Seminari di Storia romana tenuti, Prof. Francisco Pina Polo (Università di Saragozza) Mercoledì 11 aprile 2018 POLITICAL ALLIANCES AND RIVALRIES IN CONTIONES IN THE LATE ROMAN REPUBLIC Francisco PINA POLO Universidad Zaragoza The contio was the only institutionalised venue in which a Roman orator might address the people directly. Given that these popular assemblies were the only legal way in which direct mass contact between Roman politicians and the people was officially allowed, they became an imperative tool for the self-representation of those who wished to pursue a cursus honorum, for the contio was one of the instruments available to individuals to gain popularity but also to discredit an adversary. The contio thus served as a channel for communal information (edicts were read to the people; military victories and defeats were publicly announced; funerary eulogies for the community’s most prominent men were delivered; etc.), as well as the main locus of public debate and the contact point between the senate and the people through the word of magistrates.1 However, not everybody might speak freely in a meeting. As an officially sanctioned assembly, a contio should be convened by a magistrate (though not by a promagistrate), which presided over it from the beginning until its conclusion. He decided who took the floor, the order of speakers, and even for how long they could speak. Ancient sources define this power as potestas contionandi, and never refer to a non-existent ius contionandi, that is, the supposed right of a citizen to speak in a contio, which as such never existed in Rome. Moreover, the chairman of the assembly could summon individuals chosen by him to address the audience. To describe this action, ancient sources very frequently use the expression producere in contionem. Consequently, a politician who was not a magistrate and wanted to deliver a speech to the people needed the cooperation of a magistrate willing to convene a meeting and allow him to speak. The invited orator was introduced or brought forth (productus) to the assembly and given the word (contionem dare). This paper focuses on these strategies as a means of disclosing, on the one hand, short-term or lasting political alliances and friendships within the Roman senate, and on the other hand, enmities and rivalries among politicians. It will also discuss the role of communication with the people for some politicians in the Late Republic, specifically in the period between 140 and 40 B.C. I will focus exclusively on the so-called political contiones and will leave aside legislative assemblies held during the compulsory period of three markets (trinundinum), during which the bill promoter invited orators to speak for the rogatio and it was also customary to authorise speeches against the bill. PRODUCERE IN CONTIONEM AS A MEANS OF PRESSURE On some occasions, politicians who were summoned to the orator’stribunal were placed in trouble by being confronted with embarrassing questions, which was actually the goal of those who presided over the assembly. In 138 there was a difficult social situation in Rome because of a significant increase in the price of grain. The tribune of the plebs Curiatius brought the consuls Scipio Nasica and Brutus to a contio.2 Before the people, the tribune urged the consuls to make a proposal in the senate in order for a 1 See Pina Polo 2011; 2012. On the contio see Pina Polo 1989; Hölkeskamp 1995; Pina Polo 1996; Millar 1998; Mouritsen 2001; Morstein-Marx 2004; Jehne 2006; Tan 2008; Hiebel 2009; Tiersch 2009; Yakobson 2010; Morstein-Marx 2015. 2 Val.Max. 3.7.3. Cf. Jehne 2011: 111-2. Seminari di Storia romana tenuti, Prof. Francisco Pina Polo (Università di Saragozza) Mercoledì 11 aprile 2018 quantity of grain to be purchased by the state. The purpose was ultimately to regulate the price of this basic foodstuff, thus making it available for the plebs. The audience presumably supported the initiative of the tribune, but this did not prevent the consuls from showing their opposition. When Nasica began to argue against the tribune’s proposition, the crowd interrupted him with its shouts. The consul then asked for silence and declared that he knew better than the audience what was in the interest of the community. According to Valerius Maximus, this stopped the people in their protests at once, since they accorded much more weight to the auctoritas of the orator than they did to the current grain problem.3 Some years later, Scipio Aemilianus was brought to the speaker’splatform by the tribune of the plebs Papirius Carbo.4 Aemilianus had just returned from Hispania as the great victor over the Celtiberian city of Numantia. 5 Consequently, he was at that moment the most popular politician in Rome. Carbo asked Aemilianus his opinion about the recent death of Tiberius Gracchus, who was Aemilianus’brother-in-law.6 Carbo had been deploring in assemblies the murder of Gracchus and was clearly hoping to impel Aemilianus to condemn it before the people. Nonetheless, Aemilianus dared to state that Gracchus had been killed justifiably. The audience reacted with virulent protests, to which the orator replied: “You keep quiet, you to whom Italy is a stepmother.”The crowd was immediately silenced, according to Valerius Maximus out of respect for the achievements of Aemilianus and his ancestors.7 In both examples, the ancient sources emphasise the auctoritas of orators faced with a hostile audience: in other words, their reliability and capacity to lead given the fact that they were prominent members of the Roman aristocracy. 8 Nasica and Aemilianus were successful, since they managed to impose their opinions against popular feelings with their oratory. In any case, tribunes of the plebs continued to use the same strategy when they tried to create or to demonstrate public opinion favourable to a certain law project, to an electoral candidate, or to the indictment of a politician, for instance. One of the most debated issues in the decade of seventies in the first century was the restitution of full powers to the tribunes of the plebs, after the restrictions imposed by Sulla during his dictatorship.9 In this context, several tribunes carried out campaigns in contiones advocating the restoration of the tribunicia potestas. In the year 78 the matter was debated in a popular assembly. According to Granius Licinianus, the consuls in office were presumably brought to a contio in which some tribunes asked them to pronounce about the Sullan law. The consul Lepidus replied that the restoration of full tribunician power would not be useful for the community. Apparently he convinced a 3 This was not the only clash that year between Curiatius and the consuls. They were even imprisoned for refusing certain exemptions to the recruitment (Cic. leg. 3.20; Liv. Per. 55). 4 Cic. de orat. 2.170; Mil. 8; Val.Max. 6.2.3; Vell.Pat. 2.4.4; Plut. Ti.Gr. 21.5; Liv. Per. 59. Cf. Jehne 2011: 116-117. 5 According to Valerius Maximus, Aemilianus was brought to the assembly by the tribune from almost the gates of Rome when he returned to the city from Hispania. If this was the case, Aemilianus would still have been a proconsul and would not yet have celebrated his triumph. For this reason he probably delivered his speech to the people outside Rome, perhaps in the Circus Flaminius, not from the Rostra in the Forum as stated by Valerius Maximus. See Taylor 1966: 20 n.13. 6 Astin 1960; 1967: 233-4. 7 Val.Max. 6.2.3. Carbo changed his attitude completely as a consul in year 120. When the tribune of the plebs P. Decius accused L. Opimius of having repressed Caius Gracchus’followers unjustly, Carbo argued that the killing of Gracchus had been of benefit to Rome (Cic. De or. 2.106; 2.132; Part.or. 104; Liv. Per. 61). 8 Pina Polo 2011: 288. 9 Millar 1998: 55-67. Seminari di Storia romana tenuti, Prof. Francisco Pina Polo (Università di Saragozza) Mercoledì 11 aprile 2018 large part of the audience with his arguments.10 Two years later, the tribune Sicinius brought the consuls C. Scribonius Curio and Cn. Octavius to a contio, again with the purpose of pressing them on the same subject.11 Whereas Curio spoke frankly against the restoration, Octavius remained seated in silence throughout the assembly. Neither the tribunes of the year 78 nor Sicinius achieved their aims, but they opened the way to subsequent vindications, such as those of L. Quinctius and C. Licinius Macer in 74- 73,12 which eventually resulted in success in the year 70 when Pompey during his first consulship promoted a law to return their traditional powers to the tribunes of the plebs. The question raised in the year 67 is of a different kind. M. Lollius Palicanus was running for the consulship of 66, and the consul Piso was to preside over the elections. Some tribunes of the plebs who supported Palicanus demanded the presence of the consul in a contio.13 They asked him whether he would agree to make the official proclamation (renuntiatio) of Palicanus as consul, should he be elected by the people. Piso answered that he did not think the citizens would vote for someone like Palicanus, whom Valerius Maximus describes as “a most seditious man” (seditiosissimus). However, as the tribunes insisted, Piso responded sharply that he would not proclaim Palicanus as a consul in any case. According to Valerius Maximus, by this statement Piso avoided the election of Palicanus. Of course Valerius Maximus once more praised the firm attitude of Piso before the people.