Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T08:04:10.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 10 - The Ritual Grammar of Institutionalized Politics

from Part II - Translations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2025

By
Egon Flaig
Edited by
Amy Russell  and
Hans Beck
Translated by
Kathrin Lüddecke
Amy Russell
Affiliation:
Brown University, Rhode Island
Hans Beck
Affiliation:
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany
Get access

Summary

Through the complex processes of generating mutual expectations and demands, senatorial consensus resulted in a wider consensus held by all. Only on four occasions did the popular assemblies ever vote in a way that went against the senate’s expectations, in 209, 200, 167, and 149 BCE. Discussion of each of these instances demonstrates that the people were not accustomed to, or interested in, following their own preferences: when rogationes were brought before the popular assemblies, they were certain to be agreed. What united the very few cases of rejection was that the people’s response was highly personalized, that is, the initial rogatio pertained to a specific individual; the response aimed at inconveniencing that person; and the senatorial elite was itself divided on the person. Egon Flaig performs a threefold analysis: he measures the strength of preferences in the peoples’ assemblies; he explores the limitations to what is labelled the institutional automatism behind the acceptance of motions; and he teases out the tactical and ritualized manoeuvres of withdrawing precarious proposals. The results are merged into a checklist that gauges the semantic and situational variety of action before the contio.

Keywords

Roman RepublicRoman politicspolitical cultureRoman historypopular assembliesdemocracymass/elite interaction
Type
Chapter
Information
The Roman Republic and Political Culture
German Scholarship in Translation
 , pp. 294 - 327
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Astin, A. E., Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford 1967.Google Scholar
Bleicken, J., Lex publica: Recht und Gesetz in der Römischen Republik, Berlin 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomer, W. M., Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility, Chapel Hill 1992.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P., Sozialer Sinn: Kritik der theoretischen Vernunft, Frankfurt 1987 [originally in French; English translation: The Logic of Practice, Stanford 1990.]Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. Réponses: Pour une anthropologie réflexive, Paris 1992.Google Scholar
Brunt, P., The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays, Oxford 1988.Google Scholar
Churchill, J. B., ‘Sponsio quae in verba facta est? Two Lost Speeches and the Formula of the Roman Legal Wager’, Classical Quarterly 50 (2000), 159–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döbler, C., Politische Agitation und Öffentlichkeit in der späten Republik, Frankfurt 1999.Google Scholar
Dumont, J. C., ‘L’imperium du pater familias’, in Andreau, J. and Bruhns, H. (eds.), Parenté et strategies familiales dans l’Antiquité Romaine, Rome 1990, pp. 475–94.Google Scholar
Flaig, E., Entscheidung und Konsens: Zu den Feldern der politischen Kommunikation zwischen Aristokratie und Plebs, in Jehne, Demokratie, pp. 77–127.Google Scholar
Flaig, E. ‘Soziale Bedingungen des kulturellen Vergessens’, in Kemp, W., Mattenklott, G., Wagner, M., and Warnke, M. (eds.), Vorträge aus dem Warburg-Haus, vol. 3, Berlin 1999, pp. 31–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flaig, E. Ritualisierte Politik: Zeichen, Gesten und Herrschaft im Alten Rom, Göttingen 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, E. von, Geschichte und System der römischen Staatsverfassung, 2 vols. Leipzig 1884.Google Scholar
Hölkeskamp, K.-J., Oratoris maxima scaena: Reden vor dem Volk in der politischen Kultur der Republik, in Jehne, Demokratie, pp. 11–49.Google Scholar
Jehne, M. (ed.), Demokratie in Rom? Die Rolle des Volkes in der Politik der römischen Republik, Stuttgart 1995.Google Scholar
Lange, L., Römische Altertümer, 3rd ed. 3 vols. Berlin 1879.Google Scholar
Laser, G., Populo et scaenae serviendum est: Die Bedeutung der städtischen Masse in der Späten Römischen Republik, Trier 1997.Google Scholar
Liebenam, W., ‘Contio’, in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (RE), vol. iv.1, Stuttgart 1900, pp. 1149–53.Google Scholar
Millar, F., ‘The Political Character of the Classical Republic, 200–151 b.c.’, JRS 74 (1984), 1–19.Google Scholar
Mommsen, T., Römisches Staatsrecht, 3rd ed., 3 vols. Leipzig 1887.Google Scholar
Moreau, P., Clodiana religio: Un procès politique en 61 av. j.c., Paris 1982.Google Scholar
Nicolet, C., Le métier de citoyen dans la Rome républicaine, Paris 1976. [Translated into English as The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome, trans. P. S. Falla, Berkeley 1980.]Google Scholar
Pina Polo, F., ‘Procedures and Functions of Civil and Military contiones in Rome’, Klio 77 (1995), 203–16.Google Scholar
Pina Polo, F. Contra arma verbis: Der Redner vor dem Volk in der späten römischen Republik, Stuttgart 1996.Google Scholar
Sahlins, M., Inseln der Geschichte, Hamburg 1992.Google Scholar
Sartori, G., ‘Selbstzerstörung der Demokratie? Mehrheitsentscheidungen und Entscheidungen von Gremien’, in Guggenberger, B. and Offe, C. (eds.), An den Grenzen der Mehrheitsdemokratie: Politik und Soziologie der Mehrheitsregel, Opladen 1984, p. 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, V., Das Ritual: Struktur und Anti-Struktur, Frankfurt and New York 1989. [English original: The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-structure, Piscataway 1989.]Google Scholar
Ungern-Sternberg, J. von, ‘Die beiden Fragen des Titus Annius Luscus’, in Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino, Naples 1984, pp. 339–48.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×