the quality of a particular action but also its position within mos maiorum in that each exemplum could be placed on a scale from good to bad.10 Furthermore, with this moralizing element, the genre of history became a further means by which the concept of mos maiorum and the political power of the nobility could be projected to the Roman people at large. As such, historical exempla provide the crucial link between the ancestors, the concept mos maiorum, the genre of history, and the political use (and abuse) of these. Cicero argued that besides historians, orators and antiquarians were fulﬁlling the important task of re- minding the Romans of their past and their identity.11 Alongside moralizing historical exempla, precedents in legal questions and cases were also sought in the past. The Romans termed both kinds of references to the past exempla, but this study will distinguish between historical exempla with moral implications and legal precedents, which refer to rhetorical argument in legal mode and verdicts in forensic contexts.12 Both historical exempla and legal precedents, however, derived from the actions and decisions of the ancestors, and therefore from mos maiorum. But while such references to ancestral custom carried weight, they were not incontestable. Each exemplum could often be interpreted in a variety of ways, depending on viewpoint and focus, and contrasting exempla could be dug out to claim the opposite. Historical exempla could be expressed in a variety of ways and could also be found in a range of literary genres such as poetry, drama, and prose. The monuments and buildings surrounding the Romans in the cities, with or without explanatory inscriptions, would also remind them of the exemplary actions of the past, as would the coins in their purses and pockets. These physical representations would, in turn, become a backdrop against which orators would argue their case with references to the past. Moreover, this setting would become a crucial stage-set for rituals such as funeral processions and triumphs promoting the deceased or the triumphator as a model for imitation. The circle would close when these rituals and their central character became the focal point in the historical

Of course, Roman cultural thought was rife with abstract concepts of virtues such as virtus, gravitas, honos, fides, dignitas, pietas, etc., but in Roman history these concepts were mostly exemplified in concrete historical figures. For an overview of the Roman cult of virtues and the modern literature on the subject see Fears (1981). Clark (2007a) discusses the place and meaning of divine qualities (e.g. concordia, fortuna, fides, libertas, pietas, honos, and virtus)in Roman republican culture. 10 Walter (2004) 55 with note 63 argues that the exempla Romana formed the most valuable and eye-catching part of mos maiorum. 11 Cic. De or. 2.36; Acad. post. 9. 12 See the brief discussion in Chapter 5. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/6/2010, SPi

16 Introduction narratives.13 While these physical and literary expressions of exempla are not the focus of the present study, it is nevertheless important to remember that Cicero’s use of exempla in speeches, letters, and treatises formed part of a much larger body of exempla which were exploited in many different ways: visualy, orally, and textually. Scholars have argued that the writing down of history tended to fix the historical exempla into one interpretation,14 and there is certainly an element of locking the interpretation of a certain individual or action. On the other hand, the evidence from Cicero suggests that historical exempla were flexible and could be formed to fit with a particular argument when needed.15 This view is supported by Braun, who has argued that the interpretation of mos maiorum (and the historical exempla of which it consists) by the Romans themselves was dynamic and only seemingly fixed. Indeed, as Braun argues, the purpose of an imaginary stability of mos maiorum was to form a Roman identity and social coherence which, in turn, led to a more factual stability in institutions.16 The term ‘cultural memory’ (‘kulturelle Geda¨chtnis’) has been employed to discuss the flexible and (seemingly) fixed interpretations of historical figures and their actions. This term was coined by A. and J. Assmann as a development of the terms ‘collective memory’ and ‘social memory’ introduced in the first half of the twentieth century by the sociologist M. Halbwachs and the art historian A. Warburg, respectively.17 J. Assmann defines cultural memory as

13 The various expressions of historical exempla speciﬁc to particular families and the political implications of public references to exempla within a family will be discussed in the section ‘Family exempla’ in Chapter 6. For good overviews of the many expressions of history in Rome—visual, oral, and textual—see Flower (1996) on imagines in particular; Walters (1996) on the temporal understanding in Rome and its importance for historiography and political culture; Gruen (1996) on visual expressions of memorable deeds as part of upper-class adver- tisement; Meadows & Williams (2001) on ancestral commemoration in Roman republican coinage; Ho¨lscher (2001) on political monuments and public memory in republican Rome; Walter (2004) on all expressions of memoria; Flaig (2004) on the rituals with reference to history and importance for politics; Flower (2004) and Bell (2004) on spectacles as vehicles for commemoration; Morstein-Marx (2004) 77–107 on the interplay between orator and the commemorative aspects of the physical space in which he spoke; Ho¨lkeskamp (2004a) collects important articles on republican, political culture, including exempla, maiores, and the spaces in which they were invoked; Bu¨cher (2006) on historical exempla in general and Cicero’s use of these in selected speeches. Many scholars have discussed the importance of the funeral proces- sion (pompa funebris), often spurred by the account of Polybius 6.53–4, esp. Flaig (1995); Flower (1996) 91–127; Timpe (1996) 279–81; Blo¨sel (2000) 37–46; Ho¨lkeskamp (2004a) 188–90. 14 Fuhrmann (1987) 138; Timpe (1996) 295 (speaking of memory rather than historical exempla); Pina Polo (2004) 158. 15 Cicero’s contrasting representations of the Gracchi in Senate and contio speeches is a well- known example, which will be discussed alongside other examples in the section ‘The ﬂexibility of exempla: the example of the Gracchi’ in Chapter 6. 16 Braun (2002). 17 Halbwachs (1950/1985); Assmann (1992) 34–48 on Halbwachs’ theory; Assmann (2000) 114–17 on the similarities and differences between the concepts of Halbwachs and Warburg. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/6/2010, SPi

Mos, maiores, and exempla in Roman times 17 the knowledge and identity of a group of people which regards itself as a unity. It is constantly renewed in view of the present, and it is characterized by both a formative, or didactic, element and a normative element. It works in two modes: a mode of potentiality as an archive of texts, images, and behavioural patterns; and a mode of actuality as it is relevant for the present.18 In this way, cultural memory is the collected cultural knowledge and identity of a well- defined group. As such, it is a construction of the past serving to form and renew the identity of the group. Roman historians have tried to apply this term and concept to the Roman people and to the Roman nobility as a sub-group. The maiores, mos maiorum, and historical exempla have been discussed as part of this cultural memory of the Roman nobility and of the Roman people at large.19 Expressions and re- enactments of this cultural memory were the historical narratives, the material culture, the public performances referring to past events, and the rituals promoting certain individuals, indeed all the ways of expressing historical exemplarity mentioned above. In this sense, cultural memory can be understood as serving to create and renew an identity of the Roman nobility and, to a certain extent, the Roman people at large. In a cyclical process, the creation and development of historical narratives, material culture, public performances referring to the past, the rituals promoting specific individuals and, indeed, historical exempla all help to recreate and renew the cultural memory of the Roman society. Cultural memory is thus a useful term when discussing the importance of the maiores in Roman culture and society, and for understanding the impact of historical exempla in general. For this study of Cicero’s choice and employment of historical exempla, the discussion of a cultural memory of the Roman nobility and the Roman people provides a convenient background against which to discuss, for example, Cicero’s expectations of historical knowledge in his audience and the ways in which he tailored his rhetorical strategy to suit this knowledge; Cicero’s understanding of the identity of the Roman nobility and his manoeuvrings around it; and finally, Cicero’s balancing act between the various interpretations of the maiores.

18 Assmann (1988) 12–16; Assmann (1992) 19–21. For a short overview of the development of these terms see Oexle (1995) 10–33. 19 For a conscious attempt to apply this term to the Roman society, see Ho¨lkeskamp (1996) ¼ Ho¨lkeskamp (2004a) 169–98. Pina Polo (2004) applies this term throughout his analysis of Roman historiography and identity. Bettini (2000) 336–7 traces the relation between cultural memory and mos maiorum. Bu¨cher (2006) 109 understands this idea of cultural memory as a fundamental premise for his study. Other attempts at applying this term to a Roman setting: Blo¨sel (2000); Stemmler (2000); Coudry & Spa¨th (2001). For an overview see Ho¨lkeskamp (2006).