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 night – often throws everything into confusion. The slightest breeze of rumour sometimes changes the entire opinions of people.’Footnote 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.Footnote 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.Footnote 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.Footnote 4 This is fundamental to understanding the importance of gossip in the Roman Republic: to a certain extent it helped to impose a moral and social order, through criticism of the ruling elite and, especially, of those members who have surpassed the moral limits that society imposed. Through that criticism, expressed through gossip, the rest of the community controlled the elite.
From another point of view, Paine argued that gossip also represented an important means of communication.Footnote 5 He disagreed with Gluckman, and considered that gossip was centred more on the individual and his own interests than on the community.Footnote 6 The person who distributed information through gossip (and, in the Roman case, also through rumours) selected the channel of information, sending the message that he wished other people to receive, to improve his own situation.Footnote 7 Lewis has distinguished between news and gossip in regard to the size of the public among whom an item circulates, leaving aside whether it was public or private.Footnote 8 Examining rumour during the repression of the Bacchanalian rites in Rome, Dubourdieu and Lemirre established a difference between rumour and gossip: the latter had a much restricted diffusion, whereas rumour circulated on a larger scale, since it included elements that interested the whole group.Footnote 9 This distinction will be used for the following analysis.
The sources make reference to rumours of all types, mainly preserved because of the potential interest for the receiver of the information. They were transmitted through letters addressed to members of the ruling elite, and thus almost unanimously featured the Roman political situation and trials of a heavy political nature. Rumours about economic issues, for instance, were in the minority. Different attitudes have been identified in regard to rumours. There are those who instigate it, who try to find a coherent explanation; the leaders of opinion, who impose their own view into the group; the ‘apostles’, those who try to convince others of the veracity of the rumour; those who ‘flirt’ with it, who delight in it although they are not completely convinced; and those who are resistant, even anti-rumour.Footnote 10
The connection between gossip, rumours and women is the subject of scholarly debate. Hunter and Gottesman have pointed out that in Athens, gossip was immediately associated with women, who actually had few occasions to go out into the street and talk.Footnote 11 When Plutarch discussed how swiftly rumours could spread in his treaty De garrulitate, he chose an anecdote featuring a woman, but plenty of men appear in the rest of the treaty engaged in gossip.Footnote 12 However, although the opposite may have been true, the discourse of gossip could be gendered.Footnote 13 Greek and Roman moralists and satirists lampooned women as chatterboxes.Footnote 14 However, looking specifically at Roman politics of the second and first centuries BC, political gossip and rumours were not gendered. They were forms of communication in which all inhabitants engaged, regardless of social class or gender.
Which concepts did the Romans use to conceptualise this category? In his speech in favour of Murena, Cicero tried to show Sulpicius Rufus, the accuser, that the advantages that he had enjoyed during the elections, such as the antiquity and renown of his family, had not been effective.Footnote 15 Murena, on the contrary, had two key cards in his hand: first of all, the presence in Rome during the elections of Lucullus’ army, in which Murena had served; secondly, the expectation that he would organise big games, which Cicero mentioned using two terms, rumor and sermo.Footnote 16
Sermo, meaning ‘conversation’, was also used by many sources as a synonym for rumor.Footnote 17 In a philological treaty, Varro derived sermo from series and succession, and put it on the same footing as conversation, as did Christian Latin authors such as Tertullian.Footnote 18 For Cicero, sermo took place in meetings, in discussions, in familiar gatherings and in dinners: that is, in places of informal conversation, with no rhetorical rules to follow.Footnote 19 The first Church Fathers used this term to translate the Greek word logos, the beginning of the Gospel according to St. John.Footnote 20 While the Vulgata preferred verbum, following a translation recognised since Augustin, Erasmus of Rotterdam defended sermo, basing his choice on philological and patristic reasoning.Footnote 21 The expression sermo populi only appears six times in Latin literature: four of them in Cicero’s corpus (in three speeches and a letter to Atticus), one in Tacitus, and the last one in Pliny the Younger.Footnote 22 Expressions such as sermo hominum were more frequent: Cicero used it frequently in speeches, letters, or philosophical and rhetorical works.Footnote 23 Rumor populi, another similar expression, had already appeared in Ennius, Plautus, and Terence; nevertheless, after these authors, its use decayed, and only three more instances are found, of which two were rhetorical treaties (Rhetoric to Herennius and one of Quintilian’s declamations).Footnote 24 Thus, rumor and sermo seem to have had similar meanings in Latin.
3.1 Rumours and Politics in Rome
Rumours were part of the habitual workings of Roman politics. In a letter to Atticus, Cicero praised him for painting such a lively picture of the tempestuous year of 59 BC through the varietas sermonum opinionumque that he imagined himself to be in the city.Footnote 25 Sociability and frequent contact between people meant the possibility of engaging in conversations, some of them possibly of a political nature. Rumours and comments could come from any source, about any subject related to the life of politicians: the orator warned his brother that some things should not be entrusted to the slaves, in order to avoid sermo.Footnote 26 In an exaggerated and literary manner, Cicero scolded the judges of the trial against Milo for not being aware of the supposed leges Clodianae which were going to destroy the government, by asking them vestrae peregrinantur aures? (‘are your ears travelling abroad?’), since the whole city was allegedly talking about them.Footnote 27 Those who were not well-informed could be qualified as imperiti.Footnote 28
When Romans defined what constituted political information, rumours were given a principal place, since they were described several times on an equal footing with news or facts. Cicero told Atticus in 51 BC: ‘Having no news, I have nothing to relate … I believe something has been done in the Senate today. So send me a letter, giving not only all the facts but the gossip too.’Footnote 29 Caelius warned Cicero that, if anything really important occurred, he would write straight away providing information on what had happened, the opinions that had been provoked, and what was expected to happen.Footnote 30 These three parts comprised what a Roman politician needed to know about political issues. In the previous sentence, Caelius had described the contents of his letters, stating that they were full of everything: senatus consulta, edicta, fabulae, rumores.Footnote 31 Cicero’s son mentioned that, during his sojourn in Athens, he was up-to-date with the political situation through news and rumours.Footnote 32 Thus, rumours were one of the main sources of information, together with letters and conversations: ‘Others will write; many will bring me news; much too will reach me even by way of rumour.’Footnote 33
Rumours by their very nature, and with few exceptions, were anonymous, or their origin was difficult to trace. Gossip and rumours were described by Cicero as ‘headless, authorless’.Footnote 34 They could be characterised as a non-official source, which sometimes forced official powers to act.Footnote 35 This trait made them flexible ways of delivering information, because nobody had to stand out as responsible for their authorship.Footnote 36 At the same time, it left the door open to doubts about their veracity, which was one of the main conundrums that Roman politicians had to face.Footnote 37 Of course, these two aspects of rumours would be exploited by Roman orators in their speeches, as the author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium and Quintilian artfully suggested: ‘There are those who consider fama and rumours as a form of consensus among the citizens and as public testimony. Others, however, consider it a discourse without any reliable source, which provokes ill-will and increases gullibility.’Footnote 38 Cicero’s clamours for reliable information pervade his letters.Footnote 39 Sometimes he asked Atticus for other rumours, since the ones he had had no basis, which he described in Greek as adespotoi.Footnote 40 Rumours could arrive and change every day.Footnote 41 However, the supple and adjustable nature of rumours and their wide range could lead to deception, since one could reject rumours that one did not like in favour of others. Reliability of information carried through letters was extremely subjective. Self-delusion about news could also play an important part. For instance, Cicero described the rumour that Caesar had left Alexandria as non firmus, though he knew that the source was Sulpicius Rufus, who was not pro-Caesarean and lived in Samos at that time, and that it had been confirmed by all later messages which had arrived at Brindisi, a city that was particularly well located in the Adriatic to receive fresh news from the East.Footnote 42 Sallust described the rumours about the siege of Cirta as clemens.Footnote 43 When deciding in 46 BC which way to go, Caecina questioned whether Sicily or Asia would be more suitable. Sicily won the discussion essentially because of the ease with which letters could be sent and received in order to gain Caesar’s pardon.Footnote 44 A badly selected location could, in this case, mean political death. To be cut off from social networks that could provide accurate information about political events, rumours and opinions implied that politicians would not be able to interact with these opinions, which was part of a healthy and successful political career.
Rome, being the political centre, was generally buzzing with rumours. Tacitus described clearly how rumours appeared, escalated and circulated: ‘… at first, in whispered gossip, as is the way with forbidden news; soon, in a rumour which ran wherever there were fools with open ears, or malcontents with the usual taste for revolution’.Footnote 45 Rumours propagated in progressively wider circles. Caelius mentioned to Cicero that rumours expanded in small circles ‘that you know’. Nevertheless, they would soon be divulged to the rest of the citizens, since Domitius ‘put his hands around his mouth’, mimicking a trumpet.Footnote 46 This last detail shows the filtration of a rumour from the circles of power to larger groups. Rumours were created and then circulated by the meeting of people in the streets. Thus the news of the defeat at Lake Trasimenus spread in Rome: ‘[The citizens] filled themselves up with rumores, one from the other, and carried them home.’Footnote 47 Apparently, the bigger and more outrageous the rumour, the more interested people were: that is how Cicero justified the gossip that Fonteius, governor of Gaul, had imposed a new tax on wine so as to charge it several times.Footnote 48 Rumours anchor in reality and become political information if they are mentioned publicly by magistrates or discussed in the Senate, as happened during the affair of the Bacchanalian rites in 186 BC, when the consul Postumius delivered a long speech about their dangers, and the Senate reacted to it with decrees that outlawed the cult and investigated the participants.Footnote 49
These conversations could be localised within some groups before an opinion was made public. At the end of 54 BC, a tribunician veto prevented the consul Appius Claudius from passing the lex curiata, which would bestow upon him the imperium to govern his province. This legislative question was the subject of many discussions. Appius Claudius had for a time been expressing his opinion in conversations (in sermonibus), before he finally expressed it out loud and openly (palam) in the Senate.Footnote 50 Cicero equated the open statement in the Senate, probably opposing speaking publicly and with the auctoritas of a consul, to a mere comment in the Curia to a small group of listeners.
Rumours could be long-lived. Tacitus reported that the rumour about Tiberius murdering his own son in AD 26 was ‘so strong that it persists today’.Footnote 51 Oral tradition could thus ensure the survival of rumours for decades. In a contio, Cicero requested that the people pass on his triumphs and achievements by word of mouth, so that they could strengthen and live.Footnote 52 Even after the affair had passed, rumours were still important: Sulla defended himself against them in his own autobiography, so as to leave for posterity his own version of the events.Footnote 53
Rumours could have a real impact in Roman politics. The optimates opted to name Pompey consul sine collega in 52 BC after rumours of him being named dictator circulated within the plebs.Footnote 54 The origin of the rumour is unknown, but Pompey was a popular figure with the people. The optimates themselves might have circulated it to compel the rest of the Senate to make a decision about the matter. The possibility of naming Pompey as dictator grew, and the optimates decided to create a similar charge, deprived of the negative political connotations of the dictatorship for the populares, who had the ghost of Sulla in mind. Imperfect information deriving from rumours prevented the clarification of a confusing political situation.Footnote 55 Contradictory rumours about Tiberius Gracchus’ actions provoked chaos, as people murmured that he had deposed the other tribunes, because they were not in sight, or that he had appointed himself tribune without voting. These contradictory versions outraged the Senate, and played a role in the events that led to Gracchus’ death.Footnote 56 In 43 BC, rumours that Cicero was going to lead a coup d’état were so insistent that a tribune convoked an assembly, in which the people stated that they refused to believe the story.Footnote 57 In the same year, murmurs about the content of a letter by Munatius Plancus provoked the calling of a session of the Senate, with the full number of senators in attendance.Footnote 58 In 49 BC, rumours said that Caesar was marching towards Rome with his army; in reply, consul Marcellus charged Pompey with the command of the troops in Italy and the protection of the State.Footnote 59 This dependence on rumours was logical in a preindustrial society, in which means of communication and means of transport were relatively slow.Footnote 60
Rumours were especially important during elections, when they could change the outcome of the voting.Footnote 61 The Commentariolum petitionis suggested encouraging wild rumours about competitors during the elections.Footnote 62 These could circulate quickly and ruin the chances of a candidate, as Publius Scipio Nasica realised when he was canvassing for the curule aedileship. Shaking hands with the crowd, as was the custom, he encountered a citizen who worked in the fields. His calloused hands prompted Scipio to ask, as a joke, whether he used to walk on his hands. ‘Bystanders caught the remark and it spread to the public and caused Scipio’s defeat. For all the rustic tribes thought he had taunted them about their poverty and vented their anger against his insulting wit.’Footnote 63 The timeline of the anecdote is unknown: that is, how much time passed between Scipio’s remark and the day of the elections. However, rumours were effective enough, and circulated sufficiently widely, to cost him election to the magistracy.
Rumours could also be used artfully to defeat opponents. During his political fight against Mark Antony, Cicero stated that it was not only the policies that he proposed that would be helpful in deterring his rival but also the rumor and fama that they would generate.Footnote 64 While Pompey was still in the East, there were rumours about him marching into the city of Rome with the army and becoming king. His political opponent Crassus fuelled this talk and worsened Pompey’s reputation by leaving the city with his children and money.Footnote 65 Cicero could not create an unfavourable and contrary opinion amongst the plebs against Clodius, because he lacked the means to convey it. Meanwhile, his rival could, and did so, ensuring Cicero’s disgrace and exile.Footnote 66
When was a rumour rampant? First of all, four conditions must be met: an interesting but ambiguous event; a greater demand than supply of news; people reluctant to act; and the group acting collectively. These four conditions, then, are usually met under three circumstances: firstly, when information is strictly controlled; secondly, in case of a scandal or disaster; thirdly, during moments of boredom (minor events). Shibutani tried to quantify the scale of rumours by the formula R = i x a, R representing the rumour, i being its importance, and a being its ambiguity.Footnote 67 Thus, the scale and importance of a rumour would be related to its significance in the political world, and would be fostered by its ambiguity.
Not all rumours originated or circulated within the elite. Sources allude to rumours that travelled in a bottom-up movement, which originated with the people and reached the elite, causing a reaction.Footnote 68 A quaestio was convoked to investigate the supposed bribing by Jugurtha of several Roman magistrates because of the rumours of the plebs, despite the active opposition of most of the Senate.Footnote 69 When defending himself from the accusation of not having criticised the consuls of 57 BC, Cicero stated his position clearly:
And what were the opinions that I delivered? In the first place, that which the common conversation of the people had already previously fixed in our minds; in the second place, that which had been discussed in the senate on the preceding days; and thirdly, that which the Senate in a very full house adopted, expressing its agreement with me.Footnote 70
When faced with the daunting task of somehow justifying the conviction of several judges from the previous trial in the Cluentius affair, Cicero alleged that they had been punished to please the people and their rumours.Footnote 71 Sometimes, there were two parallel rumours, stemming from the people and the elite. In 59 BC, Cicero wondered about the consuls of the following year, unsure whether the candidates favoured by popular rumours (populi sermo), that is, Pompey and Crassus, would be elected, or those whom his correspondents mentioned, Servius Sulpicius and Gabinius.Footnote 72 In fact, of the four prospective consuls, only Gabinius was voted into office.
The pressure the Roman people could place on a politician through rumour was far from contemptible. In 63 BC, when Cicero had what he considered enough proof to accuse Catiline of a plan to murder him, he addressed the Senate on 8th November, with the objective of making Catiline leave the city.Footnote 73 Cicero interpreted the silence of the senators about the accusations as proof that the latter were not going to defend him, thereby tacitly accusing him as well.Footnote 74 Nevertheless, Cicero did not charge Catiline of being a public enemy; he assumed it, and attacked him according to this premise.Footnote 75 The consul apparently achieved his objective: Catiline left the city, but many of his followers stayed in Rome.Footnote 76 Strange rumours began to circulate among the people about Catiline’s destination: Cicero maintained that he had joined his troops. Nevertheless, people commented in Rome that he had had to exile himself in Massalia; this would imply that there was no such conspiracy, since the latter would not be the destination chosen by an exile wanting to return to power.Footnote 77
We should also point out that there are no instances of Cicero addressing the people on the same day; thus, those rumours and gossip took as their basis the oral reports from the senators that assisted the meeting. They grew so much that on the following day, 9th November, Cicero felt compelled to deliver a speech before the people to calm them down. The second objective of the speech was to refute rumours that stated that Catiline had had to flee to Massalia due to political intrigue against him, and without him having been put to trial. These rumours were possibly distributed to the right channels by Catiline’s supporters. Facing him before the Senate, in the first speech, the consul goaded him to leave, with the following ironic words: ‘If you want to make me, your enemy as you call me, unpopular, go straight into banishment. I shall scarcely be able to endure all that will be said (sermones hominum) if you do so; I shall scarcely be able to support my load of unpopularity (invidia) if you do go into exile at the command of the consul.’Footnote 78 The sermones hominum, the rumours of the people, had circulated quickly in Rome, in only one day and had compelled the consul to justify his actions before the citizens.
Social networks, then, were crucial for linking oneself to information and, thus, to making sense of rumours and public opinion. Clients were crucial in circulating them, especially in the moment of the morning salutatio.Footnote 79 Laurence has argued that these networks were changed radically by Clodius, who in 58 BC used the collegia to spread opinions and to mobilise the citizens.Footnote 80
Understanding contradictory and diverse rumours was a complex affair. In the uncertain days at the beginning of the year 49 BC, when civil war broke out, Cicero informed Atticus, who was in Rome, of the talk in the towns around Rome, in Campania:
on the other hand, to judge from the indignation in the towns and the talk of my acquaintances, it looks to me as if Pompey’s flight would be a success. Here there is an extraordinary outcry (whether in Rome also, I do not know: please tell me) at the city being left without magistrates and without the Senate. In fact Pompey’s flight has made a marvellous stir.Footnote 81
Thus, we see the interplay of different opinions: Cicero, at first thought, did not agree with Pompey’s decision to abandon the city of Rome with the Senate. However, he had had the impression that the elite of the nearby towns had been so shocked that the move could actually be fruitful. However, as he was uncertain about the same reaction in Rome, he asked Atticus for information about that, at the same time relaying the towns’ comments to Rome, where they would be commented upon. Nevertheless, Cicero was aware that, being away from the city, his information was not complete, so he asked for clarification: ‘Explain to me what it all means.’Footnote 82
Cicero criticised dependence on rumours, a common attitude of Late Roman Republican politicians.Footnote 83 Nevertheless, this reproach was addressed to the social structure of the Roman political class: a small group, it was controlled by its peers from the inside, and by those on the outside through rumours and gossip. Despite this criticism, the Roman elite, as a ruling group, could not overlook rumours, since politicians risked being overtaken by the situation. Rumours shaped political actions the individual collective levels. After his consulship, Cicero decided to renounce his provincial governorship in Macedonia, and passed it to his colleague Antonius. It was rumoured that the clauses of the pact between the two included a division of profits; this rumour was probably fed by the news about the depredations carried out by Antonius in his province.Footnote 84 The falsehood of the accusations is not so clear since, in a contemporary letter to Atticus, Cicero complained about the slowness of someone named Teucris and that, due to this, he would have to go to Considius, Axius, or Selicius, three well-known money lenders.Footnote 85 It is possible that Teucris was a nickname for Antonius, or also possibly that of a middleman between Antonius and Cicero, perhaps Publius Sestius.Footnote 86 Guessing that he would be accused upon his return to Rome, Antonius asked his former colleague to defend him. Nevertheless, rumours about the involvement of the orator in the plunder of Macedonia prevented the latter from complying with Antonius’ request, since he expected condemnation from both the boni and the people.Footnote 87 Rumours had become opinion (existimatio), further and more firmly extended; Cicero could not, and did not wish to, defend Antonius, in order to avoid further sullying his image.Footnote 88 This case represents a clear example of the use of rumours and gossip as a way to control the group’s morality. Even though many Roman senators came back from their provincial governments enriched, this generalized behaviour was not morally approved.Footnote 89 Furthermore, the pact between Cicero and Antonius to share benefits was condemned by their peers; this encouraged Cicero not to defend his colleague, and to stay away from him. Rumours and gossip controlled and censored the actions of the members of the political aristocracy.
3.2 Circulation of Rumours Outside Rome
Not all rumours were restricted to the city of Rome. Were the inhabitants outside Rome interested in the rumours that arrived from the capital? An affirmative answer would attest to the interest of the provinces or Italy in Roman politics.
In the first place, rumours travelled on foot, in a chariot, or by horse (in Italy), or even by boat (in the provinces of the Mediterranean). The dates of some letters from Cicero and other internal references have allowed scholars to determine the speed at which these missives were transported. This also depended on the trustworthiness of the carrier, and the means at his disposal. During the civil war, a letter from Formiae (where one of Cicero’s villae was located) to Rome could arrive in forty-eight hours, even though other letters could take three or more days.Footnote 90 In exceptional cases, distances could be shorter: in 80 BC, Cicero defended Sextus Roscius, accused of parricide. The night of the murder a messenger rode from Rome to Ameria to deliver the news; he travelled 56 miles in ten hours, changing his cisium, a light chariot of two wheels.Footnote 91
Rumours usually travelled from mouth to ear, a much slower medium but one that allowed their expansion into a wider territory. Taking into account the absence of a public postal service, those who were not members of the elite had to trust someone who would make the trip to send messages to others. Some flows of the rural population to Rome were regular, such as those linked to markets: the nundinae, for instance, took place in the city every eight days, and connected Rome with the countryside; producers from nearby towns gathered there with their products, and circulated news in both directions.Footnote 92 Other less frequent occasions, such as censuses, drew a great number of people.Footnote 93 Finally, great political events could attract people like magnets: the sumptuous funerals organised by the two sons of the general Aemilius Paullus brought together a great number of people, ready not only to honour the deceased but also to attend the spectacles, among which there were two works by Terence (Hecyra y Adelphoe).Footnote 94
Interestingly, sources mention several times that, in certain cases, rumours could travel faster than messengers.Footnote 95 Cicero announced to Atticus that his brother Quintus had got Asia as a province, a fact that had probably reached his friend, he assumed, more quickly through rumour than through the letters he received.Footnote 96 When he related the details of his return from exile in a letter, Cicero clarified: ‘Though I suppose you have had all the news from your family or from messengers and rumour, …’.Footnote 97 Talking about one of the Roman defeats against Mithridates, and wanting to present it as a complete disaster, Cicero stated tendentiously that: ‘It was so great that it came to Lucius Lucullus’ ears, not by means of a messenger dispatched from the scene of action, but through the report of common conversation.’Footnote 98 In 189 BC, a rumour circulated that the general Lucius Scipio and his brother Publius Africanus had been captured and that the Roman forces had suffered a crushing defeat: ‘Then a report of the transactions in Asia spread vaguely without an author; and a few days after, certain information, and a letter from the general, arrived at Rome; which occasioned joy after recent fears.’Footnote 99 Thus, again, rumours arrived at Rome in advance of official and more trustworthy news, probably carried by merchants or travellers, whose popular status made them unreliable in the eyes of the Roman senators.
Rumours could be geographically localised. Excluding Rome, Cicero’s letters mentioned rumours mainly in connection with the bay of Naples, especially Puteoli and the cities of Naples and Cumae. In the first place, the port of Puteoli was more likely to receive news by sea, a quicker means of travel. During the trial against Rabirius Postumus, Cicero admitted that rumour had it that the accused had not come back empty-handed from Egypt. Such news had come from Puteoli, where Rabirius Postumus’ ships had docked. The Roman people even knew the contents of the charge, composed of Egyptian products, such as paper, linen and glass. Cicero attributed these rumours to people who hated Rabirius and, detailing a possible and precise origin, to the very crew of the ships.Footnote 100 The information travelled to Rome, so these rumours or gossip (sermones) were everywhere. This reference indicated that rumours travelled not only in space but also in time: the rumour about Rabirius lasted for at least that summer.
After Delos became a free port in 166 BC, Puteoli became one of the main ports of Rome, at least until the third century AD; it surpassed Naples due to its closeness to the Appian Way in Cumae.Footnote 101 It was located in the bay of Naples, the Italian region where the Roman elite had owned villae since the end of the second century BC.Footnote 102 Cicero called Puteoli illa pusilla Roma, that little Rome, due to the numbers of the elite that could be found there.Footnote 103 This duality of Puteoli suggests two things: first of all, that rumours coming from outside the Italian frontiers entered through the port. Secondly, that gossip travelled in, and with, the letters that the Roman elite sent to kinsmen and friends, and with the elite themselves. Thus, Puteoli became a centre for the reception and distribution of information. In April 55 BC, Cicero informed Atticus about the magnus rumour about the restoration of King Ptolemy to his throne in Egypt by Gabinius. The news probably had arrived on the ships coming from Alexandria; even so, Cicero was not convinced of its veracity, and asked his friend for more reliable news.Footnote 104
In a previous letter, Cicero transmitted to Atticus the rumours that circulated in Naples, 12 kilometres away from Puteoli, about the supposed tribunician veto of the census.Footnote 105 The Campanian region in general, where Cumae, Puteoli, and Naples were located, was pointed out as a redistributive centre of rumours.
Some rumours were even circumscribed to that part of Italy, and did not travel to Rome, since they were regional rumours. It is an interesting feature, because traditionally the city has been thought of as the epicentre of rumour, which would expand towards Italy and the provinces in concentric circles. In a letter to Cicero, Caelius informed him about the latest gossip about the Transpadane matter (May 51 BC).Footnote 106 Even today, it is difficult to find a clear view of this case due to the contradictory ancient testimonia. The Transpadani had Latin citizenship, and Caesar wanted to make them Roman citizens, which would finally happen in 49 BC, to put them on the same footing as the other group of Cisalpine Gauls, the Cispadani, who had been Roman citizens since 89 BC.Footnote 107 Conservative Roman opinion was angered at hearing of Caesar’s founding of the Roman colony of Novum Comum; the consul Marcellus whipped a member of the municipal Senate of this colony, thus negating the latter’s status as a Roman citizen.Footnote 108 In May 51 BC, Cicero crossed this region, and wrote to Atticus from Trebulanus; in his letter, he pointed out: ‘I beg you to write to me what reports there are on the political situation. In the country towns I notice there is much panic: but a great deal is nonsense. Please let me know your opinion about this and the date of the impending crisis.’Footnote 109 The fear that Cicero detected in the cities of Campania was probably provoked by the rumours about the conferring of Roman citizenship on the Transpadani by Caesar.Footnote 110 The date of the rumour is noteworthy, because it implied its quick mutability. The rumours that Caelius reported to Cicero should be put in this context: ‘For those rumours about the comitia of the Transpadani were rife enough, until I got as far as Cumae; when I reached Rome, I never heard the slightest whisper about it.’Footnote 111 Why did Caelius mention Cumae as the limit to which rumours had reached? There could be many reasons: probably some senators who lodged in this region received a letter from Caesar’s entourage in Gaul. If it had come from the optimates’ circles, these rumours would be known in Rome. Having arrived at Rome, Caelius would probably have circulated them to others within his political circles, thus guaranteeing their diffusion.
A graffito from Teracina, halfway between Rome and Campania, represented another example of the transmission of news from Rome. The text expressed the happiness of the author about the murder of Clodius.Footnote 112 Cicero, in his speech in support of Milo, highlighted the speed with which the news about the death of the former tribune circulated to the countryside.Footnote 113
During Caesar’s consulship in 59 BC, Cicero, discouraged by the political situation, retired to one of his villae in the countryside. On 23 April, he wrote to Atticus an interesting letter, in which he set the non-existent gossip of the city against the frankness of the countryside, which was booming with rumours.Footnote 114 Cicero’s statement is not completely reliable. Gossip did circulate in Rome that year: Cicero thanked Atticus for the variety of rumours, gossip, and opinions (varietas sermonum opinionumque) that the latter transmitted to him in his missives.Footnote 115 In fact, gossip and political conversations even grew stronger before what Cicero considered to be an adverse political situation.Footnote 116 This latest statement differed subtly from the supposed silence that he evoked at the beginning of the month (or perhaps gossip had progressed). Furthermore, in moments of political instability or crisis, the circulation of rumours, gossip, and ideas often increased. These cases showed how the mechanisms of the geographical transmission of rumours worked.
There are also mentions of the long-distance circulation of rumours, in this case between Rome and Asia. During the trial of Lucius Flaccus (59 BC), governor of the province two years earlier, a rumour circulated around Asia that Pompey, Flaccus’ sworn enemy, had pressed for his accusation and had put all his resources and influences at the accusers’ disposal.Footnote 117 It could have been a rumour that circulated in Rome, and that Cicero projected into Asia to give the impression that the inhabitants of that province supported Flaccus. Alternatively, it could actually have been an Asiatic rumour, which Cicero mentioned in Rome. This rumour could have had many channels of circulation, such as the members of the embassies from Asia that came to the trial or even through Roman merchants, who represented a sizeable group in that province.Footnote 118 A third possibility would imply that that rumour did not exist, and that Cicero invented it to influence the opinion of the judges. Cicero would have presented the accusation against Flaccus as an attack against himself; in the year of his consulship, Flaccus helped actively to repress the conspiracy of Catiline. He took part in the action on the Milvian Bridge, the night that the Allobroges were arrested, and the letters that precipitated the detentions and the repression of the conspiracy were discovered.
The rumour about Pompey, which perhaps alluded to Caesar, would make sense in this context. Cicero used here one of the typical arguments of the Roman tribunals: that is, to move the judges to compassion because the accused had to face a powerful rival. Was there really such a rumour in Asia? Since no further details are available in the sources, it is hard to decide; nevertheless, it is possible that the solution comes from the combining of some of these hypotheses. Cicero was evidently using Pompey’s name and the enumeration of the latter’s powers (auctoritas, gratia, copiae, opes) to influence the jury in favour of Flaccus. At the same time, the province of Asia knew about the trial against its former governor: several Greek cities and provinces sent ambassadors in his favour.Footnote 119 The cities of Acmonia, Dorilea, Temnos and Tralles, though, reported during the trial the insults committed by Flaccus.Footnote 120 Thus, it is possible that the rumour was known in the province. Furthermore, the accusers had time to collect testimonies against Flaccus, which would have contributed to the subject being hot news. It would then have been talked about both in the province of Asia and in Rome.
The study of the circulation of the rumours and their geographical scope has allowed us to consider the question of whether the inhabitants of Italy were interested in the rumours and news coming from the city of Rome. This matter also involves the political cohesion of the territory. The link between Puteoli and Rome is well documented, because many Roman merchants had businesses in the port. The rest of the rumours travelled within the Campanian region, where the Roman elite owned their villae. In 51 BC, Cicero stated that he had seen great fear in the oppida; nevertheless, he did not specify whether that fear came from the inhabitants of the town or from the municipal elites.Footnote 121 As we have seen, during the part of the consulship of Caesar that Cicero spent outside Rome, the latter commented on the impression that the news coming from the city left in Campania: ‘In the countryside (in agris) nobody keeps quiet’, he even told Atticus. Again, Cicero is imprecise about the sources of these comments.Footnote 122 Some months later he talked about ‘Italian murmurs’. It is possible that, in peaceful moments, only the Italian elites showed interest in Roman politics. It was a group with which Cicero probably had relations. In moments of crisis, such as during the civil war, the inhabitants of Italian cities would pay attention to rumours about the city of Rome, since they might imply the passage of an army through the region.
3.3 Rumours, Gossip and Social Discipline
Anthropologists such as Gluckman explain gossip as a means of social control of a group, and even of a group over an individual. Times of crisis are usually key moments to the study of this social discipline, since an individual has to define his position in respect to a group that could exert pressure to influence his decision. This conjuncture is frequently found in moments of armed conflict, in which politicians had to take one of the two sides. An interesting case happened during the civil war between Pompey and Caesar, during which the positioning was even physical: Pompey’s departure from Italy after Caesar’s advance meant that the senators had to decide whether or not to stay on the Italian peninsula.Footnote 123 Some senators, such as Cicero, did not have such a clear position, staying for the moment in Italy without, however, supporting the Caesarian party openly. Due to his hesitant attitude, Caesar even courted Cicero in order to win his support. Nevertheless, the boni, the political circle to which Cicero belonged, exerted pressure on him through rumours and gossip as a means of maintaining group control and social discipline.
Between 4th and 8th March 49 BC, three letters exchanged with Atticus reveal Cicero’s doubts and, above all, the pressure of gossip (sermones) of the optimates about his political decisions, or better, his indecisions.Footnote 124 In the first letter, Cicero received news of such rumours through Philotimus, his wife Terentia’s trusted freedman: ‘He says that the optimates are tearing me to tatters.’Footnote 125 Immediately afterwards, Cicero criticised them for shifting at that moment towards Caesar. Nevertheless, he feared these rumours and gossip, channelled through his freedman. He used the Homeric phrase aideomai Trôas, ‘I fear the Trojans’, as a way of expressing his dread of the opinion of the group.Footnote 126 In this case, Cicero’s source was rather trustworthy, since Philotimus was a declared Pompeian at that time, even though later, in 47 BC, he was found in Caesar’s headquarters. Probably, one way or another, Philotimus had indirect access to Pompeian circles. This is not unlikely since, as we have seen, Romans knew that the reputation of a member of the elite was transmitted to a great extent by the comments of his slaves and freedmen.Footnote 127
In another letter of 6th March, Cicero told Atticus that he himself was badly criticised during dinners, probably by the optimates.Footnote 128 Two days later, Cicero was still obsessed with this matter: the information delivered by the freedman did not seem to him sufficiently trustworthy. He therefore asked Atticus to tell him what the boni thought about him, even though he remarked that he could not bear their gossip, their sermones.Footnote 129 Despite his strong criticism of the optimates, whom he accused of running towards Caesar and of staying in Rome, he felt deeply affected, even to the point of asking for news via two different sources: Terentia’s freedman and Atticus.Footnote 130
Cicero communicated these pressures and his uneasy position to many people. At the beginning of May 49 BC, he wrote to his friend Caelius: ‘For I made no secret of Titus Ampius’ comments, and you saw how I hated the idea of leaving Rome when I heard them.’Footnote 131 The man who criticised Cicero, Titus Ampius, had been praetor in 59 BC, the year of Caesar’s consulship. He was a staunch Pompeian, to the point that the Caesarians nicknamed him tuba belli civilis, the trumpet of the civil war.Footnote 132 Ampius’ criticism of Cicero followed the pressure exerted on him by the boni, with the aim of getting him to join the Pompeians properly, instead of remaining in an uncertain position.
The pressure of the opinion of the boni was eventually fruitful: that same year, Cicero decided to leave Italy and join Pompey’s army. Nevertheless, the experience was not successful. After the defeat, disillusioned with the Pompeian cause (and especially with its leaders), Cicero returned to Italy in October 48 BC, and decided to beg for pardon. Atticus, who had remained in the city, was his main supporter before the new Roman power. In a letter of March 47 BC, Cicero answered his friend’s question: what explanation are you going to offer to Caesar about your departure from Italy? The reply is revealing and very clear: ‘I could not put up with people’s talk, although I wanted to.’Footnote 133 It was not an excuse. As we have seen, the boni were alluded to in this mention of the homines. Cicero added that he had referred frequently to this situation in his letters to Caesar and that he had even charged many people to let the victor of the civil war know. This explanation discharged Cicero from some of the guilt: it presented him as a person of weak character in the face of gossip. Nevertheless, this sentence highlights the success of group control of the boni, since Cicero did not see any way out other than to yield before gossip. It is also noteworthy that Cicero thought that Caesar would consider this explanation as valid, which implied that the victor of the war would have understood perfectly the pressures of the opinions of a close group.
The demands of the boni with the aim of maintaining control of the group did not end with the defeat of the Pompeian side. In 46 BC, Cicero’s son told his father of his desire to leave for Caesar’s camp in Hispania, as his cousin, Quintus’ son, had done already. Cicero tried by every means to avoid the departure of his offspring. Among other reasons, such as the superiority of his cousin in the Caesarian camp, Cicero admitted that he did not fear gossip, but the vituperatio: reproaches or censure. He even wrote to Atticus about two examples of these supposed recriminations: ‘Was it not enough that we abandoned our weapons? Must we side with the enemy?’Footnote 134 It was the boni, again, who tried to maintain the cohesion of the group when the last Pompeians, led by the elder son of Pompey, fought in Hispania.
Criticism of Cicero was stronger because he had recently uttered similar recriminations towards Sulpicius Rufus about the behaviour of his son. Servius Sulpicius Rufus, a renowned jurist, followed a similar line of conduct during the civil war, and did not define himself at the beginning as belonging to one side or another; it was easier for him since he had no lictors or magistracy. He finally chose the Pompeian side, which he later abandoned. He achieved the pardon of Caesar in 46 BC, and was named governor of Achaia. Cicero criticised Sulpicius Rufus openly for having sent his son to serve with Caesar’s army. When his own son wanted to fight on that side, Cicero was aware that this time there would be no mere gossip (sermones), but reproaches (vituperationes). Group control was exerted even by the same members that suffered it, as this case shows.
This analysis of the sources has demonstrated that Gluckman’s and Paine’s anthropological theories could explain and be applied to Late Republican Rome. Gossip was not, and is not, idle and futile chatter; it serves, among other things, to control the members of the group, and to maintain the latter’s cohesion. When Cicero demanded from Atticus news about what the optimates said about him, he did not do so merely out of the desire to know. He was being discredited by the members of his own group through gossip. He tried to defend himself by accusing them of collaboration with Caesar, but this was in vain: ‘I fear the Trojans’, that is, he dreaded public opinion and what it would say about him. This fear was natural in the bosom of the Roman political elite and much more so in Cicero’s case because, as a homo novus, he had no prestigious forefather. Only his own fama, his own actions, counted when he wanted to highlight his prestige. Gossip and rumour, especially from members of his own political circle, discredited him before the population or, at least, before the rest of the senators. This study has shown that the pressure of the opinions of a group, exerted by members over other members through gossip, could influence personal decisions of a political nature. It was not just an accessory element, but a useful means to maintain cohesion, and even control, within a group, particularly in moments of crisis.
In sum, public opinion could be negotiated in the Senate or in the contiones, but it was developed and transmitted in more informal settings and during socialising activities. Discussions in these spaces were necessary for the everyday functioning of Roman politics, which used rumours, gossip and elite or popular public opinion. Spaces of sociability varied according to the social class of the citizen. The Senate was a space for exchanging elite public opinion, as were dinners. Contiones could be extremely organised and were sometimes more of a display of public opinion than an actual exchange. Nevertheless, informal exchanges of public opinion were needed: at dinners for the elite; and in streets and probably in taverns for the people.
Social networks are fundamental for spreading rumours, since they accelerate their diffusion. Rumours are pieces of information. Furthermore, the truth of a rumour is not usually taken into account; even if people believe it as false, they will usually pass it on anyway. In fact, rumour leads to an agreement, since the process of a rumour usually eliminates at the beginning the most implausible explanations. The more a rumour circulates, the more veracity it will have, since people may compare and eliminate untrue versions. Sermo, a more informal type of talk, was also frequently associated with social control, which made it potentially important for politicians. All these conversations, rumours and gossip not only entailed peer control but also bottom-up control.
Rumours construct public opinion. News or facts are discussed and commented upon and part of the discussion relies on what is thought or felt about it, thus creating different interpretations of the news and, thus, opinions that we want to believe.Footnote 135 When gossip is not true, it is a mirror of the attitudes of a social group and its conception of the world.Footnote 136 Rumours, as non-official sources of news, also allow the circumvention of formal and informal constraints on the topics discussed. They allow into public discussion issues that are rarely mentioned explicitly by political customs.Footnote 137
