Gods, generals and glory

(1)

(2)

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen July 2013

Name: Fabian F. Verkerke Studentnumber: 1779524

Studies: ResearchMaster Classical, Medieval and Renaissance Studies Thesis supervisor: Prof. dr. O.M. van Nijf (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen) Second supervisor: Prof. R. Alston (Royal Holloway University of London)

(3)

Introduction

As word reached the Roman people of the arrival of two messengers, a tremor went through the crowd that had gathered in the Forum Romanum. It had been a couple of days since consul Marcus Livius Salinator set out to join his colleague Gaius Claudius Nero to face the threat of the Carthaginian general Hasdrubal. With Hannibal still roaming the lands of Italy, these were already anxious times for the Roman people. The news that another Carthaginian general was marching their way made the situation even worse. The senators gathered daily from sunrise to sunset in order to respond as quickly as possible to any reports. The women prayed to the gods incessantly. Yet now there were two messengers in the forum, making their way to the Senate house. The people flocked together, making it impossible for the envoys to reach their destination. Aided by magistrates they finally entered the Senate house and reported that the enemy had suffered a crushing defeat. The joyous news was immediately reported to the crowd, leaving some people overjoyed, others withholding their belief until the official dispatches from

the consuls arrived.1

When the official messengers arrived, they too struggled to make their way to the Senate house. They handed over the official report by the consuls, describing the glorious victory they had achieved over Hasdrubal. The same reports were read to the people, who were eager to have the previous news confirmed. This news was shortly followed by a decree of the Senate, announcing that three days of gratulatory supplications were to be held in honour of the victory of the consuls. All the temples were opened to allow the people to pray to the gods and present them with offerings as a way of thanking them for their part in the victory over Hasdrubal. Men were joined by their women and children, dressed in their finest clothes. For three days, the same large crowd visited temple after temple. Although the war with Hannibal was not over, a great

amount of fear had been lifted.2

The supplicatio of Salinator and Nero is one of the many mentioned by Livy and one of the most extensively described. This episode gives a nice impression of what happened during the ritual. But what was it that this ritual actually did? What was its function within the res

publica? While reading this and similar accounts of the supplicatio as it was held during the

1

A paraphrase of Liv. 27.50.2-11.

2

(5)

republican period, a number of questions come to the fore.3 Was there a typical supplicatio or did they differ? How was it different from other similar rituals? What did it mean for the different groups in society to take part in it? What did they get out of it? Futhermore, we see that the Senate decided whether this ritual was held or not. When did they decide to decree a supplicatio and when did they refrain from it? Why did the Senate control the ritual? What would happen if it did not? How could they use this power and did they do so? And what about the generals? Where the people honouring them as well as the gods? What did this ritual mean for them? What was their influence on the ritual?

The supplicatio obviously raises a lot of questions. Yet despite a recent focus on the role

of rituals in Roman republican politics, the supplicatio is studied remarkably little.4 It is

mentioned every now and then in studies on different rituals, such as the triumph, but scarcely studied as a topic with its own merit. When scholars do stumble upon the supplicatio, they usually simply refer to Leon Halkin’s study ‘La supplication d’actions de grâces chez les

romains’, published in 1953.5 Although it still is the most complete work on this particular form of supplicationes, Halkin merely gathers the known supplicationes and reconstructs the process of requesting and celebrating a supplicatio. Although he answers some of the questions raised above by doing this, he mostly leaves us wondering how this ritual functioned within the res

publica; what it actually did. The scholars that do address the supplicatio themselves rather than

referring to Halkin, generally do not dedicate more than a few pages to the subject and mainly

regard the ritual as a mere preliminary for the triumph.6 This seemingly obvious conclusion is in

my opinion imprecise, as will become clear in due course. We are therefore left with no satisfactory treatment of the broader function of the supplicatio within society. This thesis will try to fill in the gap that is left by modern scholarship by treating the supplicatio as a ritual that stands on its own. I will argue that it was a means that allowed the Senate to deal with two issues it was permanently faced with: defining and justifying the prominent place of the political elite in society on the one hand and both feeding and controlling the competition between its members on the other. The supplicatio did more than is made of it so far. Treating this at first sight

3

As the focus in this study is on republican Rome, all dates are B.C., apart from the years of publication of modern scholarly works.

4_{These studies will be discussed briefly below.} 5

E.g. Orlin (1997) 17; Rüpke (2008) 17.

6

(6)

marginal ritual in a political context will elucidate the extent to which cultural phenomena had a political value during the republican period.

As the subtitle of this thesis (‘The gratulatory supplication and politics in republican Rome’) suggests, we are not concerned here with the supplicatio in the broadest sense. Overall the term supplicatio denotes a communal prayer decreed by the state in order to appease the

gods.7 Yet, this thesis is mainly concerned with one particular aspect of a specific kind of

supplicatio: the political aspect of the gratulatory supplication. The religious aspect of the supplicatio has been treated in Freybruger’s article ‘La supplication d’action de graces dans la

religion romain archaïque’ in some depth. Yet the religious dynamics cannot satisfactory explain important questions that come up when looking at the sources on the supplicatio. We find for example in Cicero’s correspondence a long letter to Cato in which he goes to lengths to convince him to vote for a supplicatio for Cicero. A letter to Atticus reveals Cicero’s anger with Cato, who had voted against Cicero’s supplicatio, but helped someone else to receive a supplicatio of

extraordinary length.8 This urge for being awarded a supplicatio and the competition that

apparently went hand in hand with it cannot be explained by the religious satisfaction that was

the result of holding a supplicatio.9 These are matters that barely concern religious principles and

can more meaningfully be explained as part of republican politics. This thesis therefore mainly skips over religious questions.

Furthermore, this thesis is not concerned with all kinds of supplicationes held during the republic. It merely considers those who are categorised by Halkin as a ‘supplication gratulatoire.’ These are the officially decreed supplicatones directed towards the gods in order to thank them for their contribution to recently achieved successes by members of the res publica. They differ from the ones decreed as a remedy to restore the pax deorum, the peace between the gods and the Romans, or as a request for their support in times that danger was expected. The first kind is categorised by Halkin as a ‘supplication expiatoire’ and was usually decreed after ominous portents had shown that the gods were angry with the Romans. In the case of the other, which

Halkin labels a ‘supplication propitiatoire’, danger was not present, but imminent.10

They will not be dealt with in this thesis, because their function within republican politics is largely

7

Siebert (2013).

8_{Cic. Fam. 15.4; Att. 7.1.7-8.} 9

Freyburger (1977) 313.

10

(7)

different from the gratulatory supplication. Therefore, when I use the term supplicatio in the following chapters, I do so in order to designate the gratulatory supplication and not the

supplicatio in its generic sense.

Creating these divisions is a modern way of comprehending ancient phenomena. One might argue that Halkin’s division of the supplicatio in three different kinds might have felt rather odd for a Roman, although I think it actually did not. They did use the same term for all

three different forms.11 However, it is not true that the Romans did not differentiate between the

forms. They obviously felt the difference between the supplicationes decreed by the Senate after a series of portents and those decreed after a military victory. Although the rounds of the temple were the same, the prayers given to the gods would be significantly different. During the supplications decreed after ominous portents people would beg the gods for their benevolence towards the Roman res publica, during the supplications decreed after victory people would

thank the gods for their benevolence. They are furthermore designated differently, respectively

as obsecratio and gratulatio.12 The attitude of the people participating in both rituals must have

been different. In the former supplicatio the people would be far less joyful then during the latter, during which they had something to celebrate. The happiness during the supplicatio of Salinator and Nero clearly set it apart of those occasions where the people had to visit the temple to beg the gods for assistance. The differentiation between these forms of supplicationes, then, is not at

all completely modern and artificial.13

§1 Previous studies of the gratulatory supplication

Overall, little attention has been given to the gratulatory supplications in the study of political and religious phenomena in the Roman republic. One could turn to Karl Marquardt’s Le culte

chez les romains (1889) for some brief remarks on the supplicatio, although he is mainly

concerned with the expiatory prayers, and barely mentions the gratulatory supplications.14 Georg

Wissowa’s treatment of the supplicationes in his encyclopaedic Religion und Kultus der Römer

11

Wardman (1982) 8.

12

Wissowa (1931) 946; Halkin (1953) 102.

13_{Yet when the supplicatio was compared to the triumph rather than other forms of supplicationes, the}

differences would be felt to be smaller.

14

(8)

(1912) is also very summary with just two pages dedicated to the phenomenon.15 In these pages he points out the different kinds of supplicationes: Bittfesten, communal prayers to the gods for support, generally in times of crisis; and Dank-Supplicationen, gratulatory prayer festivities as

the result of a military victory.16 On this last category, the subject of this thesis, he merely states

that they grew in length.17 A better understanding of his views on the gratulatory supplications is

derived from his lemma in the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft (1931), of which he was one of the main editors. While some space is taken to treat the supplicationes offered to the gods in times of crisis, most of Wissowa’s attention is directed towards the gratulatory supplications. Valuable are the numerous references to ancient sources. His focus lies mainly on the relationship between gratulatory supplications and the Bittfesten mentioned earlier. In this case, however, this term signifies the supplications directed to the gods on the eve of great

events, not as a reaction to great crises.18 When he focuses on the gratulatory supplications, the

development of a sincere thanking of the gods to a mere honouring of the victorious general is

pointed out, but not explained.19 Slight attention is given to the institutionalization of the

supplicationes by the Senate, but the question why the Senate kept a tight grip on the

supplications, remains unanswered.20 In the end, it remains unclear how the supplications

functioned within society.

For the English-reading scholars, a short description of the supplicationes was offered in Warde Fowler’s contribution to William Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities (1842). In this short lemma Warde Fowler mainly pointed out the increase in days of the

supplications, barely giving attention to its causes or why it had not happened before.21 The

French-reading audience could turn to Jules Toutain’s brief discussion of the supplicationes in the Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines (1911), in which he pointed out a few important mistakes made by Marquardt. He noted that the ritual did not comprise a procession. Focusing mainly on Marquardt’s errors, Toutain’s treatment of the supplicatio never really

15

Wissowa (1912) 424-5.

(9)

touches on the political dimension of the phenomenon.22 Although such treatment of the

supplicationes is not to be expected in these encyclopaedic lemmas, it does leave a lot of the

questions askes earlier unanswered.

The most important publication in the study of gratulatory supplicationes still is Leon Halkin’s La supplication d’action des grâces chez les romains (1953). As he noticed that attention of some detail for this phenomenon was confined to several short articles in encyclopaedias, like the ones mentioned above, he gathered all the source-material available in this monograph. It is in this collection of the sources that one of the great values of the work lies. His focus is on the republican supplications, claiming that ‘[…]la supplication gratulatoire possédait alors ses caractères propres et n’avait encore éprouvé que dans une mesure réduite ces

alterations qui devaient finalement la ravaler à une simple formalité de loyalisme politique.’23 He

begins with a presentation of all the known supplications and the sources in which they are mentioned. In the second part, he reconstructs the procedure of requesting a supplication and receiving senatorial approval, followed by a reconstruction of the thanksgiving itself. A third chapter deals with the supplicatio during the imperial period.

This makes Halkin’s work a convenient starting-point for studying the supplicationes, yet I find it lacking in its explanation of the place this phenomenon took in society. Halkin’s treatment of the gratulatory supplications misses a theoretical background which can explain for instance why it was important for the Senate to control this phenomenon, why it was important for the members of the political elite to have their victory celebrated by the people and how the people benefitted. He seems barely interested in this, merely giving specific attention to the significant increase in the length of the supplicationes towards the end of the republican period. Why the Senate seldom refused a request of a supplication, for instance, is not treated, but would

have contributed significantly to our understanding of the phenomenon.24

A more specific issue on which I disagree with Halkin is the fact that he attributes the quick increase in the length of the supplications during the last decades of the republic to a religious decline: ‘Aux premieres siècles du régime républicain, quand l'antique croyance aux dieux protecteurs de la Cité était encore vivace et sincère, ce rite avait pour but principal de rendre hommage à la toute-puissance de la divinité et de manifester solennellement la gratitude

22_{Daremberg and Saglio (1911) 1565-8.} 23

Halkin (1953) 8.

24

(10)

du sénat et du peuple romain. [...] Pendant les dernières décades de la République, le caractère

religieux de la supplication gratulatoire devient peu à peu accessoire.’25 Halkin presumably could

not reconcile respect for the Roman gods and the usage of religious phenomena for secular purposes. As he found that the supplicationes were used for such ends in the late republic, he concluded that the state religion had to be in decline. Yet this view of such a decline is generally

thought to be outdated and has been countered several times.26 It seems that it was possible for

manipulation and respect for the gods to coincide. As Halkin thought this not possible, a fresh look at the gratulatory supplications and its political dimensions is needed. Indeed, to me it seems very plausible that already before the so-called ‘decline’ of state religion the

supplicationes were used for other purposes besides appeasing the gods, purposes not addressed

by Halkin.27 Therefore, valuable as Halkin’s account is as a starting point for research on the

supplicationes, I find it lacking in explaining what place this phenomenon took in society.

Gérard Freyburger in his Latomus article La supplication d’action de grâces dans la

religion romaine archaïque (1978) sought to supplement Halkin’s work by focusing on the

religious aspects of the gratulatory supplications.28 For the focus of this thesis, Freyburger’s

account is of little value. Though in itself a meticulous account of the religious significance of the phenomenon, an analysis of for example its etymology does not contribute greatly to the understanding of how the supplicationes functioned politically. Yet Freyburger’s conclusion that the gratulatory supplication ‘[…]permet au sénat de satisfaire les exigencies du general vainqueur et celles du peuple’ hints in the direction of a political aim at the senatorial end.29 Freyburger argues that the supplications fulfil the religious needs of the general on the one hand and the crowd on the other. Although I share his conclusion that religious fulfilment was an important way of keeping balance in society, I think the phenomenon has more to it than the provision of religious satisfaction to the different groups in society. I would like to know to what

extent supplicationes were used within the elite as symbols of prestige and how they enable the

Senate to keep the different groups in the res publica in balance. Freyburger’s account cannot answer these questions.

25

Halkin (1953) 131.

26

Liebeschuetz (1979) 4-54; Wardman (1982) 42-52; Beard & Crawford (1999) 26-39; Orlin (2007) 65.

27_{See chapters 2 and 3.} 28

Freyburger (1978) 283.

29

(11)

These accounts of Halkin and Freyburger are the only sizeable attempts to treat the gratulatory supplication as an individual phenomenon. Yet, neither manages to explain sufficiently what the significance of the ritual was for the different groups in society. An answer to the questions I would like to see answered might be found in those works that focus not on the gratulatory supplication itself, but on the position of such rituals in society.

A significant contribution to our understanding of the entanglement of religion and politics in the republic is Wardman’s Religion and statecraft among the Romans (1982). Wardman discards the theory that religion was in decline in the last century of the republic. Treating the narrow relation between religion and politics, he proposes to explain the development of religion in that period as an expansion of religious institutions. This expansion

presented politicians ‘the means of extending or multiplying the honours available to them.’30 It

was this manipulation of religion that led most scholars, Halkin included, to believe that religious awareness had to be in decline, for otherwise manipulation would be unthinkable. Yet

manipulation can exist, Wardman argues, without loss of faith.31 While discarding the theory of

religious decline, he also rejects Halkin’s conclusion that the increase in days of the gratulatory supplications was caused by such a decline, thus adding to our understanding of the workings of

the supplicationes.32 Yet some questions remain unanswered. How, for example, did the position

of the Senate as distributor of the supplicationes alter while individuals bent religious institutions to their liking? Did the Senate lose its grasp on the elite competition in the same way as

Wardman argues that the growing splendour of temples signified a weakening Senate?33 And to

what extent where these rituals used by the elite before the individualization? Although Wardman helps us to refute Halkin’s theory that the increasing length of the gratulatory supplications was possible thanks to a decline of religious beliefs, it leaves us with a considerable amount of questions.

Another place where we might look for answers is Jörg Rüpke’s Domi militia: die

religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom (1990), which focusses on the interconnection

between war and religion. In this work, Rüpke tries to discover how war was perceived in Rome

(12)

and how religion helped to shape this image.34 The description of the events after the achievement of victory leads him to the gratulatory supplications. Emphasis is given to the fact that the general was not present in Rome during these festivities. This leads Rüpke to the

conclusion that they should be seen as a mainly civilian phenomenon.35 Sources mentioning

civilians as the instigators of the festivities support this claim. It brings us closer to understanding what the ritual meant to different groups in society. Yet to me it raises the

question of how the senate and the populace relate to one anotherin this ritual and to what extent

the civilians themselves saw and used the supplicatio as a civic ritual. These questions are not addressed by Rüpke. He does bring up the political dimensions of the gratulatory supplication. He maintains that ‘[w]ill man die Siegessupplikation als politisches Instrument verstehen,

müssen ihre Alternativen offengelegt worden.”36

He seems to conclude that the supplicatio suffers in comparison to the ovatio and triumph as a way to represent military success. I would like to know to what extent the supplicatio in itself is seen and used by the members of the elite individually and as a collective as a way to claim glory.

Most insightful concerning the role of the senate in religious affairs and the aristocratic competition is Orlin’s chapter in the Blackwell’s companion to Roman religion, titled Urban

religion in the middle and late republic (2007). It presents the Senate as an institution that

‘played a pivotal role’ in balancing the ambitions of the individual and the interests of the collective, both the elite and the res publica as a whole.37 While he illustrates these claims by looking at temple building and prodigies, not a single mention is made of the gratulatory supplications. Even in dealing with the struggle between Caesar and Pompey and their use of

religious institutions, the gratulatory supplications, though very relevant, don’t come up.38

It leaves us wondering how they fit in this overall very relevant picture.

The closest we get to finding an answer to our question of the position of the

supplicationes in society is Miriam Pelikan Pittenger’s Contested triumphs: politics, pageantry, and performance in Livy's republican Rome (2008). Pelikan Pittenger studied the senatorial

(13)

capital and therefore something ardently sought.39 The fact that it was the Senate that in the end had the power to supply victorious generals with a desired triumph, allowed the house to control

the competition for glory.40

While discussing the steps that brought the victorious general from the battlefield to his triumphal offerings, Pelikan Pittenger merely touches upon the supplicationes. Not too much attention is given to his phenomenon, as she considers it mostly as a necessary step on the

general’s way to his ultimate reward: the triumph.41

Such a view was also held by Rüpke and obscures how the gratulatory supplication in itself was valued by society. Indeed, the very existence of senatorial discussion concerning the distribution of gratulatory supplications and the subsequent refusal of some requests suggest to me that this wasn’t just a formality on the way to the ‘real’ senatorial discussion on the granting of the triumph. The supplication must have had its own value and therefore needed its own discussion within the Senate. It is worthwhile therefore to stop looking to the supplicatio as a mere steppingstone on the way to a triumph. Yet Pelikan Pittenger’s treatment of the senatorial discussion has great value for this thesis, since it focuses on the senatorial control over military prestige. Its conclusions seem to apply well to the position of the Senate in the distribution of supplicationes. But the fact that the general was not present during the senatorial debate on the supplicatio, as opposed to the triumphal debate, means that

we cannot transfer the conclusions to this phenomenon without some consideration.42

Overall, the few works that take the gratulatory supplications as their focus don’t tell us how they function within the bigger picture of different roles in society, elite competition and senatorial control. The works on the other hand that do deal with this wider view of the way in which the republican system operated, barely mention the supplicationes and merely treat them as a steppingstone to the more appealing triumph. We should therefore combine the method of the latter works of studying the republican system through its rituals with the focus of the former on the supplicatio. In this way, we might be able to understand what the ritual did and thus expand our knowledge of the ‘political culture’ of the Roman republic.

39

Pelikan Pittenger (2008) 1; on the term symbolic capital, see p. 68-70.

40_{Pelikan Pittenger (2008) 5.} 41

Pelikan Pittenger (2008) 128-9; so does Beard (2007) 201.

42

(14)

§2 The political culture of the Roman republic

Scholars studying the political history of the Roman republic have always been attracted to its downfall. Two famous examples are Ronald Syme’s ‘The Roman revolution’ (1939) and Erich Gruen’s ‘The last generation of the Roman republic’ (1974). The recent collection of essays on the subject in Hölkeskamp’s ‘Ein Republik (in) der Krise?’ (2009) points out that this still is a very popular and hot debate today. Another topic that has received a lot of attention over the last years was not the question how the republican system eventually failed, but rather why it was so

successful for such a long period.43 For stability and success the republican constitution relied on

the ambition of individuals. Yet this ambition could not remain unchecked, because if the individuals were too ambitious, they could potentially undermine the workings of the res

publica.44 Scholarly attention focuses on the means that were available to the Senate, the center of politics in the Roman republic, to prevent the system from collapsing due to overly ambitious individuals. Some obvious measures were incorporated within the system, like collegiality, but the focus of modern research lately lies on the means available to the Senate that were not strictly institutionalised.

Control over the granting of honours allowed the Senate to keep overly ambitious individuals from achieving too much honour. Some recent studies have treated the senatorial debates on the granting of a triumph and the final right of the Senate to assign these triumphs or refrain from doing so, concluding that this allowed the Senate to keep ambitious individuals in

check.45 Furthermore, Eric Orlin focuses on the erection of temples in his Temples, religion and

politics in the Roman republic (1997). He argues for a central position of the Senate within the

process, objecting to an earlier statement by Ziolkowski that ‘a temple could be founded without

the state’s participation, i.e. entirely beyond the state’s control.’46

As temples can be considered as monuments of victory, senatorial supervision could prevent overimpressive reminders of

military success from being built.47 Since both these essentialy military honours with a large

43_{The works discussed below are examples of this focus.} 44

A more detailled treatment of the workings of the republic and its inherent risks follows in chapter 3, p.67-72.

45

Auliard (2001); Pelikan Pittenger (2008): more on this follows in chapter 3, p. 73-7.

46_{Ziolkowski (1992) 235.} 47

(15)

religious constituent are very similar to the supplicatio, they will receive further attention in the chapters to come.

A rather different limit on the aristocratic competition was pointed out by Nathan Rosenstein in his Imperatores victi: military defeat and aristocratic competition in the middle

and late republic (1990). He focuses not on the senatorial supervision over positive distinction,

but on the prevention of individuals distinguishing themselves by pointing out the failure of others. He noticed that defeat in battle was seldom blamed on the general leading the army. It seems to have been part of an aristocratic code that prevented certain members of the elite to be scapegoated and used by their rivals to outclass them. The elite thought it important to keep their ranks closed to maintain their dominant position over the people, especially in times of military

crisis.48 The same sense of collectivity was aimed for by controlling the triumph and the erection

of temples. As military victory was a crucial factor in the ambitions of the individual, senatorial supervision in this field allowed the Senate to prevent too much honour to be presented to an individual. These principles seem to apply perfectly to the supplicatio, yet no one has considered it satisfactory so far.

Rosenstein’s study makes clear that these internal struggles of the elite also played an important role in the relationship of the elite as a collective to the rest of society. This relationship has formed another important topic in scholarly research on the functioning of the Roman republic. Matthias Gelzer’s Die Nobilität der römische Republik (1912) delivered a theory that held ground for a long time. After he had defined who were to be seen as the ruling elite, Gelzer argued that their dominance was secured by patronage. By offering their clients help in courts and handing them out money, the members of the elite created obligations. In exchange for the aid of their patron, the people voted for him or his friends during elections. Those in the highest ranks of the elite had the biggest clientela and therefore were able to secure the leading

positions in the state for themselves or those of their favour.49

This view of the balance of power dominated the scholarly debate for quite some time. Some seventy years later though, this image changed. Keith Hopkins and Graham Burton pointed out that the ruling elite as defined by Gelzer was not as hereditary as he thought, leaving

48

Rosenstein (1990) 164.

49

(16)

open numerous positions to be filled in by lower members of the elite.50 Karl-Joachim Hölkeskamp noticed that mere descent was never enough to claim a leading position in the state

and that individual accomplishment instead was the key to climb the social ladder.51 Yet the most

decisive blow to Gelzer’s view of the elite domination was Peter Brunt’s Clientela (1988). In this essay Brunt argued that the individual client held so many obligations to different patrons, that there was no obvious choice for him who to vote for. Therefore, the patron could not blindly

assume that ‘his’ client would vote for him or for those he wanted the client to vote for.52

Although we should not think that patronage did not play any part in society whatsoever, it should definitely not be seen as a rigid system, allowing elite domination without question.

Brunt’s contribution to the debate led to a focus on the communication between the members of the elite and the people. If indeed the ties of patronage did not ensure success in elections, then much more effort on the side of the elite was to be expected. The works of Paul Zanker and Jan and Aleida Assmann, which appeared around the same time as Brunts essay, broadened the scope of scholars looking for these ways of communication. Zanker’s Augustus

und die Macht der Bilder (1987) opened up archeological material as a new source to most of the

ancient historians to look at relations of power. On the other hand, the work on collective and cultural memory by the Assmanns in the last decade of the twentieth century created a new framework to look at the collective identity of the entire Roman populace and the prominent place of past generations in society. Very influential were also Clifford Geertz’s publications of

the cultural processes underlying politics.53 This led to a wide variety of subjects studied in order

to comprehend the negotiations between the elite and the plebs.54

Harriët Flower’s Ancestor masks and aristocratic power in Roman culture (1996) is an excellent example of the influence of Zanker and the Assmanns on the study of power dynamics in the Roman republic. Archeological objects in the form of ancestor masks become the focus of attention as Flower argues that they were used by the members of the elite to claim a position of power. At the same time, the memory of past generations and their deeds was attached to these

material objects and the whole reason that they could be used to such an end.55 A similar thesis is

50_{Burton and Hopkins (1978) 32.} 51 Hölkeskamp (2011) 241-58. 52 Brunt (1988). 53_{Geertz (1973).} 54 Hölkeskamp (2010) 66. 55

(17)

proposed by Gary Farney in his Ethnic identity and aristocratic competition in Republican Rome (2007). He focuses on images on coins, portraying the ethnic identity of certain families (e.g. Sabine or Etruscan), and how these coins and the associated identity were used in the search for

leading positions by the members of the elite.56

The same shift of attention can be seen in the scholarly work on the more military phenomena in the Roman republic (although it has to be said that both Flower and Farney are often dealing with military affairs in their specific fields of study). Research on the Roman triumph has concerned itself more and more with what was represented and how the victor interacted with the people. Mary Beard, for instance, dedicates quite some pages of her The

Roman triumph (2007) to the presentation of war booty and slaves.57 Ida Östenberg dedicates her

entire work to the different representations gathered in a triumph.58 A slightly broader scope is

maintained in Sheila Dillon and Katherine Welch’s collection of papers, titled Representations of

war in ancient Rome (2006), which focuses on both literary and material representations of

military affairs and gives special attention to its audience and their reactions.

Since the findings of Brunt freed the people of their tight bonds, the people turned out to have a better position in their negotiatons of power with the elite than previously assumed. His thesis encouraged to use a bottom-up perspective on the study of the Roman republic. This led some scholars to the conclusion that the republic essentialy was a democracy, the foremost being

Fergus Millar.59 Hölkeskamp led the counter-attack, claiming that Millar’s view was to narrow,

as he focused merely on the constitution.60 Research by Henrik Mouritsen en Robert

Morstein-Marx on the contiones, informal addresses to the people by members of the elite, confirmed the

dominance of the elite in its interactions with the plebs.61 Public pressure, is now argued, was

performed at events further removed from the political institutions, the public events mentioned

above, and in everyday life.62

All these phenomena, including the temples and triumphs treated earlier, are well outside of the conventional political institutions that directly keep the state running, like laws and

56

Farney (2007) 19-22.

57_{Beard (2007) 107-186.} 58

Östenberg (2009); on the same subject, see also Brilliant (1999); Itgenshorst (2005); Bastien (2007).

59

Millar (2002); see also Yakobson (1999).

60_{Hölkeskamp (2004) 257-80; Hölkeskamp (2010) 1-22.} 61

Mouritsen (2001); Morstein-Marx (2004).

62

(18)

elections. Yet they have proven to form crucial elements in the proper functioning of the res

publica. Triumphs, for example, allowed the Senate to control the competition within the elite

and at the same time they allowed the victor to present his success to the people, justifying his leading position in the state. If we would merely look at the political institutions, the triumph could not be treated and we would miss a significant amount of information on how power was operating. Therefore, our view needs to be broadened by enveloping what at first sight might seem mere cultural institutions, like religious festivals or the mentioned triumph. These cultural phenomena combined with the political institutions form a ‘political culture’ that needs to be

studied to understand the workings of the res publica properly.63

The current thesis uses this framework of a political culture to support its claim that the

supplicatio helped the senatorial elite to keep the state running smoothly. As this ritual of

thanksgiving touches upon the relationships between the elite and the people on the one hand and the elite and the individual aristocrat on the other, it ties in nicely with the current debates concerning the workings of the system of the Roman republic. Yet, so far, the position of the gratulatory supplications in the workings of the republic has not been the focus of scholarly attention. In this thesis, I would like to propose to view the supplicatio as a means of the Senate to keep a balance in society. In my opinion these supplicationes enabled the senatorial elite to glorify and justify its leading position in the res publica. On top of that it seems to me that this phenomenon allowed the Senate to both foster and control the competition for prestige that occupied its members. It presented the senatorial elite with a means to deal with two problems it was constantly faced with. In the late republic it became more and more difficult to keep a balance in the res publica and Caesar’s tyranny followed by Octavian’s establishment of the monarchy point out that the Senate had failed in its original task. The changes in the ritual in the last century and its implications for the way it had been used by the Senate need to be considered. By combining these hypotheses I will be able to place this essentially religious phenomenon in its political context and get to a better understanding of the different processes that contributed to the functioning of the republican system.

In order to find out how the supplicatio functioned within the res publica, it is necessary to first gather the information we have on the ritual. There is no extensive description of the

supplicatio in our sources. The description of the supplicatio of Salinator and Nero with which I

63

(19)

started this introduction is the richest source on this ritual, but still leaves us wondering on many aspects of its performance. We have to piece together the evidence to be able to understand the ritual properly. When did it take place? How was it organized? Who participated? And most importantly, what happened? These questions will be discussed in the first chapter: ‘The supplicatio reconstructed’. The knowledge of what actually was going on during this ritual gained in this first chapter forms the basis necessary to analyse in the next chapters how the phenomenon both reflected and shaped society.

In the second chapter (‘Confirming the division of power’) the way in which the

supplicatio allowed the elite to justify its leading position takes center stage. It will first of all

treat the necessity felt by the political elite to legitimise the power it held and some of the means that enabled them to do so. Most of these means were not constitutional, but rather of a ritual nature. To see how these rituals worked in justifying the leading position of the senators, I will introduce a theory of Michal Suk-Young Chwe on the rationality of rituals. This theory is particularly interesting as it shows how rituals could contribute to the legitimisation of power without the slight flaws of Geertz’s theories. After I have laid out its basic principles, its applicability to the rituals of the late republic will be demonstrated by applying it to two public events that are known to have contributed to the legitimisation of the power of the elite: the triumph and the games. In the last and biggest part of this chapter Chwe’s theory is applied to the

supplicatio in order to prove that the ritual could be used by the senators in their constant

struggle to differentiate themselves from the other people in society. The supplicatio allowed them to communicate their view of society to the non-elite and similarly provided the opportunity for the people to accept it.

In the third chapter, titled ‘Controlling the competition for glory’, we will zoom in further on the political elite and consider the role played by the supplicationes in the competition for glory by the individual members of the Senate. As opposed to the communication through the

supplicatio from the senators to the outside, this chapter is considered with the way the ritual was

(20)

honour in the republic more comprehensive. The second half of this chapter is concerned with the specific role of the supplicatio. One paragraph deals with the honour attached to the ritual and how it relates to other forms of military prestige. The final paragraph considers the senatorial debate on granting supplicationes and how and when the senators put the breaks on individual ambition.

The fourth and final chapter is called ‘The supplicatio in the late republic’ and continues the topic of the previous chapter that is here applied to the last decades of the Roman republic. As I mentioned before and will be treated in the other chapters, the Senate tried to control the flow of honours to individual members of the political elite in order to prevent them from gaining too much influence. Yet in this period, the supplicatio started to take unprecedented proportions. In this chapter, I will treat the extension of the ritual and try to point out that this was to some extent an attempt of the senators to keep prominent individuals like Caesar and Pompey within the boundaries of the competition for glory rather than an expression of its failure to do so. Yet at some point, these attempts were no longer effective. What happened to the

supplicatio from that point onwards and how it happened will be treated in this chapter as well. It

will lead us to the conclusion that what the supplicatio actually did, the main question of this thesis, changed to some extent in the late republic.

(21)

Chapter 1: The supplicatio reconstructed

The study of the ritual of the supplicatio is particularly interesting as it allows us to grasp the negotiations between members of the elite individually on the one hand and the elite and the other people in society on the other hand concerning their respective positions in the res publica. Yet in order to fully comprehend how the ritual contributed to the establishment and affirmation of different hierarchies, it is necessary to understand what the supplicatio actually entailed and what process preceded the performing of the ritual. Although the number of sources writing about the phenomenon is rather small, especially when compared to the wealth of source-material on its ‘big brother’ the triumph, it allows us to reconstruct the ritual quite well. The number of known gratulatory supplications held until 27 totals to 69. In addition we know of

four occasions where a supplicatio was requested, but not granted.64

Yet we should assume that the actual number of supplicationes, both granted and rejected, was higher than this. For the period after 167, we cannot rely on Livy, our main source on the ritual, since his books concerning the period have been lost. His annalistic style of writing history led him to mention every significant event of each year. Besides the results of the elections, the triumphs held and the several important omens, it included the supplicationes. Cassius Dio’s treatment of the period before 70 is partly lost and partly handed down only fragmentarily. Cicero is our third important source. His vast writings account for our knowledge of quite some late republican supplicationes. But since these mentions are not part of a

systematical exposition, we should not assume he recorded every occurrence of the ritual.65

However regrettable the lack of a complete overview of all supplicationes ever held does not significantly prevent our reconstruction. A factor that does complicate our efforts is the sheer brevity of the description of some supplicationes. On the gratulatory supplication granted to Cato the Elder for his victories in Spain in 195, for example, we know nothing more than that ‘the

senate decreed three days of public prayers in thanks for these achievements in Spain.’66 Yet the

following reconstruction shows that the sources combined are rich enough to supply a convincing image of the ritual. The outline given is of a more or less ideal supplicatio. There might have been quite some room for negotiations and variations.

64_{See appendix. On the rejected requests, see below, p. 85-94.} 65

The supplicatio rewarded to Caesar for his victory over Vercingetorix, for instance, is not mentioned by Cicero.

66

(22)

§1 Applying for a supplicatio

In principle, every supplication started with a Roman victory.67 As soon as the enemy had been

defeated, the victorious general sent dispatches to Rome to inform the Senate of his success. Depending on the importance of the victory, the possibility of being awarded a supplicatio was requested. An easy victory over an unwarlike mountain tribe would not need a thanksgiving to the gods and would not be recognized by the Senate as deserving one. In theory, generals would

not bother with requesting a thanksgiving.68 Yet if an equal enemy was defeated in a long and

costly battle, both general and the gods deserved praise for their part in victory. As a general rule, the acclamation of the title imperator was seen as the indication that the victory was

splendid enough to request a gratulatory supplication.69 The soldiers were the ones attributing

this title to their general, generally after a hard-fought victory.70 This allowed for a spirited

debate amongst the senators, as we will see below, since an allotment of this title was by no means undisputed. When Cicero proposed a supplicatio for Gaius Pansa, Aulus Hirtius and Octavian, who defeated Marc Antony in battle in 43, he struggled with the fact that they had not been proclaimed imperatores by their troops. In his eyes, they should have received the title and be awarded a thanksgiving: ‘[...] shall we award the honour of a thanksgiving to most illustrious

generals and yet deprive them of the name of Imperator?’71

If the title was proclaimed by the soldiers, the general would likely request a supplicatio. In such cases, extra attention was paid to the reports send back to Rome as to emphasize the importance of the victory, and a formal request of a supplicatio was included. Cicero alludes to such a public request in his letter to Paullus, consul of the year 50, when Cicero was proconsul in Cilicia. Trying to gain his support for the requested supplicatio, he says: ‘That they (i.e. his accomplishments in Cilicia) are worthy of recognition and congratulation (or: a supplicatio, see below, p. 36) you will find from the dispatch which I have addressed officially to you and your

colleague and the Senate.’72

67

Exceptions to this rule occur in the late republic, see below, p. 108-9.

68

The lack of a substantial number of (recorded) rejected supplicationes seems to underline this.

69_{Halkin (1953) 77-8.} 70

De Libero (2013a).

71

Cic. Phil. 14.12: ‘An [...] clarissimis ducibus supplicationum honorem tribuemus, imperatorium nomen

adimemus?’ 72

Cic. Fam. 15.13.3: ‘dignas res esse honore et gratulatione cognosces ex iis litteris, quas ad te et conlegam et

(23)

These letters, then, were brought to the Senate by a messenger. The senators were convened at the news of the arrival of the messengers and the letters were read out loud. Discussion whether or not to assign a supplicatio to the victorious general then commenced. As was common in awarding military honours, each senator was given the occasion to sound his

opinion.73 Speeches of senators approving of the supplicatio would have heaped praise on the

general in question, as might be deducted from Cicero’s statement in proposing a thanksgiving: ‘I propose, therefore, in the name of those three, a public thanksgiving of fifty days; the reasons,

in the most complimentary terms I can, I will include in the vote itself.’74 These eulogies were part of the honour the general received from his fellow senators and played a role in the constant

negotiations between members of the elite for their place within the internal hierarchy.75 These

eulogies were therefore undoubtedly reported back to the general by his messengers.

Halkin mentions four ‘conditions exigées’ that might have structured the debate.76 First of

all the person leading the army to victory had to be the chief commander and hold the highest auspices. These auspices, the right to consult the opinion of the gods by observing birds, were one of the fundamental powers of the magistrate, as was his imperium, the right to lead an

army.77 All members of the general’s staff acted under his auspices and imperium and the

supplicatio appears to have been awarded to the one holding these powers, not to the ones

directly responsible for the victory.78 This is exemplified by the thanksgiving awarded to Marcus

Calpurnius Bibulus for the victory over the Parthians in 50. Although the battle was led by Gaius

Cassius, the supplicatio was awarded to Bibulus.79 Furthermore, Dio tells us that Ventidius

claimed a victory over the Parthians whilst under the auspices of Marc Antony, yet both of them received a supplicatio: ‘The Romans in the capital voted these honours (i.e. a supplicatio and a

73

Halkin (1953) 87.

74_{Cic. Phil. 14.29: ‘Decerno igitur eorum trium nomine quinquaginta dierum supplicationes; causas, ut} honorificentissimis verbis consequi potuero, complectar ipsa sententia.’

75

Gods, generals and glory

Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1: The supplicatio reconstructed