Preliminary Programme

This paper will focus on the composition and interaction of Pompeian elite and sub-elite networks and the way in which these relationships shaped and transformed local politics. It is not my intention to repeat the analyses and conclusions established in recent scholarship, but to approach the subject from a different angle, a network perspective. This particular method can contribute to the ongoing debate on the composition and alleged stability or turnover within the Pompeian aristocracy. This dispute has a long tradition and the picture of the Pompeian society emerging oscillates between a democratic community with high levels of social and political mobility and a more traditional Roman city with well-established families dominating the political scene and newcomers rising and disappearing in the margin. By introducing the concepts of SNA, I shall analize and compare the different networks members of elites and sub-elites were circulating in and how they attempted to use, share, extend and manipulate networks to achieve their goals. The key to power thus lies in moving oneself in the most interesting position in the network, either through mobilizing inherited connections, power and wealth or carving out a new location by means of personal assets. The following sections will show how Pompeian elites, established families and newcomers alike, tried to find the most valuable position in the local network and consequently captured the inherent benefits of connectivity. (Show less)

“Rumor” refers at the same time to information in itself and to the discussion of uncertain news. Trying to consider this complex phenomenon, the historiographical field is divided into two main tendencies. Dominant for a long time, the “psychopathologic” approach (or “anomic” view) focuses mainly on the origin of rumors and tends to interpret the phenomenon as a striking sign of irrational fears coming from the common people. On the other hand, the “interactionist” tendency is mostly interested in interrogating the intentions of social actors and in articulating individual expectations with collective behaviors. An approximate overview of ancient evidences has often led historians of the Roman world toward the path of the first tendency. Nevertheless, the recent integration of the interactionist methods as well as the growing attention paid to the mechanisms used to spread rumors helped us reevaluate both the political importance and social complexity of this phenomenon. Thus, maybe it is time for a more systematical approach. What were the social mechanisms and networks creating and spreading rumors in Ancient Rome? What was their position among the other informative networks? If one wants to study the general historical conditions of the spreading of information in the Roman world, he needs to consider more than the role played by praecones, cursus publicus or even correspondences between aristocrats. Indeed, in a society mainly founded on the oral world and, consequently, without a common and available collection of information, rumor had a crucial role to play. In order to understand its complexity, we shall focus on the motivations of the “gossipers” (between spontaneous and strategic uses), as well as on the networks allowing the spreading of rumors, between secret information and public speech. (Show less)

Roman notions of clientela and amicitia have been the subject of much scholarly scrutiny over the past century, with much of the scholarship focussing on political implications of these interpersonal relationships. More recent research has emphasized the emotional foundations of amicitia, the prevalence of this specifically Roman conception of friendship, its importance for literary patronage and the Roman economy. Indeed, friendship was an omnipresent concept, with implications far beyond the purely political (or economic) domain. Its rules and parameters dominated the social behaviour at least of those Romans of equestrian or senatorial birth. It was alluded to in private correspondence and in public speeches, it manifested itself publicly in dinner invitations and reciprocal visits, formed the basis for much of the economic interactions among the nobles, and, yes, contributed to political success.
The pervasiveness of amicitia as a social habitus allows us to bring new analytical methods to bear on this century-old problem. The theory of social networks, combined with the mathematical approach of formal network analysis – that is, studying social structures by means of network and graph theory –, allows us to transcend the limits of pure prosopography. At the heart of SNA lies the study of relationships and links between individuals – of structural characteristics –, rather than of those individuals themselves. Network visualisation and analysis show the enormous degree of connectivity of the Roman aristocracy. This applies not only to the all-important figures of Caesar, Pompey and others, but also to shows just how ‘networked-in’ even comparatively unimportant persons were. This system reached its limit only at the very end of the republic itself, when the last round of civil wars eradicated the old system of aristocratic self-governance and introduced the Augustan principate. The change that Octavian/Augustus wrought is mirrored in changes to the structure of the elite network and the most important changes were by no means limited to the political sector. (Show less)

This paper aims at analysing informal conversations between senators during the Late Roman Republic through the lens of network theory in order to discern strategies to look for and circulate information. Elite informal conversations (frequently defined as sermo by the sources) were an everyday event in politics and went beyond relationships of amicitia or friendship. Informal exchanges framed the way in which political deals were made, opinions were tentatively questioned, news circulated, and Roman senators looked for information, exactly as described by the Latin verb expiscor, which expresses the same metaphor as the modern expression “to angle (or fish) for information”. This necessity of contacts was based on socialisation, which provided the opportunity for meetings that allowed time to discuss politics: e.g. while escorting a candidate, during casual meetings on the road, over dinner, at home, or even as private asides during sessions of the Senate. Such occasions and exchanges were fundamental for the successful workings of politics.
There were no parties in Rome, and no stable political alliances either. Late Roman Republican politics were more defined by short-term alliances over specific issues. This collaboration lasted until the issue was resolved. Therefore, senators had to be always looking for new allies, and forging new alliances. Yesterday’s enemies could suddenly become tomorrow’s partners. So Roman politicians had to tread the fine line of searching for political allies while, at the same time, trying not to annoy the top players like Pompey or Caesar. For all of them, meeting informally other senators and trying to sound them out for hypothetical alliances over precise items on the political agenda was a necessity. I shall analyse such informal conversations through social network analysis (SNA) looking for relevant nodes, liaisons and relevant information channels, in order to understand how such informal conversations worked as an informal part of the political system. (Show less)