In ancient Rome, insults in politics knew hardly any boundaries

August 27, 2018, Cluster of Excellence
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

According to historians, political debates in ancient Rome were conducted with great harshness and personal attacks, which were comparable to examples of hate speech on the internet. "The attacks, also known as invectives, were an integral part of public life for senators of the Roman Republic," explains ancient historian Prof. Dr. Martin Jehne of Technische Universität Dresden.

"Severe devaluations of the political opponent welded the support group together and provided attention, entertainment and indignation—similar to insults, threats and on the internet today." According to Jehne, the highly hierarchical Roman politics sounded rough, but there were, in fact, rules. "Politicians ruthlessly insulted each other. At the same time, in the popular assembly, they had to let the people insult them without being allowed to abuse the people in turn—an outlet that, in a profound division of rich and poor, limited the omnipotence fantasies of the elite." Politicians and the public hardly took abuse at face value. And the comparison with contemporary discourse is partly misleading, says Jehne: "A certain Roman robustness in dealing with abusive communities such as AfD or Pegida could help to reduce the level of excitement and become more factual."

According to the historian's findings concerning ancient Rome, withstanding and overcoming insults can ultimately have a politically stabilising effect. The slander in the Roman Republic (509-27 BC) went quite far: "The famous speaker and politician Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC), for instance, when he defended his supporter Sestius, did not shrink from publicly accusing the enemy Clodius of incest with brothers and sisters," says Prof. Jehne—a sexual practice that was also illegal in Rome. "Clodius, in turn, accused Cicero of acting like a king when holding the position of consul. A serious accusation, since royalty in the Roman Republic was frowned upon." Thus, as the historian emphasises, there were hardly any limits in the political dispute. This differs from today, where intensive thought is given to the limits of what is permitted in debates on the street or on the web. "The Romans didn't seem to care much. There was the crime of iniuria, of injustice—but hardly any such charges."

"No murders to avenge honour"

According to the historian, the Romans of the city were proud of their biting, ruthless wit at the expense of others: "They considered this an important part of urbanitas, the forms of communication of the metropolitans, in contrast to the rusticitas of the country bumpkins." They were particularly proud of the slander flourishing in the city in particular. "When you were abused, you stood it, and if possible, you took revenge." Invective opponents often worked together again soon afterward and maintained normal contact. The political climate remained reasonably stable: Murders to avenge honour were only committed in the exceptional situation of a civil war.

According to Prof. Jehne, the fact that the people were excluded from the harsh treatment of senators in political arenas, but were themselves allowed to insult and catcall the political elite, shows that the politicians of the Republic "undisputedly recognised the popular assembly as a political people." Measured by today's democratic electoral procedures, it was a maximum of 3 percent of those entitled to vote, "but the senators saw in it the people as the decision-making authority for the community." In the debate about the agricultural law in 63 BC, for example, Cicero tried to persuade the people to change their minds. "But should he not succeed, he promised to bow to the people and change his opinion." Those who questioned the people as a decision-making body risked the crowd roaring up and storming the rostra. "However, this power of the people was only valid in official political communication arenas," emphasises Jehne. "If members of the 'common people' did not make way for the senators and their entourage in the streets in time, they were approached rudely and by no means courted."

Since investigating abuses in the Roman Republic, Jehne is more relaxed about today's debates in social networks. "The outrageous overstepping of the boundaries of the abusive communities such as Pegida or AfD, with which they want to integrate their supporters, are amplified in resonance by the exuberant media diversity. My research, however, has led me to considerably reduce my level of excitement at new abuses in the present—at any rate, it was not the abuses that caused the downfall of the Roman Republic."

Explore further: Ancient conflict is 'warning' for 'War in Iraq'

Related Stories

Integration: A centuries-old issue

April 23, 2008

When can a person be regarded as a full and equal citizen of a country? Is a double nationality possible and what advantages does it offer a newcomer? These questions were already contemplated in ancient Rome. The Italian ...

Ancient traditions: Why we make New Year resolutions

December 31, 2013

As many of us start to think about our New Year's resolutions (or breaking them), we may not realise that the tradition of making promises on the first day of the year is a custom started by our Roman ancestors.

Recommended for you

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rrwillsj
not rated yet Aug 28, 2018
Perhaps I missed my conclusion from this article? It is my opinion that this "insult" culture was a product of insularity among the social elites, their communal lineages and client adherents.

In other words, each generation grew up in close proximity and shared social norms. They knew each other intimately. As inbred as an eighteenth century Hapsburg or Bourbon.

The second causation was how fast they grew up. Barely achieving adolescence before having all the burdens, duties and responsibilities of adulthood thrust upon them. While still emotionally juvenile.

They worked hard and played hard and acted like teenage jerks, Cause that was the social structure of the Latin farmer tribes thrust into the ruthless mercantilism of Rome as a monopolistic trade center.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.