TALKING POLITICS: CONSTRUCTING THE RES PUBLICA AFTER CAESAR'S ASSASSINATION Hannah J. Swithinbank A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2010 Full metadata for this item is available in Research@StAndrews:FullText at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/910 This item is protected by original copyright This item is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence Talking Politics Constructing the res publica after Caesar’s assassination Hannah J. Swithinbank Ph.D. December 2009 Abstract The nature of the Republican constitution has been much contested by scholars studying the history of the Roman Republic. In considering the problems of the late Republic, the nature of the constitution is an important question, for if we do not understand what the constitution was, how can we explain Rome’s transition from ‘Republic’ to ‘Empire’? Such a question is particularly pertinent when looking at events at Rome following the assassination of Caesar, as we try to understand why it was that the Republic, as we understand it as a polity without a sole ruler, was not restored. This thesis examines the Roman understanding of the constitution in the aftermath of Caesar’s death and argues that for the Romans the constitution was a contested entity, its proper nature debated and fought over, and that this contest led to conflict on the political stage, becoming a key factor in the failure to restore the Republic and the establishment of the Second Triumvirate. The thesis proposes a new methodology for the examination of the constitution, employing modern critical theories of discourse and the formation of knowledge to establish and analyse the Roman constitution as a discursive entity: interpreted, contested and established through discourse. I argue that the Roman knowledge of the proper nature of the constitution of the res publica had fractured by the time of Caesar’s death and that this fracturing led to multiple understandings of the constitution. In this thesis I describe the state of Rome in 44-43 B.C. to reveal these multiple understandings of the constitution, and undertake an analysis of the discourse of Cicero and Sallust after 44 B.C. in order to describe the way in which different understandings of the constitution were formulated and expressed. Through this examination this thesis shows that the expression and interrelation of these multiple understandings in Roman political discourse made arrival at a unified agreement on a common course of action all but impossible and that this combined with the volatile atmosphere at Rome after Caesar’s death played a major role in Rome’s slide towards civil war and the eventual establishment of a different political system. ii | P a g e Declarations I, Hannah Swithinbank, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 80,000 words in length, has been written by me, that it is the record of work carried out by me and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. Date........................... signature of candidate................................................................ I was admitted as a research student in September 2006 and as a candidate for the degree of Ph.D. in September 2007; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St Andrews between 2006 and 2009. Date........................... signature of candidate................................................................ I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of Ph.D. in the University of St Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree. Date........................... signature of supervisor................................................................ In submitting this thesis to the University of St Andrews I understand that we are giving permission for it to be made available for use in accordance with the regulations of the University Library for the time being in force, subject to any copyright vested in the work not being affected thereby. We also understand that the title and the abstract will be published, and that a copy of the work may be made and supplied to any bona fide library or research worker, that my thesis will be electronically accessible for personal or research use unless exempt by award of an embargo as requested below, and that the library has the right to migrate my thesis into new electronic forms as required to ensure continued access to the thesis. We have obtained any third-party copyright permissions that may be required in order to allow such access and migration, or have requested the appropriate embargo below. Date........................... signature of candidate................................................................ iii | P a g e In submitting this thesis to the University of St Andrews I wish access to it to be subject to the following conditions: for a period of 5 years from the date of submission, the electronic version of this thesis shall be withheld from use (with no restriction on the hard bound copy). I understand, however, that the title and abstract of the thesis will be published during this period of restricted access; and that after the expiry of this period the thesis will be made available for use in accordance with the regulations of the University Library for the time being in force, subject to any copyright in the work not being affected thereby, and a copy of the work may be made and supplied to any bona fide library or research worker, that my thesis will be electronically accessible for personal or research use, and that the library has the right to migrate my thesis into new electronic forms as required to ensure continued access to the thesis. Date........................... signature of candidate................................................................ signature of supervisor............................................................... iv | P a g e Acknowledgements I owe a great deal more than gratitude to the many people who have supported my progress. My first thanks are due to the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the University of St Andrews’ School of Classics, the Thomas Wiedemann Fund and the Classical Association for their financial support and to St Andrews’ School of Classics for their administrative support, without which this project could not have been carried out. Secondly to my supervisor, Jill Harries, who has been a font of wisdom and support, my heartfelt thanks. I owe much to her ability to encourage her students to follow their odder ideas whilst still keeping them on the right track, and to her understanding of when they need to be pushed and when they should be sent home to put their feet up. I am also indebted to Christopher Smith for his years of support, and to Jason König for encouraging me to read Foucault in the first place. The School of Classics has been my second home over the past four years. It has been a pleasure to be a part of such a convivial postgraduate community; my thanks to Alexandra Albury, Jeremy Armstrong, Adam Bunni, Ralph Covino, Victoria Crook, Carmen Cvetkovic, Katie East, Susanne Gatzemeier, Joe Howley, Sarah Jordan, Trevor Mahy, Gwynaeth McIntyre, Jamie McIntyre, Daniel Mintz, Sam Moss, Andrew Neill, Mark Philippo, Julietta Steinhauer, Estelle Strazdins, Amos van Die, Allison Weir, Paula Whiscombe, Evan Williamson, Katie Wilson, and Laurie Wilson for making it so. I would also like to thank the staff in Classics their part in making the School such a supportive and vibrant environment in which to work, particularly Ralph Anderson, Emma Buckley, Jon Coulston, Adrian Gratwick, Alisdair Gibson, Emily Greenwood, Stephen Halliwell, Jon Hesk, Harry Hine, Dan Hogg, Sian Lewis, Alex Long, Rebecca Sweetman and Greg Woolf. Beyond the School I am grateful for the stimulating conversation and wide range of ideas provided by Michael Bentley and Anthony F. Lang, and by the members of Theoria, notably Sarah Dillon, Bettina Bildhauer, Christina Chandler Andrews, James A. Andrews, Ben Davies and James Stedman. I would also like to express my gratitude to Henriette van der Blom, Alison Rosenblitt, Malcolm Schofield and Kathryn Walsh for their ideas about my work, and to my examiners, Roger Rees and Jonathan Prag. Gratitude, affection, and a lifetime supply of cookies must go to my wonderful friends who have helped to keep me, if not exactly sane at least tolerably well balanced: Jessica Armstrong, Daniel Bigler, Naomi Brown, Fiona Byrne, Jenni Caldwell, Eleanor Carleton, James Davies, Katherine Davis, Emma Dollard, Krisz Echegoyan, Lisa Evans, Katherine Fletcher, Caroline v | P a g e Friggens, Danielle Gera, Laurence Goodwin, Melanie Hartley, Andy J, Robert Lamont, Zoe Lee, Tom Leppard, Naomi and Malcolm McCloud, Claire Newdick, Fiona Raffell, Hannah Stewart, George Swithinbank, Elizabeth Thomas, Pauline Tucknott, and Stacy Whitmore. Finally, to my second families at Eden Fellowship and Hayle Methodist, and to my parents, for all their love and support, no thanks can ever be enough. vi | P a g e Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................