There is a saying in the west that ancient Greece left its outstanding literature, art and philosophy to future generations, while ancient Rome left its aqueduct, Arc de Triomphe and highway network to future generations, which still cover Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Although there are some generalizations and exaggerations, this statement is not completely unreasonable. The ancient Greeks were indeed famous for their spiritual and ideological richness and creativity. In contrast, the Romans are more down-to-earth and tolerant, and what is more commendable is their vast territory and sound social system. Among the many heritages left by the Romans to future generations, the architectural relics and urban sites left over from the Roman rule are the ones that can make people directly appreciate their achievements from the senses.
As far as the representativeness and importance of cultural relics and historic sites are concerned, the most prominent is of course the ancient Roman city itself. Despite the passage of more than two thousand years, we can still see the preserved high-density ancient buildings in the center of modern Rome, so that visitors can consciously or unconsciously feel the past hidden in these still brilliant ruins and the exciting events they have witnessed.
It is worth mentioning that the historic sites we can see now are only nine Niu Yi hairs compared with the ancient cities in the heyday of Rome. A historian once said humorously that during the Middle Ages, the ancient Roman city directly became the largest recycling plant for building raw materials. That is to say, for a long time after the fall of the Roman Empire, the ancient city was abandoned, its population shrank, and its glory was gone. People around it wanted to clean up the original buildings and use them as building materials for other purposes, but even so, they could not completely erase the profound traces of that year. You can imagine the scale of the early development of this city.
In the classical lecture series held in Shanghai University in early June, Professor Amy Russell from the Department of Classics of Durham University tried to explore the significance of ancient Roman city buildings. In the lecture, the focus of her discussion was not on their aesthetic function or material value, but on their political role, that is, how ancient architectural planning played a corresponding political role in a specific system.
Why can silent and lifeless architectural groups be associated with ever-changing and people-led politics?
Before answering this question completely, we need to understand how space is defined and distinguished by contemporary western scholars in theory, which involves the background of western political tradition and historical development. First of all, in the eyes of scholars, the space related to society can be divided into two categories: public space and private space, which have sharp opposition, and this contrast can only be most clearly reflected in the unique city-state democracy in ancient Greece. For example, in Athens, ancient Greece, public space is a stage to highlight and maintain equality among all citizens (excluding slaves, immigrants and women). All the interactions involved in public space are carried out on the premise of absolute equality, and at the same time, the equality among citizens is deepened. It is in sharp contrast with the private space with concealment. The accumulation of family wealth and the shadow of ancestors in private space cannot be transformed into the platform of public space, nor can it have any impact. Under this premise, the public space in ancient Greece was a product with a high degree of democratic ideology.
In other words, the public space centered on the city-state democracy is a place that is constantly provided for all citizens to jointly manage and maintain social order under the premise of complete peace and transparency. For example, sports events will be held in the central area of the Athens city-state, such as the Olympic Games, the assembly center and agora open to all citizens, and various political, religious and community public celebrations attended by the whole city of Athens and even all Greek city-states. These activities are mostly organized and coordinated by officials among the people, and the equal participation of citizens and the fairness and justice of the community are strengthened and improved through social practice. Athens’ strong equality thought can be traced back to the emergence of two related concepts. One is Isegoria-equal right to speak in political assembly, and the other is Isomia-equal political rights. Such a highly politicized public space is bound to contrast with the private space that inherits innate differences, continues family advantages and pays attention to personal preferences. In the framework of democratic politics, although private space is also protected, it can’t be compared with the decisive significance of public space, which is the place to reflect the highest value and pursuit of citizens.
In addition to the basic distinction between public and private space, there is also a theoretical concept, that is, "Interpellation" proposed by Louis Althusser, which is used to supplement our understanding of the political role of public space. Althusser pointed out that ideology makes free individuals submit to the order stipulated by society through some seemingly natural social processes at ordinary times. No matter what kind of regime, if it wants to operate effectively, it will certainly formulate some unique identities, and then constantly summon each individual to the established posts. For example, when attending some specific ceremonies, they will immediately know how to advance and retreat and how to speak without other people’s words. These self-restraint behaviors replicate the identity of individuals in society. As Althusser said, the object of ideological influence is always people’s subjective consciousness, not any material trend.
Under this theoretical framework, the political space in ancient Athens was a series of individuals who called citizens’ self-awareness. It should be said that without this equal and just political space and the democratic activities it carries, the citizens of Athens cannot become real citizens in fact. According to this logic, the space building that was originally material has turned into a major factor that affects personal identity, so there will be space to promote politics. According to the standards of ancient Greece, Russell launched a discussion on the political space of ancient Rome. The core question is: Does the political space of ancient Rome conform to democratic ideas?
Rome Square.
There are many signs that the Roman Republic did not fully implement the ancient Greek concept of equality, which can be reflected in the use of Roman square space. The forum was an important place for citizens to gather and discuss and produce political resolutions or bills during the Roman Republic. Here, the buildings and souvenirs of the square silently remind every citizen who comes here to fulfill their rights and obligations. There are two important buildings in Rome Square, one is rostra and the other is curia. These two landmark buildings fully embody the distinct political characteristics of the Roman Republic. Most of the people who can speak on the podium are politicians, government officials and invited special people. Only these groups can speak at public gatherings, and only they can explain their political positions to the people gathered under the stage. At the same time, this podium has a certain religious nature, which brings more glory and prestige to the people who speak on the stage. The Senate Assembly Hall is an exclusive gathering place for Roman elders. These elders belong to the upper class, with prominent family background and strong economic strength. In this pattern of praising the elite and restraining the public, some scholars think that the political space in the Roman Republic period is not democratic at all, but Russell does not agree with this view, and her opposition is based on the comparison between this period and the Roman Empire period.
When we compare the square at this time with the square in the imperial period, we can clearly see the difference between them. During the Roman Empire, the highest decision-maker of the whole imperial power was the princeps himself, that is, the emperor in essence. When Augustus gained the supreme power, he moved and rebuilt the square. The appearance of the new building complex is neat and orderly, which shows that it is the result of unified planning. In addition, the entrance and exit of the square is narrow and closed, which is easy to control. All personnel must wear toga to enter. The former square extends in all directions, and people can move freely, but the new square is closed and cannot lead to other areas, so no one will pass by here. There are also many beautifully carved statues on display in the new square, most of which are famous figures in ancient Roman history. This arrangement was completely inspired by Augustus. According to the biography of Augustus, the Fuehrer once said that he chose to carve the heads of these outstanding people on the wall in order to remind citizens of their sages and urge him and his successors not to forget their due responsibilities. Later, many entertainment stages were built in the square of the new empire, so that the space that should have been used for political activities was replaced by performances. The most distressing example is that the venue for the referendum has been transformed into an arena, which seems to verify the statement that the Roman government relied on bread and circus to appease the people. Through these spatial settings,We can see that the square buildings in the imperial period positioned the people as spectators or spectators to summon them, which directly obliterated the initiative of citizens to participate in and influence politics, and made them become so-called onlookers/onlookers. Now let’s go back to the first question, how to judge the transformation of Roman public space from the Republic period to the Empire period? Is there a certain degree of democracy in these two periods?
The Colosseum in Rome.
Russell believes that Roman society in the Republic period showed more democratic factors compared with the later imperial period, although it lacked strong equality between classes. During the Roman Republic, the political control was mainly the senators from the patrician class. They are so powerful that sometimes some important political negotiations and meetings are even held directly in private houses. Even the old square includes some architectural elements with the nature of private houses, and the angle of calling Roman citizens in these spaces is to guide them to be subordinates and affiliated classes attached to nobles. These obviously violate the absolute equality of ancient Greece and the democratic core concept of strictly dividing public and private space.
However, during the Republic period, it was a complete class that controlled Roman politics, not a person or a family, so the competition among individual aristocrats was fierce, which affected almost all political development during the Republic period, especially in the late Republic period. Therefore, the buildings in the square at that time were not uniformly designed at the will of Augustus, as in the imperial period, but showed more organic and diversity, which were slowly accumulated and extended by different nobles in different periods, including some commemorative sculptures and works of art, which also told the great achievements of different families and called all Roman citizens to do their best for the community with different voices. Because there is no systematic management, citizens enjoy more activity space and freedom, and can go in and out through different entrances and exits, and freely shuttle and stay in the square. On this basis, Russell also put forward the theory of consciousness of publicity to support her point of view. Although sometimes ordinary citizens can’t directly dominate politics like aristocrats, they can still judge the competition between the upper classes, or determine their legitimacy through multi-party supervision and judgment. The openness and transparency of the old square just calls on citizens to influence the behavior of nobles with public opinion and witness and judge the words and deeds of politicians in public space. From this perspective, this space still plays an active role in calling citizens to actively participate in politics.
At the same time, although these buildings maintained the unequal relationship between the lower classes and the nobles, it was many nobles who summoned Roman citizens, not the heads of state who gathered power. Therefore, it can be said that the square buildings in the Republic provide diversified and individualized voices, although they all belong to the upper class. In the imperial era, however, the voice of one person’s rule was consistent from top to bottom. Augustus said that I chose to carve these outstanding people on the wall because I wanted the Romans to constantly urge myself and my successor. This sentence is worthy of scrutiny. In the previous political space, citizens enjoyed a wider space for participation. The figurines in the square were designed to summon citizens to shoulder political responsibilities and live up to the example of their predecessors, instead of being passively urged by the head of state or praying for the supreme ruler to do better.
On these levels, the ideal equality and active participation of citizens in ancient Greece, the consciousness of multiple summoning and witnessing in the Republic era, and the centralization of power by one person and the onlookers in the imperial era are deeply imprinted on the architecture. Under the influence of ancient Greece and Rome, the connection between public space calling and citizen’s political identity has been deeply branded in western political thoughts, and it constantly affects the discourse framing of urban planning. In western countries, people will naturally participate in the discussion of public space, such as how to establish a fully perfect public space, how to convey political ideas, and how to use space to promote the cognition of citizenship. In the urban planning map of western countries, especially in Europe with a relatively long history, almost all big cities and small villages consciously set up so-called public spaces, usually around churches, parliamentary halls and piazza. In addition, this kind of discussion on public space is permeated with advertisements on both sides of the expressway, from famous landmarks in the city center to small ones. The unique architecture left by the Romans and the ancient Greeks originally contained profound spiritual connotations. Before such a thought-provoking model, what should we leave for future generations in the 21st century?