No abstract

No abstract

Politics is a constantly changing field. Like a chemical reaction, it changes in contact with news, gossip and rumours. Roman politicians were aware of this fact and acknowledged that the force of a rumour, similar to wind in the sails of a ship, could change the course of the State: 'The interval of one day,the lapse of one nightoften throws everything into confusion. The slightest breeze of rumour sometimes changes the entire opinions of people.' 1 Rumours and gossip should be analysed not only as part of political life but also as a process in themselves: how they circulated, how they propagated, their forms, and how they changed individual and collective political life. This chapter postulates that gossip and rumours were the mechanisms through which opinion was transmitted in Rome and through which public opinion was created and circulated. Gossip was not initially of interest to historians or sociologists; anthropology was the field that pioneered its study. 2 Even today, gossip is an underanalysed field. The main reason is probably its negative connotations: scholars frequently claim that they are not defending this practice, only studying it. In 1963, Gluckman published a seminal and witty article that established the fundamentals of the study of gossip. Firstly, he claimed that gossip should not be dismissed as small talk or vain conversation, since it formed the moral order of the communities. In fact, he stated, anthropologists analyse it to observe the links between the maintaining of the cohesion of the group and its morality. 3 In opposition to its traditional negative image, gossip and even scandals share important virtues, such as maintaining unity, morality, and the values of social groups; they allow the control of competition and rivalry of individuals who aspire to a higher and more prestigious political status. 4 This is fundamental to understanding 1 Cic. Mur. 35: 'Dies intermissus aut nox interposita saepe perturbat omnia, et totam opinionem parva non numquam commutat aura rumoris'.

We are familiar with the notion that the Roman political world of the Late Republic included lofty speeches and sessions of the Senate, but also need to remember that another important aspect of Late Republican politics revolved around senators talking among themselves, chatting in the corner. The present book intends to analyse senatorial political conversations and illuminate the oral aspects of Roman politics. It argues that Roman senators and their entourages met in person to have conversations in which they discussed politics, circulated political information, and negotiated strategies; this extra-institutional sphere had a relevant impact both on politics and institutions, as well as determining how the Roman Republic functioned. The main point of this book is to offer a new perspective on Roman politics through the proxy of conversations and meetings. Orality has represented an important component in analysis of Roman institutions: oratory before the people in assemblies and contiones, addresses and discussions in the Senate, speeches in the law courts. Orality was also crucial in rumours and public opinion. The present research posits that, in Rome, oral was the default mode of communication in politics, especially outside institutions. Only when they could not reach each other in person did Roman senators and their peers resort to letters. The book suggests that the study of politics should not be restricted to the senatorial group, but that other persons should be considered as important actors with their own agency (albeit in different degrees), such as freedmen and elite women.

No abstract