'Victoria nobelium' (Cic. Rosc. Am. 142): the politics of the 90s and 80s BC reconsidered.

“维多利亚诺贝尔”（Cic. Rosc. Am. 142）：对公元前 90 年代和 80 年代政治的重新思考。

• 批准号: 2240431
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: King's College London
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2019
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2019 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2240431
• 关键词: Victoria; nobelium; Cic.; Rosc.; Am.

My project looks at Roman politics in the 90s and 80s BC, focussing on the role of the 'nobilitas'.Since the 1980s, a key issue in the field of Roman political history has been the nature of the Republican 'constitution': where did power lie in the Republic's political system? Recently, focus has turned to the role of aristocratic consensus in stabilising the Roman political classes, and the erosion of that consensus in the last century of the Republic.The civil war of the 80s is an acknowledged turning point, culminating in the dictatorship of Sulla. The question seems simple. Why, after centuries of consensus-based stability, did the Roman aristocracy splinter so dramatically that the only recourse was violence, murder, and dictatorship? Some might answer in ideological terms: the clash was between 'progressives' seeking reform and 'conservatives' opposing them. However, following the arguments of KCL's Robb (2010) and Mouritsen (2017), I am sceptical of this interpretation. Instead, it is perhaps more profitable to view the conflict in social terms.Consider the contemporary observers Sallust (Hist. 3.48.3M) and Cicero (Rosc. Am. 135-142). They portray Sulla's dictatorship as the triumph of the 'nobiles': prestigious families at the top of the social stratum, boasting consular ancestry. Since it is well-known that one of Sulla's principal targets were the rich and powerful 'equites', a plausible interpretation begins to emerge: that the defining feature of these years was intra-elite conflict, marked by challenges to the nobiles and a subsequent backlash under Sulla. My project explores the questions arising from this interpretation. What was driving this conflict? Why did it turn so deadly? Was this existential threat to the nobility real, or merely perceived? And, if these developments were long in the making, what does this mean for the 'consensus-based' system: was the previous stability of the aristocracy more apparent than real?Literary sources will feature heavily. For example, Sallust's 'Iugurtha' is instructive, in which he depicts a corrupt nobility jealously guarding the consulship from industrious 'new men', typified by Marius. Of course, critical treatment of these sources is necessary. I will seek to combine an emphasis on previously under-appreciated passages (e.g. Cicero's speeches in the late 80s) with an awareness of the problematic nature of some key evidence, in particular the later imperial narratives (e.g. Appian, Plutarch). Moreover, our literary sources are sometimes very lacunose - above all for the 90s, a neglected decade which surely holds the answers to many of these questions. I will therefore employ a prosopographical approach to widen the scope of evidence: who are the politicians of this era; how many are nobiles or new men; are the nobiles less successful than previous eras, etc. This approach is made feasible by the completion of KCL's new website, 'The Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic', which I will use extensively.Despite inevitable gaps in the record, meaningful insights are possible. For example, the number of consular new men in the decades before Sulla does suggest challenges to the entrenched nobility. So too the fact that several nobiles are known to have suffered electoral failure. Conversely, it is striking that, during the 'Sullan regime' of 81-70 BC, 18 of the 24 consuls (75%) have consular fathers, grandfathers, or both - i.e. they are among the most prestigious nobiles possible - while another 3 (12.5%) have more remote consular ancestry. In other words, the prosopography corroborates a depiction of 82 BC as the victory of the highest echelons of the Roman elite. If true, this conclusion will have significant implications for our understanding of wider Roman politics. It will also touch upon broader themes relevant to many periods of history, such as the replication of power in oligarchies, or the locus of legitimacy in pre-modern societies.

我的项目着眼于公元前90年代和80年代的罗马政治，重点是“贵族”的作用。自20世纪80年代以来，罗马政治史领域的一个关键问题是共和国“宪法”的性质：共和国的政治制度中权力在哪里？最近，人们的注意力转向了贵族共识在稳定罗马政治阶层中的作用，以及在共和国最后世纪这种共识的侵蚀。80年代的内战是一个公认的转折点，最终以苏拉的独裁统治而告终。问题似乎很简单。为什么在经历了几个世纪基于共识的稳定之后，罗马贵族会如此戏剧性地分裂，以至于唯一的手段是暴力、谋杀和独裁？有些人可能会从意识形态的角度来回答：冲突发生在寻求改革的“进步派”和反对他们的“保守派”之间。然而，根据KCL的Robb（2010）和Kassitsen（2017）的论点，我对这种解释持怀疑态度。相反，从社会的角度来看待这场冲突也许更有益，请看同时代的观察家萨卢斯特（Sallust，Hist.3.48.3M）和西塞罗（Cicero，Rosc. Am. 135-142）。他们将苏拉的独裁统治描绘成“贵族”的胜利：社会阶层顶端的有声望的家庭，拥有领事血统。众所周知，苏拉的主要目标之一是有钱有势的“权贵”，因此一种合理的解释开始出现：这些年的决定性特征是精英内部的冲突，其标志是对贵族的挑战和随后在苏拉统治下的反弹。我的项目探讨了从这种解释中产生的问题。是什么推动了这场冲突？为什么会变得如此致命？这种对贵族的生存威胁是真实的，还是仅仅是感觉到的？而且，如果这些发展是长期形成的，那么这对“基于共识的”体系意味着什么：贵族统治以前的稳定性是否比真实的更明显？文学资源将是重中之重。例如，萨卢斯特的《尤古塔》（Iugurtha）就很有启发性，他在其中描绘了一个腐败的贵族，他小心翼翼地保护执政官的职位，不让以马略为代表的勤劳的“新人”染指。当然，对这些来源的批判性处理是必要的。我将试图把对以前未被充分重视的段落（例如，西塞罗在80年代后期的演讲）的强调与对一些关键证据的问题性质的认识结合起来，特别是后来的帝国叙事（例如，阿庇安，普鲁塔克）。此外，我们的文学资料有时非常缺乏--尤其是90年代，这是一个被忽视的十年，肯定有许多问题的答案。因此，我将采用一种人学的方法来扩大证据的范围：谁是这个时代的政治家;有多少是贵族或新人;贵族比以前的时代更不成功，等等。这种方法是可行的KCL的新网站的完成，'罗马人的数字Prosopography'，我将广泛使用。尽管记录中不可避免的差距，有意义的见解是可能的。例如，在苏拉之前的几十年里，新执政官的数量确实表明了对根深蒂固的贵族的挑战。还有一个事实是，有几位贵族在选举中失败了。相反，令人惊讶的是，在公元前81-70年的“苏伦政权”期间，24位领事中有18位（75%）有领事父亲，祖父或两者兼而有之-即他们是最有声望的贵族之一-而另外3位（12.5%）有更遥远的领事血统。换句话说，这部人物传记证实了公元前82年是罗马精英最高阶层的胜利。如果这是真的，这个结论将对我们理解更广泛的罗马政治产生重大影响。它还将触及与许多历史时期相关的更广泛的主题，例如寡头政治中的权力复制，或前现代社会的合法性所在地。