Silence is Golden (especially if you need to kill an emperor): Ancient Conspiracy Theory and the Use of Silence as a Literary Device | Molly McDowell

By Molly McDowell

Ancient conspiracy theory and its conceptualisation is a relatively new field of classical research. In recent years, the combination of sociological and historical theories has melded to reframe how various ancient accounts of political coup d’état and schemes to depose Roman emperors are investigated due to the association with conspiracy. Such analysis often suggests that the available ancient literature must be considered as distinctly literary works with their own artistic or aesthetic agenda rather than strictly historical evidence, although they certainly still hold value in this regard. As a result, lack of communication and silence is a key literary device in the conception of conspiracy. In narrating conspiracy, ancient sources ensure that the chain of events are neatly contained in order to maintain authorial authority, with silence both aiding the conspiracy and often hindering its progress. The role of women and slaves in uncovering secretive conspiracies due to their duplicitous relationships towards the men involved, only seek to further portray the ancient evidence as intrinsically conspiratorial. To further elucidate the theme in relation to communication and conflict, this article will use the plot to assassinate the Roman emperor Caligula on 24th January 41 CE as a case study.

What is known in modern vernacular as “conspiracy theory” in antiquity, is based entirely in silence. The term itself is a modern invention and as such excluded from the Roman vocabulary. Despite the risk of anachronism, it is useful to explain the general conception of coup d’état and conspiracy in ancient sources. Ancient conspiracy theory is the prerogative of the elite classes, unlike more modern ideas of conspiracy as a fringe endeavour, and the techniques used by the ancient authors to conceptualise this are the same. Suspicion and intrigue are inherent to Roman literary sources for a variety of reasons, but often coupled with the criticism of emperors deemed to be “bad” such as the maniacal Caligula who famously preferred slow executions so that his victims may feel their deaths and made his horse a senator.

Silence is an important literary device for authors, used to accelerate and obstruct their narratives as needed, creating hermeneutic tension in their plot lines and increasing the element of mystery. This is why, despite the ubiquity of conspiracy in antiquity, the plots themselves are difficult to recount. Every account of conspiracy battles this element to create what can be deemed an authoritative version of the story, despite the lack of known details. The ability to persuade audiences that they are correct is where conspiracy narratives become akin to the Homeric show pieces of oral history; more literary inventions based on historical events which showcase the author’s skill in narration than actual historical accounts. This does do not detract from their usefulness in a historical sense, but merely highlights caution must be employed in their use. One could, in fact, argue that their literary aspirations make them more interesting to scholars; in more recent years, analysis has begun to uncover these sophisticated devices leading to the discovery of ring composition in Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars. Furthermore, the issue in framing any form of conspiracy is that one is dealing with more implicit than explicit information. As a result, only possible scenarios can be produced rather than verifiable facts. The “degenerating research” associated with studying conspiracy means that an interpretation of the information, or perhaps a framework to model events, is the end result.

Secrecy is also integral to the success of any plot, but this is the greatest problem with investigating conspiracy: silence opposes exposition. The covert elements of plotting fundamentally disrupt the res publica by the nature of the very act being private.

Silence creates difficulties in reconstructing events even after they have been discovered, hindering communication. Authors often rely on entirely fictionalised elements in order to recount events, which hampers the use of these as sources for historical fact without further analysis by modern historians. Ancient preoccupation with supernatural phenomena to illustrate what is fated and the similarity of various assassination attempts (usually finding their foundation in that of Julius Caesar) are clear examples of why ancient authors must be handled with care, especially where conspiracy is concerned. The influence of Caesar’s assassination is evident in that of Caligula who is reportedly stabbed up to 30 times by multiple assailants and in a feat of dramatically ironic mistaken identity, Caesar’s assassin Cassius’ descendent is removed because of 10

the consultation of an oracle, despite him being the wrong Cassius. The ability to corroborate broadly similar features of different accounts of the same plot, must be utilised to ensure the greatest degree of accuracy in the investigation of the conspiracy in antiquity.

This is the main issue of using silence - impracticality. In any conspiracy, predicated on secrecy, the sources must employ silence as a literary tool to affect the narrative account they present through both advancement and obstruction. In retellings of plots, it is clear to the reader that silence is essential to the success of the events but also a great hinderance simultaneously. In terms of the assassination of Caligula, Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities is where this is noted in its greatest extent. So many people were aware of the plot by its enacting (sixteen explicitly named characters and countless others that remained anonymous) that the constant fear was revelation, and the appropriate punishment treason would warrant. In contrast, recruitment in the initial stages of the conspiracy had been difficult due not only to the need for concealment but also to the lack of communication between the conspirators which led to further delays to the action.

Silence undermined the public sphere of civic life in Rome, with the role of women and slaves in the discovery of secrecy further subverting Roman elite male social norms and furthering the underground nature of conspiracy. Using Josephus’ account of the assassination of Caligula, the presentation of Quintilia is a neat encapsulation of the dangers of silence in ancient sources, especially where female or lowerclass characters are concerned. The actress Quintilia provides a moral comment on those involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Caligula, as well as a rare unidealized moralistic female character, who catalyses the attempt on the emperor’s life. As with many parts of Josephus’ highly detailed narrative, Quintilia’s torture is an event held without the knowledge or presence of the public and yet Josephus narrates the grisly affair as though he were present. This conforms to the narration of conspiracy theory in Roman literature with the inclusion of a woman privy to the plot due to an intimate relationship with a conspirator, whilst also demonstrating the need for the fictionalising of conspiracy narratives to make up for the deficit left by the obstruction of silence.

To conclude, recent forays into the creation of a model for conspiracy theory for ancient Rome have prompted the re-evaluation of ancient sources. Previously deemed purely historical, these clearly have greater literary purposes in which the utilisation of literary devices such as silence provide attempts to narrate conflict as a secretive endeavour. The need to create an authoritative version of the events is the main aim of the authors, and in doing so the fictionalisation of the plots due to the necessity of lack of exposition creates problems for historians wishing to use these as simplistic historical accounts. Thus, silence hinders the portrayal of conspiracy in Roman sources. The issue of recruitment and possibility of discovery likewise present problems. However, silence and secrecy are essential to the success of any conspiracy. Ancient sources attempt to balance these extremes through the introduction of female or slave characters who are able to straddle the line of exposition due to their dual relationship to the men machinating, furthering the shock factor of conspiracy in ancient times and as seen by the conspiracy to assassinate Caligula in key accounts such as that of Josephus.