The Roman courtroom was a strikingly fluid environment filled with noise and movement, and much of this atmosphere can be attributed to the activiВties of the audience.

The various references describing the courtroom frequently mention the presence of an audience, which was an integral part of the environment. The public nature of cases not only fulfilled a legal tenet, but also served various cultural functions, ranging from social and political advancement to cheap thrills and entertainment.

At one extreme, a courtВroom provided a platform for up-and-coming statesmen. Here young men hoping to make a career for themselves would dare to undertake the accusaВtion of their more powerful seniors, with the expectation that, if successful, they could increase their own reputation at the cost of the defeated party. The full effect of this increase in reputation could be achieved only if the case was followed by the public, some of whom made up the circle to which the youngster hoped to gain access. From another perspective, everyone has an interest in public events where they can watch someone endure an ordeal that they may at some point have to undergo themselves; the possibility of вЂњthat could be meвЂќ greatly piques human interest. Equally, there are still others, who вЂ” though they realise that such an event will never befall them вЂ” nonetheless enjoy watching a courtroom drama that carries important, if not catastrophic, ramifications for the parties involved. Those with little or no employment could find this an entertaining pastime, less bloody than the cirВcus. Thus, in principle, we can assume that Roman cases, whether private or public in nature, had the potential to draw sizeable audiences. It is also fair to conclude that cases of great personages, or of sensationalist impact, had by far the greatest potential to draw the largest audiences, while cases of a mundane nature drew small audiences or none at all.

Any study of the audience in attendance at a case must begin from a diverse collection of ancient references, in many of which the audience is very much peripheral to the main subject. The picture that emerges from this information is unfortunately somewhat nebulous, yet still worth consideration. This chapВter first identifies who made up a courtroom audience, then looks at audience participation during the case. Following that is consideration of how the social institution of patronage was manifested in the courtroom environment, while the final section briefly glances at audiences that can be linked specifically to individual courts (e.g. the quaestiones perpetuae, the praetors, the praefectus urbi, and the emperor).

<< | >>

↑

Source: Bablitz L.. Actors and audience in the Roman courtroom. Routledge,2007. вЂ” 290 p.. 2007

The Roman courtroom was a strikingly fluid environment filled with noise and movement, and much of this atmosphere can be attributed to the activiВ­ties of the audience.

More on the topic The Roman courtroom was a strikingly fluid environment filled with noise and movement, and much of this atmosphere can be attributed to the activiВ­ties of the audience.:

The Roman courtroom was a strikingly fluid environment filled with noise and movement, and much of this atmosphere can be attributed to the activiВties of the audience.

More on the topic The Roman courtroom was a strikingly fluid environment filled with noise and movement, and much of this atmosphere can be attributed to the activiВties of the audience.: