The Shape of the Roman Order

The Republic and Its Spaces

Daniel J. Gargola

• Éditeur: The University of North Carolina Press
• Année: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781469631837
• Sujet: Geschichte
• Sous-sujet: Geschichte der römischen Antike

In recent years, a long-established view of the Roman Empire during its great age of expansion has been called into question by scholars who contend that this model has made Rome appear too much like a modern state. This is especially true in terms of understanding how the Roman government ordered the city--and the world around it--geographically. In this innovative, systematic approach, Daniel J. Gargola demonstrates how important the concept of space was to the governance of Rome. He explains how Roman rulers, without the means for making detailed maps, conceptualized the territories under Rome's power as a set of concentric zones surrounding the city. In exploring these geographic zones and analyzing how their magistrates performed their duties, Gargola examines the idiosyncratic way the elite made sense of the world around them and how it fundamentally informed the way they ruled over their dominion. From what geometrical patterns Roman elites preferred to how they constructed their hierarchies in space, Gargola considers a wide body of disparate materials to demonstrate how spatial orientation dictated action, shedding new light on the complex peculiarities of Roman political organization.

Notes

Introduction

1. Finer 1997, 4.

2. For example, Sherwin-White (1973) remarks that Rome entered the Social War as a city-state and left it as a capital.

3. For example, Cornell 1991b; David 1995a, 35–53, esp. 43.

4. See, for example, Lefebvre 1974; Hillier and Hanson 1984; Hirsch and O’Hanlon 1995. For an investigation of ancient Chinese spatial concepts, see M. E. Lewis 2006.

5. Bloch 1998; Bevir and Rhodes 2010, 1.

6. For the office of consul, see Pina Pola 2011 and the articles in Beck, Jehne, and Pina Pola 2011b; for the office of praetor, see Brennan 2000.

7. Stewart (1998) and Bergk (2011) argue that the office of praetor was not firmly distinguished from the office of consul until the addition of the second praetor, but Brennan (2000, chap. 3) holds that the two were distinct from the beginning.

8. For the aediles, see Sabbatucci 1954.

9. For the tribunes of the plebs, see Bleicken 1955; Lobrano 1982; Thommen 1989.

10. For the senate, its membership, and its procedures, see Bonnefond-Coudry 1989; Ryan 1998.

11. See Cornell 2000.

12. See Jehne 2011.

13. For priesthoods, see Beard 1990; Catalano 1974; Scheid 1984; Porte 1989.

14. Mommsen 1887–88; for a recent analysis of his approach, see Jehne 2005. For Mommsen’s views on the senate, see Hölkeskamp 2005.

15. Meier 1980.

16. Magdelain 1968, 6ff.; Bleicken 1975, 152–56, 348ff. On the broad and poorly defined nature of the consulship, see Beck, Jehne, and Pina Pola 2011a.

17. See Bleicken 1975, 106, 137.

18. Bleicken 1975.

19. Rüpke 2012.

20. Moatti 1997.

21. Jehne 2012, 406.

22. Scheid 2006; Schiavone 2012. Magdelain (1995, 184) stresses the oral nature of much law until the second century.

23. For the development of the nobility, see Hölkeskamp 1987; for a survey of recent work on its values, see Rosenstein 2006.

24. For the place of spectacle, see H. Flower 2004a; A. Bell 2004; Hölkeskamp 2006a and 2007; for Rome as a theater of power, see Hölkeskamp 2011. For the pervasiveness of public ritual, see Flaig 2003.

25. See Beck, Jehne, and Pina Pola 2011a, 3.

26. See Hay and Lister 2006, 8.

27. For Roman views of their empire, see chapter 2.

28. For Chinese maps, see Hsu 2013.

29. For Roman practice, see Brodersen 2012; Talbert 2013. Brodersen (2004) makes the contrast between Chinese and Roman practice explicit. For Roman conceptions of space in general, see Brodersen 1995; for a different view, Talbert (2010) argues for some administrative use of maps under the empire.

30. For the persistence of local ties, see Patterson 2006a and 2012; Lomas 2012.

31. See Mouritsen 1998.

32. For example, Cornell 1995, 364–68; David 1995a, 35–53.

33. See, for example, Fronda 2010.

34. See, for example, Mouritsen 1998.

35. Thus Rich 2008a. For the institution of deditio in fidem, see Hölkeskamp 2004.

36. For the municipium and its history, see Bispham 2007; Humbert 1978; Galsterer 1976; Sherwin-White 1973; for the retrospective nature of civitas sine suffragio, see Mouritsen 2007.

Chapter 1

1. See Ferrary, 1984, 88 n. 12.

2. Walbank 1957–67, 1:664, suggests that book 6 once contained an extended treatment of public cult, either in the Archaeology or at the very end of the book, which is now lost. Vaahtera (2000) argues that Polybius never actually wrote the promised account.

3. See Brunt 1980a.

4. For its scope, see Cornell et al. 2013, 1:162–78.

5. For local history in general, see Clarke 2008; Rhodes 1990.

6. See Ferrary, 1984.

7. For Ennius, see Rep. 1.3, 1.25, 1.30, 1.49, 1.64, 3.6, 5.1, and 6.10; for Cato, see Rep. 1.27 and 2.1–3; for Polybius, see Rep. 1.34, 2.27, and 4.3.

8. Thus, Rawson 1972. For Cicero as a historian, see Rambaud 1952; Brunt 1980b; Rawson 1972; Cornell 2001. Ferrary (1984) examines in detail the relationship between Cicero and Polybius.

9. See Forsythe 1994.

10. See Cornell et al. 2013, 1:253–55.

11. See Cornell et al. 2013, 1:296–98.

12. For a programmatic statement of the matter, see Livy praef. 10; see also Chaplin 2000.

13. See Hickson 1993.

14. Marincola 1997, 17–18.

15. For the tribes, see Dion. Hal. Ant.Rom. 4.15.1; for Cassius Hemina, see FRHist 6 F 17 and 18 (= Plin. HN 32.20 and Macr. Sat. 1.16.33); for Gellius, see FRHist 14 F 21 (= Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.72.2); for Cato, see chapter 4.

16. For Piso, see Dion. Hal. Ant.Rom. 12.9; for Livy, see later discussion in this chapter.

17. See Schaberg 2001, 10.

18. With respect to families, the practice is most visible in aristocratic funerals; see H. Flower 1996.

19. See Rawson 1990; Wiseman 1994b; Sehlmeyer 1999.

20. See H. Flower 2006.

21. For the use of exempla in Latin literature, see Rambaud 1952; D’Arms 1972; David 1980; Moore 1989; Chaplin 2000.

22. See Zorzetti 1980; H. Flower 1995; Wiseman 1988; Wiseman 1994c. See also H. Flower 2000 and 2003. For the quote, see H. Flower 1995, 171.

23. See, for example, ILLRP 310; 319.

24. For the historical development of the myths around Romulus and Remus, see Wiseman 1995.

25. See Plin. HN 33.43. For the difficulties in this passage, see Crawford 1985, pp. 17–24.

26. See FRHist 1 F 18 (= Livy 10.37.14); see also Oakley 1997–2005, 4:378–79.

27. See Hölkeskamp 2006b, 481; Timpe 1988.

28. For the relationship between Lavinium, th...