Censorship in the Roman Empire
Censorship in the Roman Empire emerged as a complex interplay between political power, social norms, and oratory practices. Initially, Roman politics operated on the principles of tradition and personal reputation, allowing citizens to engage freely in court and public discourse without restrictions on the topics discussed, including personal attacks. This environment enabled notable figures, such as Cicero, to rise by leveraging the power of rhetoric against corruption and immorality within the political sphere. However, as the Empire transitioned into the rule of Emperor Augustus in 27 B.C.E., a shift occurred towards centralization of power, which included the imposition of constraints on free speech.
Under Augustus, censorship was often justified as a means of restoring civility and moral order, leading to the exile of dissenting voices like the poet Ovid. Informers were employed to suppress opposition, effectively stifling political discourse and diminishing the Senate's authority. Moreover, foreign religions and writings deemed undesirable were subject to destruction, emphasizing a trend where criticism was replaced by sycophantic praise of the emperor. This transformation of rhetoric reflected a broader societal shift from open criticism to enforced adulation, marking a significant change in the landscape of public and political expression in the Roman Empire.
Censorship in the Roman Empire
Description: Political system based in Rome that incorporated most of the Mediterranean littoral and much of Western Europe and the Near East from the first century b.c.e. through the fifth century c.e.
Significance: As the first truly inclusive governmental organization in Europe and North Africa, the Roman Empire created the basis for much of Western law and government
Ancient Rome had no written constitution. Its politics operated on a set of unmodified principles based in tradition and individual character. Roman candidates stood for election, not on the basis of their ideas or programs, but as men of good reputation and outstanding family. For this reason, the law courts were important forums of political advancement. Through the use of inflammatory rhetoric, leading Romans built their careers by denouncing the immorality and base origins of their political opponents. The right to stand in court and assail one’s adversaries was considered an essential privilege of Roman citizenship, a natural right, a demonstration of liberty. No topic, no matter how personal or defamatory, was forbidden.
In a few notable instances audacity and oratorical skill momentarily curbed the excesses of those who exploited the Roman system for their own benefit. Such a case was the famous attack in 70 b.c.e. that the young Cicero made upon the rapacious governor of Sicily, Gaius Verres. By the force of his words alone, Cicero established himself as a rising talent, startling one of the most powerful political machines in Rome and forcing Verres into exile.
The personal nature of Roman politics made it susceptible to demagoguery. As a result, in the century before 27 b.c.e. Roman society fragmented, political conflicts turned violent and Roman oratory seemed to lose a sense of civility. Verbal attacks became more scurrilous creating the image of a society that had fallen into the hands of thieves and immoral thugs. When Cicero turned his oratorical powers upon the violent excesses of the Second Triumvirate, Marc Antony, one of the triumvirate’s members, ordered his assassination.
The reforms of Emperor Augustus, which took hold after 27 b.c.e., consolidated power in the hands of one man. It was justified as a return to the stability of the past, including a return to civility and morality in speech. In this way Augustus could justify such actions as his exiling of Ovid for writing immoral poetry. In the name of order, informers became common weapons against those who resisted the emperor’s will, effectively destroying the Senate. The same sort of civilizing arguments were used to justify the suppression of foreign religions in Rome and to rationalize laws sanctioning the destruction of books written by undesirables, who were often labeled as magicians or soothsayers.
The dampening placed upon free speech in the name of the Princeps hastened a rhetoric of praise. Civility became adulation, and the artificial praise of the panegyric evolved as the new medium for oratorical exercise and political advancement. The difference was that in panegyric personal rhetorical skills were employed in the service of the person of the emperor alone.