Fear, Anger, and Hatred in Livy’s Account of the Struggle of the Orders DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Henry S. Blume Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2017 Dissertation Committee: William Batstone, Advisor Dana Munteanu Nathan S. Rosenstein Copyrighted by Henry Storm Blume 2017 ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the way in which emotions affect the course of Roman politics in the first six books of Livy’s account of the history of Rome. The expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus, the last king of Rome, and the transition to the Republic fundamentally transformed the relationship between the two orders of Rome, the patricians and the plebeians. For the first time, the two orders existed without a ruler and mediator; in other words, the shape of the Republic compelled two different societal classes, whose interests often did not align, to work together for the common safety and prosperity of the city and its citizens. In the years that followed the death of Tarquinius Superbus, the two orders engaged in a struggle over libertas, “freedom,” and dignitas, “prestige,” with the plebeians striving to gain a greater amount of freedom and the patricians endeavoring to preserve their privlige. Historiographical analyses of the books of Livy that cover the so-called Struggle of the Orders (494 B.C. to 367 B.C.) primarily focus on exemplarity, the character of particular individuals, or abstract concepts such as libertas, dignitas, virtus, etc. These forms of analysis are all valid, and, indeed, find support in Livy’s own directives for reading his history. However, these analyses often have the effect of making Livy’s account of the Struggle of the Orders come across as lifeless, but neither politics nor Livy’s account of it in the early Republic is so. Understanding the role of emotion during this period allows us to make sense of both ii another layer of causation in the text and various mechanisms of social control, both effective and ineffective. This dissertation, then, seeks to think through how fear, anger, and hatred, affect, and were used to affect domestic politics in the first six books of Livy. iii Dedicated to Katie and Winnie-Dog Carissimis iv I would never have been able to begin this project had it not been for a number of the professors in Cornell classics department, to whom I owe a debt to for teaching me languages, fostering an interest in scholarship, and directing me, in one way or another to graduate studies. At OSU, I am particularly indebted to Sarah Iles Johnston for showing me the ropes, so to speak, and above all for teaching me that carefulness and methodology are indispensable tools to a scholar; to Fritz Graf for his comments and advice on whatever legal or religious question jumped into my head; to Benjamin Acosta- Hughes for encouragement and friendship that has never diminished these past six years; his ability to transfer on excitement has made reading even the most arcane something of a joy. I am also deeply indebted to Nate Rosenstein and Dana Munteanu for their insightful comments on this dissertation and their advice on history and emotion. I also owe a personal debt to those without whose love and friendship this dissertation and all else these past six years would not have been possible: to my wife, Katie, for her love and companionship; to my family, Virginia, John, Drucy and Casey, for their love, advice and biting wit; to Cornelii and Ferrers for their love and friendship come hell or high-water; to my comitatus, especially Marion, Mike, Alice, Brandon, Hakala, Aaron, and Lars; to everyone at Paper City, for their willingness to allow me to leave books scattered everywhere; to Watson. My chief debt is to Will Batstone, my friend, mentor and advisor (usually in that order) without whom this would not have been possible. He has always been eager to listen and offer advice on items big and small. To put it in Roman aristocratic terms, his mentorship and advice has been nothing short of primus, summus, optimus, maximus. v VITA May 2007 .......................................................Richland Northeast High School 2011................................................................B.A. Classics, Cornell University 2011 to present ...............................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Classics, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS “The Furniture of the Gods: The Problem with the Importation of ‘Empty Space and Material Aniconism’ into Greek Religion,” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte, 17.1 (2016) 55-68. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Greek and Latin vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Decication .......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................v Vita ..................................................................................................................................... vi Introduction: The Basic Emotions in Roman Literature ......................................................1 Chapter 1: The Origin of Fear and Hatred of Regnum ......................................................21 Chapter 2: Accusations of Regnum ...................................................................................76 Chapter 3: Metus Hostilis and the Inevitability of Plebeian Progress .............................131 Chapter 4: Personal Hatred and its Political Ramifications .............................................192 Conclusion: Developmental Consequences and Counterproductivity .............................261 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................275 i INTRODUCTION: THE BASIC EMOTIONS IN ROMAN LITERATURE Al Smith once remarked that “the only cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy.” Our analysis suggests that applying that cure at the present time could well be adding fuel to the flames. Instead, some of the problems of governance in the United States today stem from an excess in democracy – an “excess of democracy” in much the same sense in which David Donald used the term to refer to the consequences of the Jacksonian revolution which helped to precipitate the Civil War. Needed, instead, is a greater degree of moderation in democracy. -The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission. Michael Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, Joji Watanuki NYU Press. 1975 A great fear had come upon the senators because already the tribunes were looking just like the decemvirs, when Marcus Duilius, a tribune of the plebs, imposed a healthy restraint on their excessive power. “Our liberty and the punishment of the enemy have gone far enough,” he cried. Ingens metus incesserat patres, voltusque iam iidem tribunorum erant qui decemvirorum fuerant, cum M. Duillius tribunus plebis, inhibito salubriter modo nimiae potestati, 'et libertatis' inquit, 'nostrae et poenarum ex inimicis satis est -Liv. 3.59.11 The possibility of an “excess of democracy” in the United States is an outlandish concept in many respects. The United States constitution is written in such a way as to limit the 1 Shortly before this passage Livy has made a similar remark, “though no one objected, there were great misgivings as Appius was thrown into prison, since the plebs saw that in punishing such an important man, their liberty was already becoming excessive,” ut haud quoquam improbante, sic magno motu animorum, cum tanti viri supplicio suamet plebi iam nimia libertas videretur (Liv. 3.57.6). Translations for books one to five are from warrior. Six and other authors are my own unless otherwise noted. Warrior’s translation is well-done; she has a readable and accurate manner of translation which closely reflects the Latin and is well tuned to the nuance of certain political words. She also differentiates appropriately when the same words are used in different contexts. I have not found a translation for book six that well enough reflects the Latin and the appropriate political nuances, and thus have translated those passages myself. Translations of other authors are also my own unless otherwise specified. 1 power of the popular element. Furthermore, when Samuel Huntington wrote of the dangers of an “excess of democracy” in the late 1960s and early 1970s neoliberalism was beginning to come into its own. Neoliberalism would, over the course of the 1970s and following decades, even further restrict popular power in America and in the West more broadly. Popular participation, however, has a way of continually cropping up as it is often driven by emotions to which we are all susceptible. The fear of the members of the Trilateral Commission, many of whom later went on to serve in the Carter administration, was that the interest and action in politics typical of the late 1960s and early 1970s would ultimately damage the United States global hegemony by rejecting the necessities of realpolitik.2 The “moderation in democracy” that Samuel Huntington desired was that the people become less interested and active in politics. In effect, he thought the American people needed to be less passionate